Crito by Plato

Crito Reviews

• 
  Manny

  - Socrates? I'm terribly sorry to be disturbing you shortly before your impending execution, but--
  
  - And who are you?
  
  - My name is Manny. I'm a visitor from the future. I--
  
  - Again. It's been one visitor after another this evening. First my extremely well-meaning friend Crito trying to save me, and then R. Daneel Olivaw from the Trantorian Empire trying to save me, and then two fictitious characters from Ultima Thule who for some reason also thought they would try to save me, and now you. Well. What's on your mind, Manny?
  
  - Uh, I was thinking, I'd try to save you. My time machine is right here, it's big enough for--
  
  - And how would you propose to save me?
  
  - I could take you back to the twenty-first century. You'd like it there. People are more tolerant, you'd be able to say what you want and not get killed by an angry mob. We have freedom of speech, you see.
  
  - Do you indeed?
  
  - Yes, we do. Society has progressed a great deal since your day.
  
  - As it happens, R. Daneel said something rather similar about his age. But perhaps matters went downhill again after your time. It is so easy for the world to relapse into barbarism.
  
  - Uh, well--
  
  - You understand that I see no purpose in leaving. I love Athens. I have devoted my life to this city, which to my mind is the greatest civilization the world has produced or ever will produce. They have condemned me to death, and that saddens me more than I can say, but I would rather accept my sentence than forego their respect to steal a few miserable years among lesser people.
  
  - Oh, but we are not lesser people! Come and see for yourself!
  
  - In fact, the fictitious characters from Thule tried to convince me of the same thing. I declined their offer, but after they left I wondered if I had not been overhasty. The philosopher, Alberto, had many interesting opinions. And his ephebe -- Sofie, if I remember the name aright? - was remarkably attractive. If you have more young boys like that in your time--
  
  - In fact, I should inform you that Sofie was a girl.
  
  - A girl? Really? Her clothing, her general demeanor... well, no matter. Perhaps I have underestimated the charms of fourteen year old girls. I am willing to make the experiment, in a spirit of philosophical openness.
  
  - Uh, Socrates, I should warn you that although our society is very tolerant, you would be advised not to--
  
  - Of course, of course! I have become so forgetful in my old age. Alberto did mention your curious views on eros. I can say what I wish, except in erotic matters.
  
  - Well--
  
  - You are right. I must think less about these trifles. The important thing is that I can speak openly about the gods?
  
  - Yes Socrates. You'll be able to do that at least!
  
  - I am struggling to recall my conversation with Alberto. I believe he mentioned a barbarian god who is much worshipped in your time and who places the strongest prohibitions on his followers. "Allah", or something like that.
  
  - Indeed, Socrates. But you are under no--
  
  - Capital! Probably it comes of having been teased so much by my friend Aristophanes, but I had thought to compose an amusing little sketch, in his style, about the holy man of "Allah". I confess it is beneath me, and in my dear Athens I would have more sense than to do such a thing. In your society, however, I understand I may permit myself this freedom, tasteless and disrespectful as it may be?
  
  - Well, to be honest Socrates, it would probably be safer if you didn't--
  
  - Dear me. So I can say what I wish, except about the erotic and the divine? And possibly a few other things?
  
  - I suppose--
  
  - And if I fail to observe your incomprehensible barbarian laws, I am liable to be put to death?
  
  - You know, you shouldn't--
  
  - Manny, I'm seventy years old. I like to speak my mind. I've managed to upset even my dear countrymen, with whom I've lived all my life, to the point that they have decided to kill me. I doubt it would go much better for me anywhere else. I'd rather die here, in a place I'm familiar with, and not give the people who sentenced me to death the satisfaction of seeing me try to escape.
  
  - But Socrates--
  
  - I know you meant well, Manny. You all did. Crito, and R. Daneel Olivaw, and the two visitors from Ultima Thule. You all meant extremely well. But sometimes there's just no easy solution. And now, I'd like to get some sleep.
  
  - Uh, I'm sorry Socrates. I'll tell the twenty-first century what you said. And it's been a privilege meeting you.
  
  - It's okay, Manny. And don't forget to show people the funny side of it too. Goodnight.
  
  - Goodnight, Socrates.
  
• 
  Francesc

  Critón va a visitar a Sócrates a la prisión y le propone huir. A partir de aquí, se desarrolla el pensamiento socrático a través de sus silogismos sobre lo justo y lo injusto.
  
  ----------------------------
  
  Crito goes to visit Socrates in prison and proposes to escape. From this point on, Socratic thought develops through his syllogisms on what is just and what is unjust.
• 
  Roy Lotz

  The saga of Socrates’ trial and death continues. This time his friend, Crito, visits him in his cell to try to persuade him to escape into exile. Socrates is true to form, insisting that nothing—not the reputation of himself or his friend, nor concern for his own life—ought to be considered except reason. Crito must attempt to persuade Socrates to escape. The dialogue ends with the famous personification of the Laws of Athens, in the course of which Plato hits upon one of the earliest formulations of the social contract: by living in Athens, Socrates implicitly agrees to be bound by her laws. Since Socrates’ enjoyed the benefits of the laws, he must accept their penalties.
  
  More so than in the Apology, one feels here that this is Plato’s invention and not something that actually occurred. The dialogue seems especially crafted to rehabilitate Socrates’ reputation, portraying the old philosopher as a dutiful citizen with a patriotic love of Athens. As a piece of drama the dialogue is one of Plato’s finest. It has considerable philosophic importance, too, for its aforementioned prefiguring of the social contract. Nevertheless I confess that I find Socrates’ reasoning extremely thin. Surely laws may be unjust; and a law may be just in itself and yet unjust or mistaken in its execution. If that is so, should the citizen passively accept it simply because it is the law? One senses the fine Socratic irony here, too, arguing playfully rather than sincerely. Socrates surely had compelling reasons to accept his death—but one doubts that pure patriotic regard of law was the whole of it.
• 
  Sarah Far

  کریتون یا اقریطون
  
  سقراط همچون شهروند نیکی نمایش داده شده است که، علی‌رغم محکومیت غیرعادلانه‌اش، حاضر است در راه اطاعت از قوانین کشور از حیات خود طرف‌نظر کند. کریتون و دیگران فرار از زندان را به او پیشنهاد کردند، و برای این کار پول فراهم کردند، اما سقراط اعلام کرد که می‌خواهد:
  در اصول خود ثابت‌قدم و استوار بماند.
  
  محاوره‌ی جالبی بود، اما با وجود اینکه قرون زیادی از تصمیم سقراط گذاشته، هنوز نمی‌دونیم کارش درست بوده یا نه؟! (صدالبته که نیمی از این جواب به شرایط محیطی و همچنین تفکر یکی از بزرگترین فیلسوف جهان برمی‌گردد)
• 
  Steve

  This is the sequel to Plato's Apology . Socrates has been condemned to death, but for religious reasons his execution has been postponed for a few weeks. Crito, one of his friends, has smuggled himself into Socrates' cell late at night and offers to bribe all the necessary persons to get him out of his cell, out of Athens, to a safe place in Thessaly.
  
  As riveting as the Apology is, I find Crito to be extraordinarily moving. Plato places an eloquence and emotive power in Crito's mouth that could hardly fail to sway anyone as he explains the many reasons why Socrates should accede to his proposal.(*) But Socrates remains true to his principles and illustrates Socratic method here in extremis . Instead of drawing his head up and defiantly spouting principles, as so many principled persons have done in history (and such persons are often presented to us as magnificent examples to emulate), Socrates draws Crito into a search for a reasoned response. I don't intend to trace here the turns taken in this search. You should read it. And, ultimately, I don't think it really matters if this search leads to an answer one agrees with. I don't think Plato's intention was to persuade everyone that the answer found is correct for all persons. After all, the search is based upon certain explicit and implicit assumptions which need not be shared by all persons. But even if that were Plato's intention, the appreciation of this beautiful text need not depend upon being so persuaded. It is not we but Socrates who is to be executed, and he clearly explains why he has an obligation he cannot disregard. Our agreement or disagreement is totally immaterial.
  
  And what could Plato have been feeling as he wrote this little gem. Was his heart swelling with pride at the principled stand Socrates took? Were tears of regret limping down his cheeks as Crito tried everything he could to convince Socrates to save his life? Was he calculating the best way to ensure to his teacher's name and ideas the eternity that his body could never have? Really, every aspect of this text is remarkable. I consider it to be one of the finest in Western literature.
  
  (Re-read in Benjamin Jowett's translation.)
  
  (*) One should keep in mind that even if Crito made such an attempt and such a conversation actually took place, Crito could hardly have remembered the conversation word for word. This beautiful and moving conversation is therefore Plato's invention, even if it may have remained faithful to whatever main points Crito was able to recall.
• 
  Nikola Jankovic

  Nastavak
  Odbrana Sokratova jeste kratak, brzo se čita i tako nije velika šteta pročitati ga. U njemu Sokrat brani odluku da će radije da umre nego da pobegne ili traži oprost.
  
  Ipak, nije Kriton na nivou dijaloga koje sam pročitao. Sokratova/Platonova razmišljanja su često problematična -
  Država, na primer, je odlična vežba za razmišljanje i ima interesantnih ideja, ali i onih koje se graniče sa fašizmom. Ovde je problem da je ideja jedna, a ja na nju gledam potpuno suprotno.
  
  "Tvrdimo li da ni na kakav način ne treba namerno nepravdu činiti? Ili zar u jednim prilikama treba a u drugima ne," počinje Sokrat kako treba, sa svojom večitom temom pravičnosti. To je okej, ali nastavlja da je bolje umreti nego se ogrešiti o zakone/državu i tako načiniti nepravdu Atinjanima.
  
  Koji su to zakoni koje treba poštovati po svaku cenu? Da li su ti zakoni ponekad tumačeni kako je potrebno vlasti? I ko je uopšte država, ko su ljudi na vlasti i kako da ne sumnjamo u njihovu dobronamernost? Da li njegov pogled obesmišljava bilo kakvu promenu vlasti ili sistema, pa kakvi god oni bili?
  
  Svaki put, Platon se može (verovatno i mora) tumačiti iz aktualnog trenutka. Svašta se čovek ovde seti na osnovu naše trenutne vlasti.
• 
  Matthew Ted

  Death looms for Socrates but death is favourable to this 70-year-old man. Does he explain why? Yes, yes he does. Crito is not quite as good as the prior Apology but still wonderful. Socrates (Plato), I'm realising, is wonderful. The first "tetralogy" is almost done. I'll dabble around in some other dialogues before reading Republic. Then it's onto Aristotle.
• 
  Amir

  محاوره کریتون در زندان رخ می دهد. سقراط به اعدام محکوم شده و موعد مقررِ اجرا درآمدن حکم اعدام را انتظار می کشد. کریتون در این زمان به دیدنش می رود تا او را راضی به فرار از زندان کند. سقراط البته که مخالفت می کند و دیالوگ بر مبنای همین مخالفت سقراط برای فرار از زندان و زیر پا گذاشتن قانون آغاز می شود. سقراط و کریتون تصمیم میگیرند که پاسخی برای این مسئله پیدا کنند که آیا فرار کردن سقراط از زندان و متواری شدنش کار درستیست یا درست آن است که به حکم قانون گردن نهد؟
  
  در انتهای محاوره، سقراط وارد دیالوگ با قوانین می شود و قوانین از زبان او، متقاعدش خواهند ساخت که باید امر قانون را بپذیرد. این مسئله به ما نشان می دهد که قانون و مشروعیتش یکی از مهم ترین بحث های آن دوره بوده. از زمان هزیود که معتقد بود زئوس با بند عدل جهان را محکم نگه داشته بسیار گذشته. فیلسوفان طبیعی الیایی بودند که برای اولین بار از طبیعت اسطوره زدایی کردند و جای افسانه سازی تبیین علی را قرار دادند و به جای اراده خدایان ضرورت را. حالا همین اتفاق در زمین سیاست، قانون و مناسبات شهروندی در حال رخ دادن است. عقل جای اسطوره را میگیرد و بندهای عدالت از دستان هزیود رها می شود و به دست بشر می افتد.
  
  می بینیم که در این زمان دیگر این امکان وجود ندارد که خدایان پشتوانه مشروعیت قوانین پولیس باشند. با وجود تمام اختلافات سقراط و دیگر سوفیست ها با یکدیگر در این نقطه توافق دارند که قوانین پولیس، قراردادی است که شهروندان آزاد شهر میان خود منعقد کردند‌. اما بسیاری از سوفیست ها از همین نقطه به قوانین شهر حمله ور می شوند: قوانین بشر بر ضد ضرورت طبیعت ساخته و پرداخته شده. باید به طبیعت بازگشت. جایی که تنها قانون حاکم، غلبه قوی بر ضعیف است. تنها حق موجود در جهان، حقی است که قوی، به واسطه قدرتش، بر گردن ضعفا دارد. تراسیماخوس در جمهوری را می توانیم نماینده این طرز فکر بدانیم. زمانی که می گوید عدالت یعنی غلبه قدرتمند بر ضعیف.
  
  اینجاست که سقراط خود را هماورد کسانی می بیند که با‌ سلاح ضرورت طبیعی، قوانین انسانی و مناسبات شهروندی را هدف قرار دادند.‌ در این زمان باید تلاش بسیاری صورت میگرفت تا بار دیگر قوانین را بر پایه های محکمی نشاند. اما چه چیزی می توانست در برابر مفهوم ضرورت در طبیعت که حال به حوزه مناسبات انسانی نیز کشیده شده، ایستادگی کند؟ چگونه باز می توان از عدالت و شجاعت و خویشتن داری و به طور کلی ارزش ها سخن گفت ان هم زمانی که هر "باید"ی تبدیل به هست شده است؟ اینجاست که نظریه پیشرفت به کمک سقراط می آید.
  
  
  چیزهای مدهش فراوانند ولی هیچ چیز به اندازه انسان دهشت آور نیست. این موجود در آن هنگام که بادهای طوفان زای جنوب می وزند، خود را به پهنه دریای نیلگون می افکند، قله های امواج خروشان را شکافته، راه خود را طی می‌کند. زمین را، این کهن ترین خدایان را، که همیشگی و تمام نشدنی است، هر سال کشت و غارت می کند و سال بعد با نژاد اسب ها شخم زده به آبش می گذارد. او در ترقی است، گاهی به سوی شر و گاهی هم به سوی خیر، یعنی آنگاه که قوانین شهر را به وجود می‌آورد و به فرامین عادلانه آسمانی ابراز وفاداری می‌کند و به شهروندی خویش افتخار می‌کند. اما انسانی که روح بی پروای او موجب شرارت شود یاغی و بی قانون است.
  
  
  سوفکلس، انتیگونه به نقل از تاریخ فلسفه یونان، جلد ۱۰ صفحه
  ۱۴۸-۱۴۹
  
  زمانی بود که انسان به صورت منزوی و در تاریکی و سرمای غارها روزگار می گذراند. او خوراک جانداران وحشی می شد و توان دفاع از خویش دربرابر ضرورت طبیعت را نداشت. طبق اساطیر، پرومته‌ بود که به یاری ادمی آمد و با بخشیدن اتش به او، جهان تاریکش را روشن ساخت. اما گویی به پرومته‌‌ای دیگر نیاز بود تا انسان ها را گرد هم آورد تا شهرهایی برپا کنند و با یاری دیگر دربرابر خشم طبیعت ایستادگی کنند. عقل، دومین هدیه پرومته به آدمیان بود. و همین پیشرفت انسان از تاریکی غارها به روشنایی پولیس، اب به آسیاب مشروعیت خردورزی و قوانین ناشی از آن می ریخت.
• 
  A Bookish ✧ Fable

  A conversation between the death sentenced Sokrates & his friend Kritón.
  
  Kritón wants to help Sokrates escape, but Sokrates tells him to sit down and answer his questions about if it is morally right to do so or not.
  To put it shortly, the questions we are dealing with here is;
  - Is it ok to be wrong to someone if they have been wrong to you first? -
  &
  - Should you never be wrong to somebody no matter what the circumstance may be? Or Is it okay in some cases (look above)-
  
  My answer?: Well. If you truly know that doing someone wrong will help them and result in you having done them good, then I belive that you can still say 'It's never ok to do wrong to anyone.' Because if doing wrong will make it right in the end then that's really what matters, as long as it's right for the person/occasion, and not for your own selfish winning. As Sokrates said, life isn't about beeing alive, it's about Living. If you're helping the right people in the right way, in the long run, it's alright to do wrong once in a while. As long as it does no permanent harm (as mentioned in the writing) to the important part of the body: the mind.
  
  Anyhow, I really did enjoy this follow up after'Sokrates Defense'
  
  4,5/5 Stars
• 
  Brad Lyerla

  CRITO is Plato’s pithy, yet eloquent defense of an early version of the rule of law. In this short dialogue, he recreates Socrates’ conversation with Crito on the eve of Socrate’s death. Crito and others have arranged for Socrates to escape from prison and thereby avoid his sentence to die by drinking hemlock. But Socrates is not persuaded and convinces Crito that it is unprincipled not to obey the law even when one believes the outcome in a particular case is unjust. And not only then, but even when the majority believes the outcome is unjust because the will of the majority does not matter when it is against principle.
  
  But what principle?
  
  The principle is not identified with clarity by Socrates. One could argue that the principle seems to be that democracy has its rules and that those rules are created by a process. A rule created by the process cannot be undone by the will of the majority except through another process. Until that happens, the citizens of a community are bound by the rule.
  
  A lot of this is implied. A short fun read.
• 
  Mohammad Mirzaali

  کریتون قبل از اجرای حکم سقراط، به سلولش در زندان می‌رود تا قانعش کند که با کمک او و دیگر هواخواهان سقراط از زندان بگریزد. به طور خلاصه، سقراط در پاسخ به این درخواست استدلال می‌کند که همان‌طور که ظلمِ پدر و مادر مجوزی برای ظلم به پدر و مادر نیست (و اساسا هیچ ظلمی توجیه‌کننده‌ی ظلمی دیگر نیست) پس لطمه‌دیدن از قانون آتن نیز مجوزی برای زیر پا گذاشتن آن فراهم نمی‌کند. او هم‌چنین از بی‌آبرویی در اثر گریختن از حکم مرگ می‌گوید و خود را پیرتر از آن می‌داند تا از مرگ بهراسد
• 
  Cynda

  Many consider this text problematic. Did Plato or his son write the text? The standard worldview of the time is not in place within this text. These are not problems that can be resolved. The issue of coming to an understanding must lie elsewhere. I propose that the rhetorical argument needs to be differently understood, understood from the perspective of a man preparing to die as soon as possible.
  
  When Crito tells Socrates of how escape, to remember his children, to remember his friends, Socrates refuses to consider these arguments of Crito. We already know of Socrates' giving over to death
  
  
  in
  Apology when he speaks
  * of his being of an age when the time left is short anyway.
  * of his being of the sort of character that asks too many questions to fit in elsewhere.
  
  in
  Crito when he speaks
  *of an agent of Death, a beautifully attired woman, already has appeared to Socrates to lure or welcome Socrates to his afterlife.
  * of his friends being imposed upon.
  * of his sons left orphans in strange lands.
  
  Socrates simply is no longer interested in living. He has meet the beautifully attired agent of Death and has made an agreement to follow her lead or direction.
  
  
  Once Socrates has presented his complete argument against Crito's argument for escaping the holding room in Athens, Socrates presents his case for staying to die. Among these arguments Socrates tells us of the authority of Athens
  
  * to marry parents.
  * to create a union that gave rise to Socrates.
  * to provide Socrates with education.
  * to provide Socrates with place pleasant enough to live his life in.
  * to convict citizens.
  * to ask those citizens what an appropriate punishment might be.
  * to determine what sentence will be if no appropriate punishment is set out. Athens sentenced Socrates to die. And die he will.
  
  When a person has faced Death, there is little going back. To face Death a second time just might be too much ask a human being to do.
  
  I am reminded of what Anne Boleyn said to the Constable of the Tower of London. Upon hearing that the swordsman traveling from France had been delayed, Anne said:
  

  Master Kingston, I hear say that I shall not die afore noon, and I am very sorry there for, for I thought to be dead by this time and past my pain.

  
  Just bearing the awareness of imminent Death being a less imminent reality must take a spine of flexible steel and a mind at ease with itself. I think Socrates of
  Crito has these qualities. Socrates is prepared to die, and there is no going back.
  
  
  
  
  Read as participation in the Plato study at the GR group Catching on the Classics. Next week we start a three (3)-week study of
  Phaedo.
• 
  Knox Merkle

  This is the most powerful evangelical piece of pagan literature that I’ve read. Socrates is so very Christ-like: he’s not afraid of death, he’s extremely magnanimous, and he’s submitting to injustice because there’s a higher justice that will be accomplished through it. I love it.
• 
  Martin

  Der Kriton des Platon ist ein hoch interessanter Dialog über Ethik und Staatstheorie. Zeitlich knüpft der Kriton nahtlos an die Apologie an. Sokrates ist wegen Asebie zu Tode verurteilt und inhaftiert, seine Hinrichtung solle am nächsten oder übernächsten Tag stattfinden. Früh am Morgen bekommt er Besuch von seinem Freund und Anhäger Kriton. Dieser versucht ihn zu überreden aus dem Gefängnis zu flüchten, er würde Sokrates bei Verwandten in Thessaloniki unterbringen. Sokrates nützt dieses Gespräch (und seine inzwischen anhand anderer Dialoge bekannte Technik der Maieutik), um Kriton seine Beweggründe zu erläutern, warum er eine Flucht ablehne.
  
  WIe in seiner Apologie lehnt Sokrates es ab, aus Anlassgründen seine Tugenden und seine Gesinnung zu verraten. Er meint, dass die Seele durch unrechtes (im Gegensatz zu seiner Gesinnung) stehenden Taten zerrütet würde, weshalb man seiner Gesinnung nicht entkommen könne, wolle man nicht etwas Schlimmeres riskieren als den Tod. So wie ein Sportler der Meinung von kundigen Ärzten folgen würde und nicht der seiner unwissenden Freunde, so richte sich der Mensch der Meinung der Tugendhaften und nicht der Masse (mit der Masse ist hier die Mehrheit der 281 Athener von den 500 genannt, die ihn zum verurteilt haben).
  
  Falsch sei es jedenfalls nach seiner Gesinnung kategorisch, Unrechtes zu tun. Über das, was Unrecht ist dreht es sich nun in der zweiten Hälfte des Gesprächs. Unrecht sei es, wenn jemand geschädigt werde. Und Sokrates lässt nun die Gesetze selbst zu Wort kommen und erläutert, was diese wohl im Falle seiner Flucht zu ihm sagen würden. Und hier schweift Sokrates in die Staatstheorie ab. Die Gesetze würden ihn verurteilen, da er, indem er die Gesetze bräche, die staatliche Gemeinschaft schaden würde. Ohne dass die Gesetze respektiert würden, so würde das staatliche Gemeinwesen nicht lebensfähig sein. In der folgenden Begründung schließt Sokrates auch an seine Gefallenenrede im Menexenos an, so sei es der funktionierende Staat, der seinen Eltern die Zeugung Sokrates ermöglicht habe, ebenso sei er durch den Staat gut erzogen worden. Würde er sich nun selbst über das Gerichtsurteil stellen, dann würde er die Staatsordnung und damit den funktionierenden Staat infrage stellen, für den er selbst ja sein Leben lang eingetreten ist, indem er mit seinen Gesprächen die Menschen zu tugendhaften Staatsbürgern erziehen wollte.
  
  Schließlich gibt Kriton auf und akzeptiert die Argumente des Sokrates, und er, Sokrates, wegen Asebie verurteilt, legt sein Schicksal in die Hände der Götter.
  
  ————————————
  
  Der Kriton ist von den von mir bislang gelesenen Texten Platons wahrscheinlich jener, der von seiner Bedeutung auch 2400 Jahre später nichts eingebüßt hat. Die Frage, ob man kritiklos den Gesetzen des Staates unterordnen soll oder nicht, selbst wenn dieser offensichtlich ein Unrechtsstaat ist (wie es ja auch Athen mit der Herrschaft der Dreißig kurz vor dem Tod des Sokrates kurzzeitig war), ist heute sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch angesichts totalitäter Staaten aktuell.
  
  Der Text lädt jedenfalls eingehend zu einer Reflexion über den Sinn von Gesetzen und das Staatswesen auch in demokratischen Staaten ein. Insofern ist es in den bis dato von mir gelesenen Texten von Platon sicherlich der wichtigste, eine Lektüre des kurzen Textes sei jedem ausdrücklich empfohlen.
• 
  Tülay Tellioğlu (morrkitap)

  4/5
  Platon hepimizin bildiği üzere çok ünlü ve önemli bir filozof. Haliyle yazdığı kitaplar da felsefi bakış açıları ile yazılmış çok derin ve anlamlı kitaplar. Yani en azından ben öyle tahmin ediyorum. 😅Benim ise felsefe kitaplarını okumaya karşı ilgim sıfıra yakın iken Can yayınlarının kısa klasikler serisi sayesinde bir cesaret ile okudum. Yani evet, Platon’u ilk kez okuyorum ve gerçekten de beğendim. Fakat uzun soluklu kitaplarını yine aynı hevesle okuyabilir miyim hala emin değilim. Mesela Devlet kitabını okumayı hep çok istemişimdir fakat okuyacak cesareti kendimde asla bulamıyorum. 😅
  En azından başlangıcı yaptım diyebilirim. Hem de ne başlangıç! Platon kendisine verilen cezanın haklılığını o kadar mantıklı ve adaletli temellere dayandırıyor ki hakikaten cezayı hak etmiş ne hali varsa görsün diyesiniz gelir. Fakat bir yandan da kendi cezası hakkında bu kadar objektif oluşu Platon adına derin bir pişmanlık hissi ile dolmanıza sebep oluyor. Sizi hem şaşırtıp hem de pişman edebilecek duygu dalgalanmaları yaşatan müthiş bir bakış açısı ile yazılmış. Mutlaka okumanızı tavsiye ederim. 😊
• 
  Uğur Karabürk

  serinin ikinci kitabıydı yine çok beğendim erdem ve kararlılık üzerine bir metindi
• 
  Viji (Bookish endeavors)

  Truly a marvel.!!
  
  My first reading of Plato.. And of Socrates.. I feel like a kid,excited at having got the book I've always wanted to have,humbled by the great mind.. The text I read,translation though it was,was beautiful in its style,use of words and the unquestionable logic of the master. Does it look like I'm keeping Socrates on a pedestal.? Well.. I truly am..
  
  I was struck by the beauty of the logic,the way he tackles Crito's arguments.. it must feel strange when I say that I was more influenced by the structure than the content.. but it is true..the structure and the ease with which one argument flows from another is simply amazing..
  
  A few words about the text..
  
  Socrates doesn't leave a single point unanswered. He shows the fallacy in Crito's reasoning and logically proves the rightness of his decision.
  Crito asks Socrates to consider escaping from the prison stating the following reasons:
  1)Socrates fails in his duty as a father.
  2) if Socrates dies,then the people will blame his friends saying that they didn't show courage to save him.
  3)Socrates would be doing injustice to himself by walking into death when there was an option to escape.
  Socrates answers each of these points as follows:
  1)justice comes first,not children.
  2)the good ones will understand the truth,it is not necessary to convince the rest.
  3)Socrates was born and educated by the State. He never left the state and begot his children there. Had he ever felt any uneasiness with the law and the administration,he could have shifted to some other state taking his belongings and that he didn't do for the 70 years of his life. To do so just to extend his life for a short while wouldn't be good. So he would be doing a greater injustice by escaping.
  Socrates says that it is not the laws but the men who kill him. He seems to have immense respect for laws.
  
  To the reader..
  This is not a text to be taken lightly,light though it might seem in quantity and in language(which depends upon the translation you have,luckily I got a beautiful one).. Tread through the words with your third eye open.. You never know what he might have meant in between the lines.. I take this text as a masterpiece in language,philosophy and logic.. a second reading might bring into light another dimension..
  HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED.
• 
  Homo Sentimentalis

  U "Kritonu" su zakotrljana neka od osnovnih pitanja političke filozofije, a to su: Da li mi postojimo radi države ili je država tu radi nas? Gdje prestaje država, a gdje počinju prava građana? Imaju li građani pravo na pobunu ili moraju slijepo i bezgranično poštovati volju svojih vlastodržaca? Iako se nijedno od ovih pitanja u ovom djelu ne postavlja direktno, Sokrat je na sve njih jasno odgovorio:
  
  "Zar je tvoja mudrost takva da ne znaš da je i od majke, i od oca, i od svih ostalih predaka otadžbina časnija, i uzvišenija, i svetlija, i u većoj počasti i kod bogova i kod svih ljudi koji pameti imaju, i da otadžbinu treba više poštovati, i ako se ljuti, više joj ustupati i ljubaznije joj progovarati nego ocu, i da je treba ili uveravati o boljem ili vršiti ono što ona zapoveda, a i trpeti ako što naređuje da se trpi - bez protivljenja, i ako naređuje i da te biju, i da te u tamnicu bacaju, i ako te goni u rat da budeš tamo ranjen ili da pogineš? Sve se to mora činiti, i tako je pravo: ne smeš popuštati ni uzmicati, ni svoj borbeni red ostavljati, nego i u ratu, i pred sudom, i svuda treba raditi ono što država i otadžbina zapovedaju, ili uveravati je o onom što pravda zahteva? A praviti nasilje nije dopušteno ni prema ocu ni prema majci, a kudikamo manje prema otadžbini!"
  
  Jbt, kad ovo čitam više mi liči na neki Staljinov proglas sovjetskom narodu iz tridesetih ili četrdesetih godina, nego na filozofski citat. Dajem sebi za pravo da se u tom nekom sokratovsko-staljinističkom duhu logički nadovežem na ovaj citat: "Ako si isprobao na novinama da li ti radi hemijska olovka i slučajno malo prešao i po Staljinovom liku, zatim novine bacio u kantu za smeće, iz koje su ih komšije izvadile, otvorile ih, vidjele šta si uradio, prijavile te i ti zbog toga od druga Staljina dobio 25 godina teškog robijanja u Sibiru i još imao sreće što te nisu streljali (istinita priča), a ti nemoj pokušavati bježati, niti se buniti, jer praviti nasilje nije dopušteno ni prema ocu ni prema majci, a kudikamo prema otadžbini!"
• 
  Dylan

  A fantastic little short and a tragic one. Socrates rationalises why he shouldn't escape from prison.
• 
  B. P. Rinehart

  I'm reading this as a part of
  The Trial and Death of Socrates as reprinted in the
  Classics of Western Philosophy. Translated by
  G.M.A. Grube.
  
  This book is sort of like
  The Republic-lite. It is a towering example of political philosophy though it is short and somewhat controversial. This book has the titular character coming to
  bust Socrates out of prison. He soon discovers that at this point Socrates does not plan on leaving but is intent on validating himself by doing whatever the state commands of him. He also makes very good reasoning that he should not do wrong even if others do wrong to him.
  
  He does very good reasoning on why it is the right thing to stay and obey the law and you are almost ready to agree with him the whole way until the last two paragraphs and than we see why this is one of Plato's more controversial dialogues. He advocates that the state comes before everything, even love-ones. I know I may be not doing this justice but it is a very interesting dialogue, to say the least
  
  I must admit though he does not say much, I can't help but feel sorry for Crito and Socrates' other friends. They do really seem to care about Socrates despite his coldness to their feelings.
  
  "Crito: I have nothing to say, Socrates.
  Socrates: Let it be then, Crito, and let us act in this way since this is the way the god is leading us."
• 
  Laura Verret

  So, Socrates is in prison and Crito comes and asks him to leave. (this is a fair request) They have a discussion over the justness of him escaping from his country's law, and Socrates wins. (raise your hand if you're surprised)
  
  The one thing that I found interesting was that in the beginning Socrates stated that the opinion of the majority was not of any import - only the things that good people thought really mattered. Then half-way through the book he said that it would be wrong of him to escape from prison because (are you ready for it?) it was the will of the Athenians that he should be there. Like... isn't the 'will of the Athenians' a net calculation of the majority's wishes? I doubt whether the good people would have wanted to kill him, and if their opinion is all that matters....
  
  *insert contemplative emoji*
• 
  Idontknow

  "They [the masses] would give life as readily as take it away, were it in their power; with as little understanding in each action".
  
  If this is their justice, which is truly the most benevolent?
• 
  Jarrett DeLozier

  My first ever college paper was about this dialogue. It was… how to say it… CRINGE 😫😫
• 
  Czarny Pies

  Criton is one of four Platonic dialogues that deal with the trial and death of Socrates. I encourage everyone to read all four. The set is greater than the sum of its parts.
  
  In terms of the sequence of events described Crtion occupies the third place. Having just been condemnedto death, Socrates debates with his friend Criton whether or not he should flee Athens to preserve his life. He concludes that having lived his life as a citizen of Athens, the just thing for him to do is to stay rather than rebel against the authority of the state. In other words, Socrates decides that duty is more important than self-preservation.
  
  Socrates' decision is consistent with the philosophical system that he has developed. For the reader who is not a philosopher, the decision would seem perverse if it were not for the fact that Socrates believes that being quite old, he is very close to the end of his life.
  
  Nietzsche who was very emphatically a philosopher felt that the decision was not only perverse but that it permanently poisoned our civilization which needed fighters for heroes not sheep who meekly accepted injustice.
  
  Do not read this dialogue without reading Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy.
• 
  Linton

  New review (14/07/2021):
  In this powerful and tense short dialogue Crito attempts to convince Socrates to flee his coming execution. Most of Socrates' arguments appear sound, until the final few pages of the dialogue. In this part the personified Laws of Athens comes forward and argues for a form of the social contract, complete with phrases which are shockingly outlandish for modern morality (e.g. "you are behaving like the lowest slave, trying to run away in spite of the contracts and undertakings by which you agreed to act as a member of our State.") In spite of this, the Laws make a following sound argument: that if Socrates flees his execution then he will be condemned as a hypocrite as he has preached the law and justice for his entire life only to betray them in his final days. As with the Euthypro, Apology and Phaedo this dialogue plays a signficant role in creating the most enchanting of all of Plato's tetralogies.
  
  Old review (2/3/2021):
  A great discussion of injustice against the state. I don't agree with Socrates' view but it is admirable regardless. There is a large amount of discussion that can come from reading this work.
• 
  Mariafrancesca di natura viperesca sta con gli ultimi della terra

  Οὔτοι συνέχθειν, ἀλλὰ συμφιλεῖν ἔφυν (“Non sono nata per condividere l'odio, ma l'amore!”).
  
  [Sono arrivata al Critone dall’Apologia, in cui “si narra” ( come è noto) del processo e della condanna di Socrate ( è esatto e sbagliato allo stesso tempo usare il verbo narrare).
  Non ricordo se li lessi allora “quando lieta e pensosa il limitar di gioventù salivo”. Sicuramente il “Convivio”, dal greco: ricordo ancora il libro dalla copertina telata rossa “ἔρως”. ]
  
  Ci sono arrivata al Critone, dicevo, per la curiosità di leggere delle proverbiali ultime parole del mitico saggio, parole che, parola di filologi, riproducono i suoi, di lui, pensieri e non quelli del suo discepolo Platone ancora troppo giovane e lontano dal mondo delle Idee. Giunta al piccolo ( breve) dialogo con fare sbarazzino mi sono bloccata e non per il crampo dello scrittore. E questo lungo e inutile O.T. ne testimonia l’empasse.
  …se si concorda, dicono le leggi messe in scena da Platone, con qualcuno sulla giustezza di qualcosa, la si dovrà fare o evitare? E rimaniamo fedeli ai principi che avevamo riconosciuto giusti, oppure no?... Quale può essere il tuo intento, con questo gesto ( Critone aveva proposto a Socrate di evadere dal carcere dopo la condanna a morte) se non di fare quanto ti è possibile per distruggere noi, le leggi, e la città intera?... O pensi che possa sopravvivere, e non essere sovvertita, una città in cui le sentenze pronunciate non hanno efficacia, e possono essere invalidate e annullate da privati cittadini? O con tutta la tua sapienza non ti rendi conto che la patria è più preziosa sia della madre che del padre e di tutti gli antenati, e più sacra, e più venerabile, più degna di considerazione da parte degli dèi e degli uomini assennati; e che le si deve obbedire e servirla anche nelle sue ire, più che un padre?. Le stesse parole o quasi, ma il succo è lo stesso, di Creonte ad Antigone. Legge e Ordine, come dargli torto.
  
  
  
  Ma è sicuro che la nostra visione del “mondo”, inteso come palcoscenico in cui gli uomini si muovono, sia la stessa dei greci? Che … l’era della ragione e delle leggi… da loro inaugurata e dalla rivoluzione francese riesumata, basti a giustificare “il male assoluto” che non potevano sospettare stesse al fondo della mente rettilea ma persistente dell’uomo?
  Abbiamo un bel dire che le nostre radici sono là, in quella grecità di cui, francamente, non sappiamo un bel nulla, aggrappandoci alla parola “democrazia” che per noi ha un significato e per loro ne aveva un altro: era o doveva essere il governo dei nullatenenti: democrazia diretta per giunta ( ma ieri come oggi, tutto veniva annacquato e la compravendita dei voti non l’abbiamo inventata noi. Almeno in questo simili).
  Quella grecità vive nella nostra fantasia: scambiamo l’Iliade per un poema pacifista e non per quello che è: un tripudio della forza, della prepotenza, della violenza, della vendetta, della razzia e dello stupro, tutto legittimo all’epoca . Il valore di un eroe si misurava a numero di morti e a quantità di bottino soprattutto di donne e uomini e bambini. Altro che pacifismo. Achille non è malato di infantilismo quando batte i piedi e chiude i pugnetti perché Agamennone gli ha fregato Briseide. No. È stato ferito nell’onore: è stato umiliato e depredato della sua qualità “di capo”. E quando il buon Ettore fa strage di Danai anche se ormai inermi, non è preso dal raptus. No. Sta facendo il suo mestiere di eroe e di capo, come Achille. Nessun psicologismo in Omero. Ma non era il male assoluto.
  
  E non facciamoci illusioni: la pacifista e obiettrice di coscienza Antigone appartiene a quel mondo arcaico che riconosce e si sottomette alla forza che bilancia con le leggi naturali, scritte da dio, quando questa, la forza la fa fuor dal vasetto. Queste, le naturali, sono diverse da quelle fatte da uomini per regolare i loro rapporti nella polis, o società quando si capisce – o almeno i greci lo capiscono che l’uomo è animale sociale- che soli si muore. Le leggi naturali sono “superiori” perché si appellano all’immutabilità delle cose della natura. La stessa a cui si appellano gli assassini della legge Zan: poiché vediamo che in natura ci sono due sessi, il maschile e il femminile, tutto il resto non solo non esiste ma se pretende riconoscimento che venga esposto almeno al pubblico ludibrio. Suppergiù è questo, magari un po’ stiracchiato. E certo Sofocle, amico e sodale di Pericle non mette in scena l’Antigone per denigrare le leggi Ateniesi ma piuttosto per evidenziare il “caso” che non può risolversi con la coppia sì/no, tanto cara a Socrate.
  
  Quindi sbaglia Socrate, e Platone per lui, ad attribuire alla Legge la qualità di Giustizia. È chiaro che la legalità e la giustizia intesa come bene non siano la stessa cosa. Chi può dire che abbiano agito bene i milioni di tedeschi che dall’oggi al domani- come dice H. Arend in “ Alcune questioni di filosofia morale” - abbiano dismesso i panni di uomini per vestire quelli di buoni cittadini ubbidendo alle nuove leggi naziste?
  E i pochi che la trasgredirono, rischiando la vita, in base a che cosa lo fecero? In nome della “legge morale dentro di te e il cielo stellato sopra di te” di kantiana memoria? Era lo stesso sentimento di Antigone che lei chiamava legge naturale o era “ il non fare agli altri quello che vuoi non sia fatto a te” o” l’ ama il prossimo tuo come te stesso?”. Forse l’unica cosa a cui ci si può aggrappare è la massima di Socrate dell’Apologia: il voler stare bene con se stessi, quando l’io e il me sono concordi. Ma io/me possono stare in pace tutte le volte che non sono in conflitto. E se entrambi scelgono di essere “buoni cittadini” ubbidienti alle leggi quando queste vanno contro “natura”?
  E se mi fossi trovata là, sono sicura che mi sarei comportata come oggi credo che mi comporterei? Sarebbe bastata la fede in qualcosa, dio o ideale, per preservarmi dal fare quello che oggi aborro e mi fa vergognare anche del dubbio?
  
  Mi viene da pensare che quando si affrontano questi terribili dilemmi, siamo ancora in piena tragedia, quella inventata dai greci, dove tutto finiva male perché non poteva trovarsi un compromesso tra bene e male.
  Guarda che possono fare nove paginette. Consigliatissimo.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Sajjad thaier

  
  
  لقد كان للناس أديانهم, وكان لسقراط أثينا.
  
  أن سقراط يتكلم عن أثينا بنوع من الوله الآلهي والعشق الصوفي ولذلك هو عاجز عن رؤية النظام المنخور الذي يسيرها والذي نتج عنه إعدامه.
  يؤمن سقراط أنه شارك في تشكيل أثينا كما هي وقت إعدامه ولذلك عليه تقبل كل ما ينتج عنها بصدر رحب.
  ربما بعد كل شيء يملك سقراط والمعارضين الروس الذي كانوا يخرجون على التلفاز لكي يعترفوا بجرائمهم الوهمية ضد الإتحاد السوفيتي الكثير من العوامل المشتركة.
  
• 
  Росен Григоров

  Продължавам с рубриката „Нощни разсъждения върху Платоновите диалози“, стигаща до Вас с любезното съдействие на няколко бранда шотландско уиски. След „Апология“ иде ред на „Критон“ – друга творба от ранния период на Платон, в който доминиращ е стремежът да бъдат представени възгледите на Сократ (който, както добре знаем, не е оставил писмено наследство) относно етиката (сиреч, философията на морала), общественото устройство, гражданските добродетели и антиконформизма. А, разбира се, от тези диалози могат да се черпят и идеи как елегантно да заявим на масите колко всъщност ги презираме, без да се мърсим с пошли излияния, но това в скоби (които в крайна сметка не поставих, където трябваше).
  
  В „Критон“ близкият приятел на Сократ, който за всеобща изненада носи името Критон, нахълтва в дома на осъдения си на смърт другар (вж. „Апология“), за да му предложи да организира бягството му от Атина и по този начин да избегне наказанието. След размяна на любезности („Сократе, още сега ме послушай и си спаси живота понеже, ако умреш, ще бъда лишен от такъв другар, какъвто никога повече няма да намеря...“), включващи също и вметката колко е сладък Сократ, докато спи, осъденият чудак започва да вкарва Критон в капана на аргументите си защо всъщност няма никакво намерение да бяга от присъдата си.
  
  Аргумент I или „Все ми е тая за мнението на мнозинството“ – след като Критон деликатно намеква на Сократ, че репутацията му ще пострада, ако остави приятеля си да умре, вместо да го спаси, както и че ще е позорно за самия Сократ да изостави семейството си, вместо да избегне смъртта и да продължи да се грижи за него, то нашият осъден се заема с това да разкрие колко некомпетентна е масата, що се отнася до справедливото и доброто, поради липсата на познание. „Следователно – заключава Сократ – съвсем не трябва да ни е грижа какво ще каже мнозинството за нас, но вещият в областта на справедливостта и несправедливостта. Така че, скъпи ми приятелю, ти не ни упътваш правилно, съветвайки ни, че трябва да вземаме под внимание мнението на мнозинството за справедливото, хубавото и доброто и за техните противоположности. Но, разбира се, (...) мнозинството е способно да ни погуби.“
  
  Аргумент II или „Не трябва да ценим най-много живота, но добрия живот“ – по тази линия срещаме познатия ни от „Апология“ Сократ, който е неспособен пред угрозата на смъртта да измени на целия си досегашен живот, на учението си и на самата тъкан на битието си само и само за да удължи съществуването си; това за него би било едно продължително умиране-насред-живота, далеч по-мъчително от еднократната смърт. В тази част от диалога Сократ блестящо разкрива как е безсмислено на злото да се отвръща със зло и на неправдата с неправда – идея, залягаща в основата на хуманистичната мисъл във вековете напред – и именно заради това той не желае да постъпва нечестно, за да се спаси от екзекуцията.
  
  Аргумент III или „Щом живея в тази държава, значи съм приел да изпълнявам нейните закони“ – в заключителната част на произведението Сократ решава да се смили над объркания Критон и си привиква вместо него Законите, с които да проведе въображаем диалог (предполагам от тук Боеций няколко века по-късно е заел идеята за своя трактат „Утешението на философията“, в което пък той води разговор с Философията). Чрез леко крийпи диалога, който се получава, Сократ всъщност иска да внуши на Критон, че на него му липсва основание да не спази повелята на законите, които той доброволно се е съгласил да спазва, живеейки през целия си живот в Атина. В този фрагмент от творбата откриваме наченки на теорията за обществения договор като основа на държавността, която ще се оформи в пълна степен 20 века по-късно в Просвещенската епоха. „Държава, в която присъдите нямат никаква сила, но се лишават от стойност и се унищожават от отделния гражданин, смяташ ли, че може да съществува и да не пропадне?“ - какъв по-добър пример от това за античната представа за върховенството на закона, лаконична изразена, но безкрайно точна.
  
  Сократ е титан, а Платон е величествен. Нямам по-смислено заключение от това, а и стана късно.
  
  
  
• 
  Paul Christensen

  There are those who go against the grain
  (Even if it results in pain),
  And those who conform to the Many.
  
  Socrates goes against the grain,
  Yet submits himself (as he here explains)
  To the punishment willed by the Many.
  
  He could disobey the verdict,
  And flee like a lonesome hermit,
  But thought it would harm the city.
  
  As his nationalism was earnest,
  If the polis wronged his person
  He’d abide, not flee from self-pity.