"integrity, institutions and laws, are the most precious possessions of mankind." Another statement by Socrates. But all of these things still need to be defined. And if they are defined, who defines them? and for what purpose do they serve? One mans opinion of integrity may differ from another mans opinion. So then who holds more integrity? I feel that Socrates almost gives up by accepting his support in laws, but never truly questions who made the laws. And what purpose do they truly serve if it is correlated with what is Holy and what is not Holy? I feel there were many more questions Socrates failed to ask that could have helped his cause, and instead he took the easy road by claiming "one must not do wrong when he is wronged." Socrates relies on his reason to make decisions. The truth for anything or the answerer to anything for him is discovered through reason. So my last questions for the reading of Crito is what is the relation between reason and truth? Is reason our only way of discovering what is true?
At the beginning of the play Antigone and Ismene talk about how bad the Gods have been to their family. "You and I are left to pay the final penalty to Zeus for Oedipus." Right from the start one learns that the family has a lot of problems, to say the least. If you look at the family tree that is in the first couple pages of the play you get an understanding of who is who and what the discussions are about early on. Ismene and Antigone discuss how Creon supports the proper burial of one of the brothers and not the other. "Give him to the vultures, unwept, unburied..." The two brothers Eteocles and Polyneices killed each other in battle. The big argument between the two sisters is about if they betray Creon will they fall into sadness as the rest of their family? And if they avoid betraying Creon will they avoid a deadly fate unlike the rest of their family? Antigone argues that the laws of God are stronger than the laws of the land. So she insists she will give her brother a proper burial. The sisters eventually depart as Antigone follows her beliefs on her brothers proper burial while Ismene remains faithful to Creon mainly out of fear.
3 comments:
By saying that you naturally want revenge on someone who wronged you, aren’t you agreeing with Socrates quote? You contradict yourself when you say he is ignorant and then proceed to claim you would want revenge if you were wronged. Socrates point by saying this is that UNLIKE the natural course, one must not even do wrong when one is wronged.
Sorry to play devil’s advocate, but I’m also going to have to disagree with your point that Socrates is useless when he is dead. After all, if Socrates escaped to keep teaching his philosophy, he would be contradicting what he believes for. He feels that he could not keep “teaching” if he paid to escape prison because that would be against his philosophy, and he would therefore be hypocritical to keep preaching it. By dying for what he believes, he is holding all of his arguments and values up to par. To make a point, this entire novel probably wouldn’t have been written if Socrates had not died for his belief, which therefore makes his death even more valuable since we are, in fact, learning about his teachings in class.
Nick, you make some interesting points in your second paragraph. Socrates says that "Integrity, institution, and laws are the most precious possessions of mankind." While it's true that these things are different for different individuals, this does not contradict Socrates' statement.
One can still say that a certain person's definition of integrity, no matter what that definition may be, is his most precious possession. More specifically, the moral principals that a person lives his life by, no matter what those principals may be, are his most important possessions. The same can be said about institution and laws.
Who defines them? Every single individual. Again, it does not matter that they will all have their own distinct definitions. What matters is that they are the most important things to them, and thus, they must be careful in how they define them. Reading this, one may ask 'So then, if everyone defines them differently, how do we determine what they really are?'
I would answer that by saying that there is no universal definition. It's differs from person to person.
As to who holds more integrity, that is in the eye of the beholder. Still, I don't see how this contradicts what Socrates said.
I don't think that Socrates gives up by supporting the laws, because, really, what did he give up? The most important things to him were justice and the laws. In fact, his search for wisdom was based in them. In addition, I don't think it matters to Socrates who made the Laws, so long as they are just. There is also the fact that he owes his life to them.
To the Greeks, Holy and Unholy mean right and wrong, respectively. So basically, your next question becomes 'what purpose do the laws truly serve if they are correlated with what is right and wrong?' The answer to that should be obvious.
Finally, I think that reason is the means for discovering truth. In order for something to be true, it has to make sense.
Besides reason, the truth may also be discovered by chance. To explain further, I must define truth as being a fact that corresponds with reality. By chance, I am referring to things such as the apple that fell on Newton's head. Thus, the existence of gravity is one of those truths that was discovered without reason.
Thanks for the post, Nick.
Some questions:
1) Like Andrea, I'm confused if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Socrates. I suspect the latter, but I wonder what the grounds are for believing that this is right. Is it because this is "natural"?
2) Does he claim the public is ignorant? Hasn't he tried to change that?
3) Has he shown that the holy can't be defined, or merely that Euthyphro's definition is incoherent? Are the just and the holy the same thing? If so, why do you think so?
4) What is your critique of Socrates? This is not totally clear to me. Is it that he has not explained the source of the law? Does he think that he needs to?
5) I have to disagree with your characterization of the dispute between Ismene and Antigone: they are trying to figure out what to do, and it is not a matter of their happiness, but of what the law demands.
6) Does Antigone say that the laws of the gods are stronger than those of humankind?
Interesting points, many of which could do with a great deal more clarity.
Post a Comment