Socrates' and Crito's conversation about whether or not Socrates should obey the decision of the Athenian court or disobey the city's laws is especially interesting in light of the recent protests that have taken place across the country and the world. Their conversation seems to flirt with the idea of civil disobedience in the beginning, with Socrates facetiously asking, "Shall we say in answer, 'The city has wronged me, and its decision was not right.' Shall we say that, or what?" (50 c).
Socrates makes several arguments why he should not try to save his own life and instead give in to the will of the city, and though at first Crito protests, he eventually acquiesces. The ideas presented in Socrates' argument remind me of the discussion we had in class the other day about Athenian citizens feeling ownership over their city because of the institution of direct democracy. Perhaps even for someone like Socrates, who was a participant of Athenian society but prone to question it, the kind of protest against the government that trying to preserve his own life would have symbolized was too much of an insult to the city that nurtured him, and in effect would not have been in service of his life's mission.
In our own time and place, where we struggle with a representative democracy and peculiar institutions like the Electoral College--and have different views of justice--perhaps civil disobedience and protests like we saw after Trump's inauguration are easier to understand. I think many of us would say that an unjust law should not be followed, and our country's history has shown time and time again why that principle should be respected. However, I think we must still ask ourselves where propriety and respect for law should be upheld, and in what situations deviance from what society and the government ask and expect of us is noble and right.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
Plato's dialogues offer a multitude of questions for the reader to consider, often without ever providing any concrete solutions. Mirroring in part Socrates' method of helping his students achieve philosophical insight, Plato's use of dialogue allows for his characters to engage in honest and open conversation.
Because Plato's characters are often named after or based on historical figures, it is easy to entertain that Plato simply recorded conversations he heard, waiting for the opportunity to transcribe them, or wrote down conversations that had been relayed to him. However, as Kenneth Sayre rightly points out early on in his essay "Why Plato Wrote Dialogues," many of the figures Plato mentions lived well before he was writing, and Plato makes it a point to make himself an absent or peripheral character in his dialogues (5). This leads one to the conclusion that Plato crafted each dialogue as a piece of aesthetic literature, as well as philosophy. In that case, what is Plato's motivation to frame the dialogues with actual people, most notably Socrates?
Plato deliberately chooses to blur the line between actual occurrence and invented circumstance. In his attempt to understand truth through the content of his dialogues, Plato also explores the intersection of truth and fiction in the form of his writing. Certainly, the names of the characters in each dialogue have significance in terms of how the reader should understand them, but Plato could have achieved that without drawing on actual people. Perhaps these figures were so known in the common consciousness that Plato's use of them would have added new layers of meaning to the dialogues for Plato's initial audience. It is an interesting choice, nonetheless.
Because Plato's characters are often named after or based on historical figures, it is easy to entertain that Plato simply recorded conversations he heard, waiting for the opportunity to transcribe them, or wrote down conversations that had been relayed to him. However, as Kenneth Sayre rightly points out early on in his essay "Why Plato Wrote Dialogues," many of the figures Plato mentions lived well before he was writing, and Plato makes it a point to make himself an absent or peripheral character in his dialogues (5). This leads one to the conclusion that Plato crafted each dialogue as a piece of aesthetic literature, as well as philosophy. In that case, what is Plato's motivation to frame the dialogues with actual people, most notably Socrates?
Plato deliberately chooses to blur the line between actual occurrence and invented circumstance. In his attempt to understand truth through the content of his dialogues, Plato also explores the intersection of truth and fiction in the form of his writing. Certainly, the names of the characters in each dialogue have significance in terms of how the reader should understand them, but Plato could have achieved that without drawing on actual people. Perhaps these figures were so known in the common consciousness that Plato's use of them would have added new layers of meaning to the dialogues for Plato's initial audience. It is an interesting choice, nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)