PLATO'S CRITO

[Anonymous No.18197235]

Plato's Crito does not sit well with me.

Is it just because Athenian society was not as complicated, and so there were fewer opportunities of corruption that could produce injustice from the hand of the Laws? If you take an instance such as Derek Chauvin's trial, where there is an angry mob to be appeased, or if there is any opportunity for money or bribes to exchange hands, or immunity for political or corporate reasons, doesn't Crito's premises fall flat? This is considering we are now taking to account the opinion of the masses (which Socrates denounces early on) or the opinion of private interests by proxy of the laws and as such the Laws cease to be concerned with justice, but are no more than a tool of manipulation for earthly interests.

Or is it that so long as the law makers are the experts, then it is unjust to go against the laws? Can this not hold true once the law makers are no longer 'experts'?

[Anonymous No.18197311]

I would help you but I know you just want to talk about /pol/shit so fuck off

[Anonymous No.18197323]

>>18197311
No help me anon, my /pol/ example is just that. That is the frame of reference I am operating on to make connections to the text, but my questions lie outside of /pol/.

[Anonymous No.18197556]

>>18197235
Socrates' argument for cucking to the law is quite contextual. He is being afforded an opportunity to escape death (for a little while, he is an old man) but does not do it because it would mean uprooting himself from the society that raised him and defiling its laws. Being charged on the grounds of impiety and corruption of the youth, such an action might have simply proved the point of the prosecution. He took the noble way out instead of living as an outcast in a foreign city.

If Socrates were alive today he would have no qualms shitposting about how niggers need to be violently restrained by the police and pointing out the corruption in the justice system.

[Anonymous No.18197595]

>>18197311
reddit is your home. Every moment outside of there is also /pol/

[Anonymous No.18197652]

>>18197556
I understand that to be the case. The actual reasons for why Socrates did not escape is not where I see error, but in the logic that Socrates justifies his desire to stay in prison. Why would Plato make a dialogue where Socrates seems to refute himself quite easily, if the law may not be concerned with actual justice but instead interests of the masses. If the dialogue must be made, why use that point as a proponent of following arguments? Is it more just to serve a human system of justice that is prone to error because it is not made by God (or good), only in the semblance of good, or justice itself?

I wondered if this was because there are more instances of such cases in modern times as opposed to when Socrates was alive, and Socrates is saying this as a generality.

[Anonymous No.18197931]

So is Crito a bluepilled dialogue of no moralistic benefit because the Laws are tainted by man's injustice?

It seems as if one should follow the laws set forth until the society one finds oneself living in no longer represents the society they were born in (the Laws raised me), or if there is a moral failing in the Laws themselves. Is there any other reason to disobey the law, then?

Also, it seems as if the idea that the Laws are made by experts would only sit well in an authoritarian government, seeing as the public would otherwise pick the government that picks the judges etc, But now the law presides over a few men's moral tendencies as opposed to the many.