플라톤의 『크리톤』에 대한 분석 = An Analysis of Plato’s Crito

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

My purpose in this paper is to answer several controversial issues regarding the interpretation of the Crito. First, I aim at demonstrating that it is a triangular dialogue among Crito, Socrates and the Laws. In the first half, Crito and Socrates debate on the question of whether Socrates’ escape from the jail can be justified, respectively. But their conceptions of justice are too conflicting to come to a rupture. Then, Socrates conjures up the Laws as if he is a magician. The Laws persuade Socrates not to escape. However, one should note that the speech consists of two parts whose tones are radically different from each other. In the former part, they claim their authorities according to their general theory which is not totally acceptable to me. On that part of speech, Socrates does not show whether he agrees or not, but continues to keep silent. Instead, he asks to Crito whether he agrees on the speech. In the latter part, they try to persuade Socrates as if they are close and intimate friends who understand every aspect of Socrates’ life. After the end of the Laws’ speech, Socrates decides to remain in the jail. I think that Socrates and the Laws cannot be identified. Therefore, the characters of the Crito are three.
Second, I try to answer why Socrates keeps silent on the former part of the Laws’ speech. The reason should be found in the context of the author’s writing. The Crito is known to be one of the early dialogues of Plato, and to be written at the politically dangerous time for Socrates’ schoolmen. Plato must have confronted a dilemma. The dilemma can be escaped if he pursues two conflicting purposes simultaneously; loyal to his teacher as the most ardent and ablest student and reconciling with the Athenian authority to carry on the Socratic school. His solution is to make Socrates silent when the Laws claim their authorities. Silence has a double meaning, and can be construed both affirmatively and negatively. On being construed in an affirmative sense, Socrates and his followers are regarded to be respectful of the Athenian authority, but if not, true Socrates as a social reformer.
Third, I try to clarify why Socrates chooses to die, and what the Crito is about. I do not think he decides to drink the hemlock because he accepts the proposition that one should have moral obligation to obey unjust laws. The best way to explain is to distinguish the acts of morality and those of ethics. Socrates seems to pursue an ethics-oriented way of life. In Foucault’s words, he pursues “an ethics of pleasure” or “an aesthetics of existence.” His decision depends on the deliberation about which way is approximate to the good life for him. I also do not see the Crito provide a general theory of obligation to obey the law, but mainly show why he chooses to die. I think that one should not hope to construct Socrates’ theory of obligation to obey the law out of Apology, Crito, etc. It is in danger of building a nice house out of insufficient materials.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 법철학적 검토의 필요성
• Ⅱ. 크리톤의 전반적인 구조
• Ⅲ. 소크라테스와 크리톤과의 대화
• Ⅳ. 노모스의 주장
• Ⅴ. 결론
• ABSTRACT