Socrates contradicts himself. On the one hand, in the Apology, he argues that he will not
give up philosophy even if commanded to by the city. On the other, in the Crito, he argues
that every citizen must obey every command of the state. So, in the former, he says that he
is ready to disobey in the state, while, in the latter, he says that no one (including himself)
must ever disobey the state. Since it is irrational to believe a contradiction, one of the two
views has got to go. Which do you think is the one that is least convincing?
(i) Clearly explain the arguments Socrates offers in defense of both views — that is, in
whichever order, explain the arguments in defense of Socratic defiance, and explain the
arguments in defense of Socratic obedience. (ii) State which of the two views (viz.,
disobedience, obedience) you find least convincing, and justify why you think so.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|