Socrates' Argument Against Crito - Dissertation Example

identification (all above optional – if you need them) Topic Essays Responses to Four Questions Question One What is Socrates argument against Crito in the argument of the same name? Is it persuasive? Why or why not? Crito argues from the point of view that he is about to lose a friend, and this is of such importance to him that he is seeking reasons for Socrates to leave rather than face judgment. According to Socrates, he will face death the next day, irrespective of the arguments Crito raises. He may indeed thank Crito for being eager in his defense of, and attempts to save Socrates, but notes that even eagerness must be measured by its aim – it has worth only if its intentions are the right ones. Each of the points Crito makes is systematically shown to be illogical as Socrates argues, and despite Crito’s sincerity, the strength of Socrates’ reasoning is evident. He is able indeed, as Aristotle claimed, to show that “causes were abstract essences that could be found through logical deduction” (Blair Bolles, 1997: p88). Crito blames himself for not doing more to save his friend, but he is motivated more by what others will think because he has not spent enough money to keep his friend safe. His appeals to Socrates are emotive, and suggest that Socrates should consider his own life as greater than reason and logic. Socrates losing his children and his seeming cowardice are raised by Crito in this attempt at persuasion, while the possibility of leaving, facilitated by Crito’s connections, is highlighted to tempt Socrates. Throughout, the power of the majority to do harm is emphasized, and Crito expects Socrates to be very aware of their power over his own life. As his opening point against this persuasion, Socrates presents the contention that the opinions of the majority in the society are at least secondary to the opinions of the reasonable. Despite Crito’s claim that the majority needs to be considered, since it has most power over the life of Socrates at that moment, Socrates continues to believe that the value of a reasoned and logical decision is greater than the value of a popularly held opinion. He contends that the majority cannot always hold sway as good sense is not determined by the number of the people following a particular way of thinking but rather by the value of the thinking itself: it needs to be reasoned and logical. Socrates then develops this line of reasoning to argue that it is valid to recognize that some opinions have more worth than others. Opinions which favor the good are superior to those that favor the bad. When wise people have opinions, they are necessarily good – foolish people will thus have opinions favoring the bad. He then uses an analogy to strengthen this logic. The physical training of the body is compared to the existence of people in society. When experts – the few – recommend certain training and diets to athletes, they follow their opinions by exercising, eating and behaving as they have been instructed. In doing so, the athletes become healthier and stronger and avoid illness or injury. Thus the reasoned, logical opinions of the few have proven to be superior to the opinions of the many. Similarly, the intellect and the emotions are in danger from injustice. If the majority opinion is that to cause harm to an individual is justified, Socrates proposes that the individual should not care. Even though the majority will have power over the individual – enough power to take life, in fact – this should not influence the reasonable human. The reasonable human’s decision must be ruled influenced only by what is right and what is wrong. His leaving Athens should be considered without thinking of the opinions of the majority: it should only be considered in light of whether it would be right or wrong. Socrates argues that only a good life is of consequence and that a good, admirable and just life cannot be separated from one another. Therefore, a life which is not good is not to be considered at all. If he were to leave, Socrates contends, he would be doing wrong, and mistreating other people. Since it is a rule that the individual should not retaliate in kind if he/she has been treated badly implies then that Socrates should not leave. Even though the majority does not agree with his interpretation of this rule, it does not matter – reason dictates the truth of this opinion. The second line of reasoning used by Socrates refers to his belief in the laws of the State. He proposes that a government unable to enforce its laws on the individual would have no future. The individual accepts the law of the State by remaining in the State, and obeying the law, or persuading others to change it. If the law were equal to the individual, it would be chaotic, and thus he needs to place himself under the law. His argument that the individual and the family must be placed secondary to the country is followed by the more personal reasoning that he would harm all his friends and colleagues were he to leave. No other State would accept him, as he would be seen as an enemy of laws. His reputation would also be blemished, and he would lose his children in any case. Socrates thus believes it is impossible to leave, and concludes that it is not the law that harms individuals, but other people. On an emotive level, Socrates’ argument is not easy to agree with. The personal difficulty of a friend being persuaded not to do everything in his power to save his friend’s life is clear. Certainly, the emotive appeals Crito makes must carry some weight. But the concern Crito seems to have for the opinions of others – especially of their potential criticism of his motives and actions – are less believable. It also is difficult to accept that Socrates is not swayed by concern for his family or by concern for his own life, seemingly. The logic of Socrates argument is, however, very valid given its resistance to such emotive appeals, and the contention that reason and not the opinion of the majority are valid. He proposes a clear and definite idea of the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong and the value of reason. Opinion is often created by emotion. And there is no doubt that popular opinions are often a result only of their acceptance by many, not their rationality or reason. When Socrates raises these arguments he is able to persuade that the majority is not always right. His contention that the wise are able to make good decisions, while the foolish make bad ones may seem at first elitist and discriminatory. But when he creates the allegory of the physical body and its wellness, and extends it to explain how the mind can suffer injustice in the same way as the body can be ruined by bad advice, his meaning is clarified. There are expert opinions, based on education, experience and reason that should be accepted as valid, even if they are not always popular. The further appeal to the relationship between the law and the individual exposes Socrates’ sense of duty, loyalty and honor. He does not flatter humanity in the argument but shows his respect for valid institutions such as a legal system. This argument is persuasive and, while difficult to accept on an emotional level, impeccably logical. References Mach, E. (1897) “A New Sense” from Popular Scientific Lectures 1897 in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Question Two Discuss the role of wisdom in true virtue according to Meno and the Phaedo. Aristotle once said: “The sweetest of all things is knowledge” (Mach, 1897 in Blair-Bolles, 1997: 27). This emphasis on the value and necessity of wisdom is continued in the rhetoric of Meno when the lack of wisdom in Athens is lamented. Wisdom, it is argued, is all that contributes to virtue, and thus without wisdom, Athens is not virtuous. Meno suggests that virtue in a man requires that he is able to manage his public life, and that of the society. Further he has to benefit his friends and cause harm to his enemies, while protecting himself. A woman’s behavior if she is to be considered to have virtue is evident when she is able to manage her home, care for her property and be submissive to her husband. When these and other descriptions of virtue are found to be wanting, the conclusion that virtue is nearly indefinable is put forward. It is able to be broken down into component parts such as courage, moderation, wisdom and munificence, but not able to be defined singularly. It may be that virtue is to want good things, and things which bring good things. Thus it could be that if the individual justly and honorably seeks after good things and thus achieves virtue. But justice and moderation are part of virtue, and just the desire to acquire good things would not be sufficient to define virtue. It may be recognized, though, that virtue is something which makes a human good, and if accompanied by wisdom and understanding, such things as health, strength, beauty and wealth would be considered beneficial and hence virtuous. The same would be true of moderation, justice, courage, mental ability and munificence: if accompanied by wisdom, these could contribute to virtue. If physical and metaphysical qualities such as these are not accompanied by wisdom and understanding, however, they could be harmful to the individual, according to the argument presented. In fact, everything that the soul experiences is good if it is informed by wisdom and understanding – it is not good if wisdom does not accompany it. The implication is that virtue is wisdom, or at least a part of wisdom. The essential questions then are whether virtue is able to be defined, and whether it can be taught. If it is knowledge, Meno proposes, it is able to be taught to someone. Good men should then be able to teach virtue, it is suggested, but he counters this by claiming that if virtue could be taught, all fathers would teach their sons to be virtuous. But knowledge can have the same effect as good opinion – they could both be guides toward the achievement of virtue, continues Meno. He concludes that virtue is neither taught nor hereditary; it is a gift of the gods, and therefore has little to do with wisdom. He concedes, though, that it is more likely that a clearer understanding of how virtue develops will come when humans understand exactly what virtue is. According to Phaedo, it is not possible to attain knowledge or wisdom while alive. The body is separated from the soul by death and the philosopher’s aim is to avoid the pleasures and pains of the body so as to be able to reason clearly. The separation of the body from the soul, as occurs in death, is something which the philosopher strives toward throughout life. And ironically it is only in the complete separation – in death – that real knowledge or wisdom become attainable. Otherwise, it is perhaps never attained. This concession is made to acknowledge that their wisdom and understanding of the process that occurs at death, and after death is not complete. Nonetheless, the philosopher must continue to learn to separate the soul from the body, and death should produce no fear in the rational person. Wisdom, if attained would allow true virtue to be possible. Without wisdom, someone only appears to be virtuous, it is suggested, and virtue is tied up in the purification process – the separation of the body and the soul. It is also thus true that only philosophers are able to attain purity, worthy of the gods. They are able to realize that the body and its desires and emotions are not necessary if a state in which reasoned and good thought is possible is to be attained. This wisdom produces the courage needed to face death without fear, as it is the wisdom of the soul, not obfuscated by the senses, emotions and needs of the physical body. This wisdom is consequently needed if true virtue is to be attained. Necessarily, this puts virtue out of the reach of most people in the society – the soldiers, the politicians, the athletes and the commoners and slaves. They are not philosophers and thinkers, after all. In the opinions of both philosophers, wisdom is essential if virtue is to be attained. Even when virtue is not clearly defined it is still necessary that it be accompanied by wisdom and understanding. If it is achievable only by the soul and hence at death, the philosopher is required to work toward a separation of the soul from the needs and desires of the body during life in order to maintain a calmness and purity of thought only possible with wisdom and understanding. The question of virtue being teachable is made redundant when it is realized that many good, virtuous people are unable to teach their offspring virtue, and that both knowledge and good opinion do not necessarily enhance the learning of virtue. Instead, a complete understanding and definition of virtue is required. Otherwise it may even be considered as a gift of the gods, rather than a hereditary or teachable characteristic. Aristotle’s words, quoted at the beginning of this essay, also serve to substantiate the viewpoints f these philosophers. Knowledge is indeed sweet and it does enable to attainment of virtue. In fact, it may be argued that it is the most essential component of virtue. References Bacon, F. (1620) “Idols of the Tribe” from Novum Organum 1620 in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Question Three Explain Descartes Method of doubt; what does he hope to accomplish from this method; is Descartes a skeptic? “But in philosophy, a student ought to doubt of the things he fancies he understands too easily, as much as those he does not understand” (Voltaire, 1735 in Blair Bolles, 1997: 250). This concept of philosophical thought is very much a product of Descartes’ thinking on a methodology that should be applied to proof, specifically in science. Descartes proposed that if anything is able to be doubted on any level, it should be. His rationale is that each individual is educated and formed from the earliest childhood with inherent prejudices, preconceptions and biases. If these thoughts are not to influence logical and rational thought, they must be countered in some way. Thus Descartes’ system which advocates exaggerated even extreme doubt as the first premise in an examination of anything. Therefore, the scientist or philosopher should treat all his/her own thoughts and ideas with contempt. All ideas should be doubted at first, and then re-evaluated and examined. Only when the ideas have been tested through logic and reason should they be accepted again. On the most basic level, Descartes questioned the reliability of the senses: if they are not able to be relied on to provide the truth then everything has to be tested. In order to arrive at a secure intellectual foundation on which to base knowledge, Descartes claims that the evidence of the senses must be regarded with doubt. This is due to the fact that everyone’s senses will fail, or will have failed to provide accurate information at some point. He does, however, acknowledge that there are some aspects of the physical world that cannot be doubted. The senses, thus, can be relied on to some degree to provide truth in limited circumstances. In dream situations, though, the separation between reality and dream can be difficult to distinguish, he concedes. But dreams also rely on the information gained through the senses, and thus can be doubted at first but later proven to be valid. His skepticism is not all-encompassing, therefore. The climax of the argument Descartes raises to strengthen his position on doubt is in the supposition that an “evil demon” of doubt exists. His premise is that an all-powerful and good God cannot exist if the individual is allowed to be deceived. Since individuals are deceived, the implication is that God does not exist at all, or God does exist but is either not all powerful or not purely good. But because humans are only on occasion deceived, there remains the possibility that an evil demon is intentionally deceiving the individual all the time: everything the individual therefore accepts is false. Descartes does, however, reason further and proposes that there is one thing that cannot be doubted – one’s own existence. The fact that the individual is able to think, and hence able to doubt, and even able to be deceived by the “evil demon” argues that the one thing that cannot be doubted is existence of the individual. It does not follow, though, in this argument, that anything beyond the individual exists. It is in arguing for a world beyond the self that Descartes proves himself not to be a skeptic finally. In this stage of argument, Descartes proceeds from his acknowledgement that the existence of self is valid. Since it is in the thoughts of the individual that God exists, as an infinite being, the beginnings of his argument are valid in terms of his acknowledgement of the reality of the self. To supplement this argument, Descartes uses a self-evident truth – that all that exists must have a cause. Further, the reality of the cause must be proportional to the effect in order for the cause to exist. Thus, something can exist due only to thought; it can additionally be validated by its resemblance to a physical and recognizable object; and it can exist as something far greater than the original thought that produced it. God, therefore, could not originate only from an individual’s thoughts – the individual exists in the finite and physical universe and could not be the cause of something as infinite and metaphysical as God. It then follows that the only way the individual can have thoughts of God is if God placed them in the mind of the individual. Consequently, God must exist as the concept of God is not possible in humans, unless God prompted this concept. In addition, deception of humans cannot be part of a perfect and infinite God’s behavior. God is, according to Descartes argument at this point, all powerful and all good. Thus belief and acceptance of certain ideas as reality is unavoidable. God exists and provides a reference point for Descartes’ (and others’) ideas and recognitions of truth. Humans nonetheless do make errors in their thinking, but Descartes’ argument now precludes God deceiving humans. Thus, he claims that humanity has imperfect understanding, knowledge and ability. These deficiencies cause individuals to judge what they understand inaccurately, and certainly what they do not understand in error. The choice remains for the individual to believe in flawed reasoning, but not to disbelieve clear and irrefutable ideas. If an idea is clear and distinct, it is according to this reasoning, true. Descartes thus argued for an active strategy of doubt when attempting to arrive at one irrefutable truth from which reasoning could begin. His argument to prove the existence of God added a dimension beyond the self to his premises, and provided an external source of truth from which he could expand. It is evident that he was not entirely a skeptic. It is certainly true that his methodology of doubt has proved substantively valuable in philosophical thinking. References Voltaire (1733) “The Importance of Isaac Newton” from Letters on the English Nation in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Question Four Explain the relationship between Satyagraha and Swaraj for Gandhi. How does his concept of non-violent resistance relate to his beliefs about God and punishment? Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. A Rig Vedic hymn states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously." The Sikh Gurus have propagated the message of many paths leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who tread on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, certainly achieve salvation (Various contributors, 2010: 2-16). It is in this general framework that Gandhi was able to develop his personal philosophies which have influenced many thinkers subsequently. God is truth, according to Gandhi’s overarching reasoning. The supremacy of God is absolute and this truth is absolute. This implies that all other truths are incomplete and can be true only in specific frames of reference. For this reason, no one is qualified to judge or condemn another. The only way to bring others closer to truth is through persuasion, and no human can thus punish another for his/her beliefs. Since only God knows absolute truth, the individual cannot seek to impose a personal truth on another; nor can the individual punish another or use violent means to persuade another. Every individual is consequently able to and entitled to his/her own opinions and thoughts. As part of this overall system of belief and behavior, Gandhi also emphasized Satyagraha – a conscious belief in the power of truth and love. The evident connection between Gandhi’s philosophy and his actions in resisting colonial oppression in both South Africa and India is clear. If the individual does not have access to absolute truth – only God has this knowledge – then the intention not to cause harm to others, and at the same time not cooperating with the unjust can be justified. It must be noted, however, that Satyagraha does not imply weakness or passivity. It is instead a path that requires great courage and commitment to truth, according to the logic of Gandhi. Love is integral to this philosophy as is the strength to face even death for the sake of the truth. And truth remains with God, not humans, therefore no human should be able to mete out punishment to another. Despite this seemingly passive approach, it is possible to defeat any enemy with this mixture of love, courage and willingness to face death. The contrast is with the brave and strong warrior who is physically strong and fearless, but who employs violence in order to persuade others. Allied to the concept of Satyagraha in Gandhi’s thinking is the concept of Swaraj, or independence. While this concept is closely associated with Gandhi’s role in emancipating India from British colonial rule, it represented far more than just nationalism to Gandhi himself. Freedom is dependent on more than just the removal of the oppressor. Rather it is both a physical/political freedom as well as a spiritual freedom. The mental, almost limitless freedom allowed through the practice of Satyagraha is closer to the spiritual freedom Gandhi envisaged for India and Indians. Their independence lay in self awareness and personal liberation, requiring real commitment to truth and love. Of course, the political implications of this were realized, when Gandhi became instrumental in the removal of British Colonialism from India, and the influence he exerted in the removal of some racist attitudes in South Africa. Again this commitment to independence or Swaraj requires bravery and love. It also needs the individual to embark on a personal, inner journey so that the search for truth and knowledge becomes more important than the external need to dominate others, or to be affected by the domination of others. Both the concepts of Satyagraha and Swaraj relate directly to Gandhi’s stated beliefs about God. If God is the only absolute truth, then it is certainly incorrect for one group to oppress another group. It is also necessary, though, that the oppressed do not judge, condemn or violently resist the oppressors. Instead, the oppressor can only be defeated by a combination of loving persuasion and non-violence. Since the Hindu faith incorporates rather than condemns other belief systems, it would be logical to assume that even the predominantly Christian British or South African oppressors would be persuaded by the courage, determination and commitment to truth of the Indians’ resistance. Liberation, likewise, would not be dependent only on the removal of the external oppressor. It would rely on the individual’s ability to become free in his/her own mind and emotions. A type of spiritual freedom is necessary which would make the oppressed invulnerable to the oppressor’s cruelty or injustice. The possibility of death in the name of the truth could then be faced without fear. Indeed, the conception of true courage which Gandhi proposed is almost superhuman. Yet is does reflect a logic that has proven to be valid historically. Even after liberation, both in the political and the spiritual sense, Gandhi continues to argue in favor of a policy of no retribution. The previously oppressed would by implication not seek revenge on the oppressor but rather seek to persuade the oppressor that their truth was not God’s. In effect, the philosophy proposes that even after liberation, humanity still only possesses a limited view of the truth and thus cannot condemn another human version of truth. If a more general Hindu approach is added to the thoughts of Gandhi, it could also be proposed that even an oppressor would be able eventually to realize the need to self-discover, and hence come to the same truth as Gandhi. All humans would potentially be able to understand the value of non-violence and non-cooperation in persuading an enemy to change behavior and philosophy. References Various Contributors (2010) Philosophy East and West Volume 60, Number 4, October 2010 ISSN: 0031-8221 Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press References Bacon, F. (1620) “Idols of the Tribe” from Novum Organum 1620 in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Course Outlines as Prescribed and Personal Notes Mach, E. (1897) “A New Sense” from Popular Scientific Lectures 1897 in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Various Contributors (2010) Philosophy East and West Volume 60, Number 4, October 2010 ISSN: 0031-8221 Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press Voltaire (1733) “The Importance of Isaac Newton” from Letters on the English Nation in Blair Bolles, E. Ed. (1997) Galileo’s Commandments New York: W.H. Freeman Read More