In its plot, the "Crito" dialogue draws on the continuation of the situations mentioned in "Apology of Socrates", i. e. it represents Socrates as a prisoner under a judge word and awaiting loss of life in jail. The dialogue is a talk between Socrates and his prosperous good friend Crito on justice and injustice, as well as the appropriate respond to injustice.
During the chat, Crito provides quarrels and only Socrates' break free from prison. Corresponding to Crito, he and his friends shouldn't lose their closest good friend, besides people could blame Crito for his unwillingness to save lots of Socrates. Arguing with Crito, Socrates details to the inability of almost all to make some very nice evil or great good, meaning Crito shouldn't be afraid of public opinions. But according to Crito, through the desire to stay in jail, Socrates commits injustice, like the one his enemies do. Socrates thinks that it's not right to reply to the original injustice with injustice and refuses from Crito's offer to finance his escape from jail. This dialogue is an ancient style of the social deal theory of their state.
The answer of Socrates to these quarrels is situated, in his thoughts and opinions, only on "reasonable belief" and fearlessness in front of the all-powerful bulk. The problem of ratio between your views of the majority and the views of wise minority is one of the key topics of "Crito". Socrates argues that it is necessary to follow the opinion of not everyone, but only some, particularly, acceptable people, i. e. reasonable ones, or the view of one who knows what justice is, quite simply, people must follow the truth.
On the other hands, in the "Crito" Socrates does not say exactly who should be trusted in matters of justice, phoning this only "somebody who knows". Considering the value of laws and regulations in the "Crito", we can presume that Socrates relies on "Theaet" primarily. Furthermore, he marks that folks shouldn't just live, but live well, i. e. quite, while Crito's quarrels are founded not on certain requirements of justice, but on the customs of the same unprincipled bulk.
Socrates talks to Crito as if with respect to state regulations. These laws control commitment of marriages, relations in young families, undertaking education and upbringing of people, therefore the laws and regulations for a citizen is even more important than his parents. Could it be acceptable in cases like this to violate them, i. e. , to violate certain requirements of their state and the motherland? The regulations give individuals the right to disobey them, offering those who disapprove those to leave the united states. But those who thought we would stay in the local land experienced thus already dedicated themselves either to follow its regulations as their parents and educators, or impact the laws in case there is their imperfection.
The arguments of personified regulations are perceived by Socrates as indestructible. Therefore, the arguments and persuasions of Crito are useless: Socrates won't escape.
Giving a general diagnosis of Plato's "Crito" based on the proposed analysis, it's important to draw attention to several points.
Plato's Socrates explains the state regulations in their full merger with their state, the state of hawaii - with the modern culture, and the state and world - with all the vital needs of individual citizens. State, population and their regulations only make an effort to achieve the well-being of people, and residents - only to achieve public and state goals. Status laws and regulations, as well as their state and society so are believed by Plato's Socrates as something indigenous for some people, like their homeland or parents.
After all this it is clear that Plato's Socrates can be an unconditional supporter of the traditional Greek polis, which really did not distinguish clearly the state and modern culture, and social condition life and an individual personality were conceived ultimately in total interior and exterior unity; as for socio-political relations, these were perceived like relationships of kinship.
Finally, "Crito" persistently repeats an assertion of the opposition a good and wise truth and the behavior of unprincipled bulk. In a few respects this can be considered aristocratism. However, one should not believe that merger of general and personal preached in the dialogue was the province of the aristocracy only. Clearly, when Plato was writing his "Crito", the process of decomposition of the traditional polis went too much, and the try to make wise almost all through appealing to the previous polis system became something utopian. With this dialogue, Socrates says that he'd argue only based on reason, but he had little or nothing else to do. Therefore, it isn't much the preaching of aristocracy as the unpleasant realizing of the loss of life of the traditional monolithic plan.
In addition, it ought to be marked that the mental charm to the young, strong, sound and growing slave policy in conditions of its collapse actually turned into an effort to revive it, so that the idealism of Socrates and Plato predicated on pure reason, converted into restorative idealism. Surely, "Crito's" idealism is far from objective idealism, because not ideas are taken for an absolute actuality here, but Hades, while Hades is still just mythology, but not logically designed world of ideas.
Generally, in the "Crito", otherwordliness is not inherent for Socrates; he appreciates respectable life, and based on Laws' arguments contrary to the escape from prison, knows justice in the sense of bulk from "Theaet". The leading role is given not to God, and but to the regulations and responsibilities of Socrates as a citizen. In other Plato's dialogues, Socrates is not law-abiding, e. g. in the "Theaet" he grades that philosophers have no idea, nor understand the laws and regulations. Within the "Crito", God is outside the main arguments, but gives depth to them.
