Near the end of Crito when Socrates is summing up why he really believes he should not escape his imprisonment, I could not help but think that the plight he faced was more or less a secular version of the struggle Paul faces in Philippians 1:23-24 "For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." One of the final statements Socrates makes from the viewpoint of the laws is "Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men."
The parallel that somehow made sense in my mind may turn out to be a little fuzzy, so I will do my best to explain it well. In Crito, when we hear what the law says to Socrates, it appeals to his concept of right and wrong and the concept he mentions throughout the text of listening to the opinions of select experts and wise men rather than the many. Essentially, the law tells him to not attempt to escape and in doing so return "evil for evil" and that it is better for him to die unblemished, remaining innocent. However, I would argue that Socrates places far too little importance on the fact that he will no longer be there for his children. This is where I believe the parallel arises. In the eyes of the law, it would be "far better" for him to go obediently to his undeserved executions, yet "to remain in the flesh is more needful" for his children.
Although this is one of the strongest points of the law that Socrates brings up reasoning that he should stay, I would maintain that choosing to stay was, in the end, a selfish act. Ultimately, he chose to maintain his innocence in the eyes of the obviously flawed law rather than escape and continue to do good for his children by staying alive to raise them.
P.S. I commented on Tinsley's
Socrates is 70 years old at this point, he says. How old do you imagine his children to be?
ReplyDelete-Dr. Schuler