ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

So, I read both sections of the book, and in the “Apology,” Socrates perplexes his audience by defending himself, instead of personally atoning for all that he is convicted with in his indictment.  There aren’t really words that I definitionally did not know about, however I thought certain words held certain significant value in their use.  A word that I thought was particularly noteworthy in this section is “pious.”  (e.g., 37d)  There was a lot of reference made to this word in specific in the earlier passage regarding Socrates conversation with one of the guards, Euthypro.  The word is often affiliated with what is called “piety,” which is defined as a sense of moral duty.  What’s really perplexing is it’s use and function in the passage “the apology,” because in the quote “do not deem it right for me, men of Athens, that I should act towards you in a way that I do not consider to be good or just or pious, especially, by Zeus..” pious stems from the very whim of the gods, and thus utterly arbitrary.  Even though this word was primarily used in the Euthypro part of the book, it still raises concern to Socrates and him trying to defend himself to the public.  This plays a large part in the analogy he puts together with the horse and the flea, because the people are blindly doing without reflecting, and thus not maintaining Socrates pertinent value of devotion to truth.

In Crito, Socrates accepts the punishment.  He must obey the law in “crito.”  He has a choice to break out with Crito, but he doesn’t.  Socrates explicitly believes that he is unjustly convicted, however he must abide, and respect it, because in the minds of the public he is addressing, he cannot be seen as an outlaw, it goes against his very moral fabric.  This question of moral duty is held consistently conscious by Socrates the whole way through to his death.  A specific phrase that exemplifies my point above is “it is wrong to disobey that state.” (e.g., 52e)  This raises concern with difference in role and purpose between the state and the individual.  From Socrates submitting to the state, he must abide by the rules of the social contract that he tacitly consented to.  He choose to live in the state of Athens, and by doing so, he must give in certain rights, even ones that we might deem inalienable, to receive benefits of the state.  Which he explicitly acknowledged and thus explicitly reaffirmed his consent.  (See John Locke for social contract)  I feel like Socrates did the honorable thing, it was in his very essence and he acted true to himself until the very end.  Also, legally, it was correct.  Even if the state is abusive, it is the job of the people to recognize and change.  Socrates escape would do nothing but backtrack progress to rally public support and confidence in reflecting and checking the government.  That’s all I got.

Alexander Thi-hung Ong.