Exploring Socrates in Plato's Crito

All right, let's talk about the Crito, another dialogue by Plato. First off, Unit 2 is the exam where you really need to make sure to pay attention to the difference between early Plato and middle Plato. Recall early Plato is historical discussions of Socrates, and middle Plato is fictional discussions of Socrates intended to bring about Plato's own philosophy. So if I'm asking about Socrates'philosophy, I'm asking early Plato. And if I'm asking about Plato's philosophy, I'm talking about Middle Plato. In this unit, the Crito is early Plato. So if I'm asking about Socrates, I'm asking about the Crito, whereas Plato's own philosophy is developed in the Youth of Rome. So Crito is early Plato, which means it's a historical dialogue. This is a conversation that happened. And it is right after the Apology in the Apology. Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, denying the gods of Athens. Setting the scene, Crito is giving Socrates the chance to escape. And, of course, Socrates being Socrates is only going to do it if it's the right thing to do. So one thing that you should pay attention to that, I hate to call it cumulative, but it's certainly stuff that can come up in the exam, are some of the themes. of just Socrates being Socrates that we saw both in the Apology and the Cryo. Here we already see one. Well, Socrates isn't going to preserve his own self no matter what. Instead, he is only going to escape if it's the right thing to do. And so again, that's a theme we saw in the Apology. Much easier to outrun death than wickedness. So there's that. Also though, Understanding kind of the action of the dialogue is going to help you remember who says what. Crito is trying to save Socrates'life, and so any argument against the death penalty, etc., is going to be Crito. It's a much simpler dialogue in some senses than the Apology, and we're really going to focus on three main themes. And so, let's get started. What's the first kind of quick attempt? that Crito makes to try to get Socrates to escape is roughly he's going to say, look, the tides have changed. People don't want you to die, Socrates. And so lots of people think you should escape. Therefore, you should escape in argument form. First of all, that's not a very good argument. That was actually on the fallacy list. That's called an appeal to popularity or a bandwagon argument. Well, just the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. We have many instances of that inference being bad. So think of flat earth stuff. But more important, in addition to the fact that that's a bad argument, is Socrates'response. And Socrates'response is to say, wait a minute, I'm not interested in what... popular opinion is. I want to know what the experts think. Now, we have to be careful here. Ultimately, Socrates says, well, it matters what I think, but that's not just, well, because I'm awesome because of Socrates. No, instead, there's an inference here. Whether Socrates should escape or not is a question of right and wrong, and that is it's a question of ethics, which means if I want to know. something about ethics, who should I ask? An ethicist. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. Socrates was an ethicist. And so what he's really saying here is when it comes to whether he should escape or not, we should listen to experts. So again, another theme from the Apology, remember the craftsman, we should listen to experts about expertise. And so first of all, that's enough reason to kind of dump Krydos. points. Well, we don't listen to popular opinion generally, but more importantly, we should pay attention to experts in ethics. Having said that, here's a really interesting question, and if you want to write a discussion response, here's an interesting one. In case you missed it, Socrates just espoused a view that's really unpopular in America right now, that we should, well, first of all, it's generally unpopular that we should listen to experts about their topics. But more importantly, there's a very prevalent belief in the U.S. that ethics is something anybody can do, that we are some, all of our opinions are equally good in ethics. So notice Socrates is bucking that trend there. Imagine if an abortion debate started with, well, I don't have proper training in ethics or really even in biology to comment intelligently on this. And so this is all opinion rather than knowledge or fact. But here's what I think about abortion. How often have you had a conversation in ethics start that way? Never. And so very common belief in the U.S. that Ethics is something lay people can do. Ethics is somehow no different than determining what the weather is outside that anybody can do it. Socrates says no. Ethics is a position that requires expertise. There are people with PhDs in it. He doesn't say that, but there are people with PhDs in it, and we should defer to an expert in ethics in ethical matters. So that's a really interesting dispute, and think of how... And radically, that might affect political, religious, and moral landscapes in the U.S. if Socrates is right, because that's a very different type of position than we start with. So two things. One, is Socrates right? Two, if he is right, what are you going to do about it? That's a really interesting set of questions that I'd love to hear your answer on in the discussion. But let's move on for a minute. The next important question, and I should say disagreement in the Crito dialogue, is what life has value. Crito, of course, is trying to get Socrates out of capital punishment here, so he's going to take a position you hear a lot in the U.S. nowadays, that all life, or at least all human life, has value. What does Socrates say? No, that's not true. Only the good life has value. And so there's another one of these substantive disagreements that still has contemporary moral ramifications. And I'm going to say some more about it, but it's another topic you could write on in the discussion room. First of all, here's an interesting one. Who is espousing the popular opinion there? Believe it or not, it's Socrates. Just saying that good life has value was utterly standard in ancient Greece. This position of... all life has value, even if it's pretty common in the U.S. now, ultimately that kind of comes later with Christianity before anybody espouses that kind of position. So, Crito was the one actually espousing a view that was radical at the time. But, let's talk about it. Whose life has value? First of all, in the sense of capital punishment. So, it's trivially true that everyone's life has value in some sense. What we're asking is, whose life has value to the point that we should not execute even if they've committed a capital crime so situated in the context of capital punishment do you want to say all life has value or not the more extreme position is the all the categorical position is almost always the most good position which means what since we're starting to do a little bit of conceptual analysis here, if you want to say all, that means you got to say it for the hard cases, not just the easy cases. Well, Socrates is an easy case. Of course we shouldn't execute Socrates. But if I want to say we shouldn't execute anybody, take an extreme case and defend that. So as an example, Albert Fish probably has my vote for worst human being of all time. He was a serial killer active in the early 1900s, claims to have killed children in every state. He was also a sadist, a cannibal, and a couple of other things. So he would capture a child, torture them, kill them, eat them, and on one occasion write a detailed letter to the child's parents explaining what he had done to them. He was eventually captured, found guilty, tried, and executed at Sing Sing Prison in New York. So, if you want to say... All life has value to the point that we shouldn't execute anyone. Tell me about Albert Fish. Don't tell me about Socrates. Because that's really, right, we have to resolve the controversy, not the easy cases. Although in some senses, Albert Fish might have been an easy case just because he was so crazy. He clearly should have been not guilty by reason of insanity. But setting that aside, start with the hard cases. If you want to defend that position, which it's fine if you do, or if you want to side with Socrates, what do you think and why? So that was the second major dispute. The third thing that we want to take from the Crito and what we're really going to spend most of our time on, really important concept, might come up again, is the social contract. I told you to Google this before. You read the Crito, hopefully you did. If not, pause here, go Google the social contract and go find it in the Crito, then start up again. So first of all, start really, really big picture. What is the social contract? And this is a question much bigger than the Crito. Roughly speaking, the social contract is the sole basis for legitimate government authority. So stop and think about it for a minute. The government is the only entity that can take away your rights without doing anything wrong. That is, put you in prison, etc. Maybe even execute you. That's a heck of a lot of power. Where does that power come from? Where does the government get its authority? And answering that question is really important because if we don't answer that... then we can't answer what duties we have to the government. If the government is a legitimate authority, that means we're going to have to treat with it very differently than if it's an illegitimate authority. So big, big, big picture. Social contract is the most defensible answer for where does government authority come from? And interestingly enough, as far as I know, the Crito is the first statement of the social contract. The idea was around in ancient Greece. Then it disappeared for almost 2,000 years, and then it appeared again in early modern Europe. Now, why is that the case? Because in between those times, people tried to say the authority of government came from God. After that argument fell apart, they needed to figure out where government authority really comes from. The answer seems to be the social contract. So, this is as big a picture and as important as you could get. Any... philosophical discussion which should be most discussions about government what the government should be doing what the government uh government should not be doing what policies should be enacted etc probably going to have to trace back to say something about the social so that's thing one that's why it matters and notice socrates is going to do conceptual analysis well what uh about the social contract to figure out what what do i owe to the government in order to figure out if it's okay or not for him to leave. That is whether it's okay for him to break a bad law or avoid punishment for a bad law. Second thing, it's a contract so don't overthink it. In any contract there's two entities and in one contract the one party gives what the other party gets and vice versa. So think of if you have taken out an automobile loan. Well, who's that between? The bank and you. Each gives what the other gets. The bank gives you a big blob of money now, and that's what you get. And then in return, you give the bank small chunks of money plus interest on an agreed-upon schedule. That's what you give, and that's what the bank gets. It's a contract. So, in order to fully understand the social contract, first of all, who's it between? Socrates talks about it between himself and the laws, and you might want to look at that passage again. But more generally, any social contract is between the state and the citizen. The state's a little bit of an abstract. It's not talking about a specific individual in government. It's talking about the government. So between the state and the citizen, each gives what the other gets. And Socrates is quite clear about this. What does the state give you? Think about in contemporary U.S., what does the state give you? Quite a lot. So there's a lot of things we could say, but it really sorts into three main areas. Area number one, protection. The state protects you internally with policing and externally with military. Second big thing the state gives you, education. You get free K-12 and then deeply, deeply discounted college education for as long as you want it, in case you want to know what the S in KSU stands for. It's because the state's paying most of your tuition. The third thing is all that other stuff. Well think about roads and power lines and subsidized natural gas and electricity, etc. And FDA making sure you don't consume poisonous stuff. And all of that, all of those kind of things are lumped under this third category, which we might call infrastructure. And so the state gives us protection, education, infrastructure. What's really cool is the last two are kind of cumulative. Those investments are always returned. And infrastructure builds over time. So in the U.S. just being born in the U.S. with the current and extended infrastructure, it's like someone handing you a check for 1.7 million dollars. There you go. Those figures are based on, roughly speaking, how difficult it would be to build your own roads and your own resources of power and all these other things. But it's pretty cool. So that's what the government gives you. And what does it get? What do you have to give the government? One thing and only one thing. Everything else you owe the government falls under that one thing. What is the one thing? Follow the laws. If you're one who has to pay taxes, that's part of following the laws. If you're one who has to do military service, that's part of following the laws. So the government will never ask you anything except obedience to the law. So far, so good. But Athens was a democracy, like the U.S. Yes, the Republic, but anyway. And so there's kind of these two sweeteners, and they have to do with, well, what happens if you don't like the laws? Socrates says, look, you can do two things. One, you can exit the contract. That is, you can just leave. You can collect all your stuff and go. And since you're living in the first world, you might not realize what a big deal that is. There's a lot of countries where you can't take your stuff with you if you flee. So. No roadblocks will be thrown up. If you don't like the contract, you can go. The second kind of sweetener, if you don't like the contract, remember you can change the laws. Athens is a democracy. If you want to change the laws, you state your case, you get people behind it, you make a vote. The US, something similar, except you go pester your congressperson instead. Always pester your congresspeople, by the way. Be an active member. And so that's a pretty sweet deal. So now here's what you might call Socrates'argument. So first of all, Socrates is going to argue that there's a contract in place. Why think that? First of all, did the state uphold its end of the contract? Yes. Did the state give Socrates protection? Yep. Did the state give Socrates education? Yep. Did the state give... Socrates the infrastructure. Yep. Was there anything illegal about the trial? Nope. So that was probably not as important. But so first of all, the state upheld its end of the contract. But further, before his point of incarceration, did Socrates ever try to leave? No. Did he ever try to change the law? No. Even though he knew it was kind of a bad law and this kind of thing was going to happen. So. What that means, the fact that Socrates didn't try to escape the contract by leaving, and he didn't try to change the law democratically, those two together implicitly show that he accepts the terms of the contract. So Socrates accepts the terms of the contract, and the government fulfilled its end of the contract, which means, quite simply, Socrates has to uphold his end. And this isn't about law, this is actually about morality. This is about right and wrong. Because Socrates accepted the terms and because the government upheld its end, it would be morally wrong, not just illegal, wrong for Socrates to not uphold its end. It's no different than borrowing $20,000 from somebody and saying, no, I'm not going to pay it. It's wrong. You said you would, you accepted the terms. they upheld their end, you are morally obligated to uphold your right. And so there, in a nutshell, is Socrates'argument. But notice it comes through conceptual analysis. What is a social contract? How does that inform my actions? And that's a really important thing to take out of the Crito. It might come up again. So that's all I have to say for the... the Crito, but again, there's some really interesting topics. I expect a lively discussion board here. Is ethics something that we should defer to experts on? Should we try to preserve all life and not capital punishment anyone for moral reasons, financial reasons, etc. And thirdly, is Socrates right about the social contract and his employing of the social contract or should he have escaped for some reason? Those are great things to talk about. Love to hear your thoughts. The next video will be another logic one because we're, now that we've warmed up to conceptual analysis a little, we're going to learn some formal tricks and tests that will help us get a little better on certain concepts. Mickey out.

In this unit, the Crito is early Plato. So if I'm asking about Socrates, I'm asking about the Crito, whereas Plato's own philosophy is developed in the Youth of Rome. So Crito is early Plato, which means it's a historical dialogue.

This is a conversation that happened. And it is right after the Apology in the Apology. Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, denying the gods of Athens. Setting the scene, Crito is giving Socrates the chance to escape. And, of course, Socrates being Socrates is only going to do it if it's the right thing to do.

So one thing that you should pay attention to that, I hate to call it cumulative, but it's certainly stuff that can come up in the exam, are some of the themes. of just Socrates being Socrates that we saw both in the Apology and the Cryo. Here we already see one. Well, Socrates isn't going to preserve his own self no matter what.

Instead, he is only going to escape if it's the right thing to do. And so again, that's a theme we saw in the Apology. Much easier to outrun death than wickedness.

So there's that. Also though, Understanding kind of the action of the dialogue is going to help you remember who says what. Crito is trying to save Socrates'life, and so any argument against the death penalty, etc., is going to be Crito.

It's a much simpler dialogue in some senses than the Apology, and we're really going to focus on three main themes. And so, let's get started. What's the first kind of quick attempt?

that Crito makes to try to get Socrates to escape is roughly he's going to say, look, the tides have changed. People don't want you to die, Socrates. And so lots of people think you should escape.

Therefore, you should escape in argument form. First of all, that's not a very good argument. That was actually on the fallacy list. That's called an appeal to popularity or a bandwagon argument.

Well, just the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. We have many instances of that inference being bad. So think of flat earth stuff. But more important, in addition to the fact that that's a bad argument, is Socrates'response. And Socrates'response is to say, wait a minute, I'm not interested in what...

popular opinion is. I want to know what the experts think. Now, we have to be careful here. Ultimately, Socrates says, well, it matters what I think, but that's not just, well, because I'm awesome because of Socrates. No, instead, there's an inference here.

Whether Socrates should escape or not is a question of right and wrong, and that is it's a question of ethics, which means if I want to know. something about ethics, who should I ask? An ethicist. Ethics is a branch of philosophy.

Socrates was an ethicist. And so what he's really saying here is when it comes to whether he should escape or not, we should listen to experts. So again, another theme from the Apology, remember the craftsman, we should listen to experts about expertise.

And so first of all, that's enough reason to kind of dump Krydos. points. Well, we don't listen to popular opinion generally, but more importantly, we should pay attention to experts in ethics. Having said that, here's a really interesting question, and if you want to write a discussion response, here's an interesting one.

In case you missed it, Socrates just espoused a view that's really unpopular in America right now, that we should, well, first of all, it's generally unpopular that we should listen to experts about their topics. But more importantly, there's a very prevalent belief in the U.S. that ethics is something anybody can do, that we are some, all of our opinions are equally good in ethics. So notice Socrates is bucking that trend there.

Imagine if an abortion debate started with, well, I don't have proper training in ethics or really even in biology to comment intelligently on this. And so this is all opinion rather than knowledge or fact. But here's what I think about abortion. How often have you had a conversation in ethics start that way? Never.

And so very common belief in the U.S. that Ethics is something lay people can do. Ethics is somehow no different than determining what the weather is outside that anybody can do it. Socrates says no.

Ethics is a position that requires expertise. There are people with PhDs in it. He doesn't say that, but there are people with PhDs in it, and we should defer to an expert in ethics in ethical matters.

So that's a really interesting dispute, and think of how... And radically, that might affect political, religious, and moral landscapes in the U.S. if Socrates is right, because that's a very different type of position than we start with. So two things.

One, is Socrates right? Two, if he is right, what are you going to do about it? That's a really interesting set of questions that I'd love to hear your answer on in the discussion.

But let's move on for a minute. The next important question, and I should say disagreement in the Crito dialogue, is what life has value. Crito, of course, is trying to get Socrates out of capital punishment here, so he's going to take a position you hear a lot in the U.S. nowadays, that all life, or at least all human life, has value. What does Socrates say? No, that's not true.

Only the good life has value. And so there's another one of these substantive disagreements that still has contemporary moral ramifications. And I'm going to say some more about it, but it's another topic you could write on in the discussion room. First of all, here's an interesting one.

Who is espousing the popular opinion there? Believe it or not, it's Socrates. Just saying that good life has value was utterly standard in ancient Greece.

This position of... all life has value, even if it's pretty common in the U.S. now, ultimately that kind of comes later with Christianity before anybody espouses that kind of position. So, Crito was the one actually espousing a view that was radical at the time.

But, let's talk about it. Whose life has value? First of all, in the sense of capital punishment.

So, it's trivially true that everyone's life has value in some sense. What we're asking is, whose life has value to the point that we should not execute even if they've committed a capital crime so situated in the context of capital punishment do you want to say all life has value or not the more extreme position is the all the categorical position is almost always the most good position which means what since we're starting to do a little bit of conceptual analysis here, if you want to say all, that means you got to say it for the hard cases, not just the easy cases. Well, Socrates is an easy case. Of course we shouldn't execute Socrates.

But if I want to say we shouldn't execute anybody, take an extreme case and defend that. So as an example, Albert Fish probably has my vote for worst human being of all time. He was a serial killer active in the early 1900s, claims to have killed children in every state.

He was also a sadist, a cannibal, and a couple of other things. So he would capture a child, torture them, kill them, eat them, and on one occasion write a detailed letter to the child's parents explaining what he had done to them. He was eventually captured, found guilty, tried, and executed at Sing Sing Prison in New York.

So, if you want to say... All life has value to the point that we shouldn't execute anyone. Tell me about Albert Fish.

Don't tell me about Socrates. Because that's really, right, we have to resolve the controversy, not the easy cases. Although in some senses, Albert Fish might have been an easy case just because he was so crazy. He clearly should have been not guilty by reason of insanity. But setting that aside, start with the hard cases.

If you want to defend that position, which it's fine if you do, or if you want to side with Socrates, what do you think and why? So that was the second major dispute. The third thing that we want to take from the Crito and what we're really going to spend most of our time on, really important concept, might come up again, is the social contract.

I told you to Google this before. You read the Crito, hopefully you did. If not, pause here, go Google the social contract and go find it in the Crito, then start up again.

So first of all, start really, really big picture. What is the social contract? And this is a question much bigger than the Crito. Roughly speaking, the social contract is the sole basis for legitimate government authority. So stop and think about it for a minute.

The government is the only entity that can take away your rights without doing anything wrong. That is, put you in prison, etc. Maybe even execute you. That's a heck of a lot of power.

Where does that power come from? Where does the government get its authority? And answering that question is really important because if we don't answer that...

then we can't answer what duties we have to the government. If the government is a legitimate authority, that means we're going to have to treat with it very differently than if it's an illegitimate authority. So big, big, big picture. Social contract is the most defensible answer for where does government authority come from? And interestingly enough, as far as I know, the Crito is the first statement of the social contract.

The idea was around in ancient Greece. Then it disappeared for almost 2,000 years, and then it appeared again in early modern Europe. Now, why is that the case?

Because in between those times, people tried to say the authority of government came from God. After that argument fell apart, they needed to figure out where government authority really comes from. The answer seems to be the social contract.

So, this is as big a picture and as important as you could get. Any... philosophical discussion which should be most discussions about government what the government should be doing what the government uh government should not be doing what policies should be enacted etc probably going to have to trace back to say something about the social so that's thing one that's why it matters and notice socrates is going to do conceptual analysis well what uh about the social contract to figure out what what do i owe to the government in order to figure out if it's okay or not for him to leave.

That is whether it's okay for him to break a bad law or avoid punishment for a bad law. Second thing, it's a contract so don't overthink it. In any contract there's two entities and in one contract the one party gives what the other party gets and vice versa. So think of if you have taken out an automobile loan.

Well, who's that between? The bank and you. Each gives what the other gets. The bank gives you a big blob of money now, and that's what you get.

And then in return, you give the bank small chunks of money plus interest on an agreed-upon schedule. That's what you give, and that's what the bank gets. It's a contract.

So, in order to fully understand the social contract, first of all, who's it between? Socrates talks about it between himself and the laws, and you might want to look at that passage again. But more generally, any social contract is between the state and the citizen. The state's a little bit of an abstract. It's not talking about a specific individual in government.

It's talking about the government. So between the state and the citizen, each gives what the other gets. And Socrates is quite clear about this.

What does the state give you? Think about in contemporary U.S., what does the state give you? Quite a lot.

So there's a lot of things we could say, but it really sorts into three main areas. Area number one, protection. The state protects you internally with policing and externally with military. Second big thing the state gives you, education.

You get free K-12 and then deeply, deeply discounted college education for as long as you want it, in case you want to know what the S in KSU stands for. It's because the state's paying most of your tuition. The third thing is all that other stuff. Well think about roads and power lines and subsidized natural gas and electricity, etc.

And FDA making sure you don't consume poisonous stuff. And all of that, all of those kind of things are lumped under this third category, which we might call infrastructure. And so the state gives us protection, education, infrastructure.

What's really cool is the last two are kind of cumulative. Those investments are always returned. And infrastructure builds over time.

So in the U.S. just being born in the U.S. with the current and extended infrastructure, it's like someone handing you a check for 1.7 million dollars. There you go. Those figures are based on, roughly speaking, how difficult it would be to build your own roads and your own resources of power and all these other things. But it's pretty cool.

So that's what the government gives you. And what does it get? What do you have to give the government?

One thing and only one thing. Everything else you owe the government falls under that one thing. What is the one thing?

Follow the laws. If you're one who has to pay taxes, that's part of following the laws. If you're one who has to do military service, that's part of following the laws. So the government will never ask you anything except obedience to the law.

So far, so good. But Athens was a democracy, like the U.S. Yes, the Republic, but anyway. And so there's kind of these two sweeteners, and they have to do with, well, what happens if you don't like the laws? Socrates says, look, you can do two things.

One, you can exit the contract. That is, you can just leave. You can collect all your stuff and go.

And since you're living in the first world, you might not realize what a big deal that is. There's a lot of countries where you can't take your stuff with you if you flee. So.

No roadblocks will be thrown up. If you don't like the contract, you can go. The second kind of sweetener, if you don't like the contract, remember you can change the laws.

Athens is a democracy. If you want to change the laws, you state your case, you get people behind it, you make a vote. The US, something similar, except you go pester your congressperson instead.

Always pester your congresspeople, by the way. Be an active member. And so that's a pretty sweet deal. So now here's what you might call Socrates'argument. So first of all, Socrates is going to argue that there's a contract in place.

Why think that? First of all, did the state uphold its end of the contract? Yes.

Did the state give Socrates protection? Yep. Did the state give Socrates education? Yep. Did the state give...

Socrates the infrastructure. Yep. Was there anything illegal about the trial?

Nope. So that was probably not as important. But so first of all, the state upheld its end of the contract. But further, before his point of incarceration, did Socrates ever try to leave? No.

Did he ever try to change the law? No. Even though he knew it was kind of a bad law and this kind of thing was going to happen. So. What that means, the fact that Socrates didn't try to escape the contract by leaving, and he didn't try to change the law democratically, those two together implicitly show that he accepts the terms of the contract.

So Socrates accepts the terms of the contract, and the government fulfilled its end of the contract, which means, quite simply, Socrates has to uphold his end. And this isn't about law, this is actually about morality. This is about right and wrong. Because Socrates accepted the terms and because the government upheld its end, it would be morally wrong, not just illegal, wrong for Socrates to not uphold its end.

It's no different than borrowing $20,000 from somebody and saying, no, I'm not going to pay it. It's wrong. You said you would, you accepted the terms.

they upheld their end, you are morally obligated to uphold your right. And so there, in a nutshell, is Socrates'argument. But notice it comes through conceptual analysis. What is a social contract? How does that inform my actions?

And that's a really important thing to take out of the Crito. It might come up again. So that's all I have to say for the...

the Crito, but again, there's some really interesting topics. I expect a lively discussion board here. Is ethics something that we should defer to experts on? Should we try to preserve all life and not capital punishment anyone for moral reasons, financial reasons, etc.

And thirdly, is Socrates right about the social contract and his employing of the social contract or should he have escaped for some reason? Those are great things to talk about. Love to hear your thoughts. The next video will be another logic one because we're, now that we've warmed up to conceptual analysis a little, we're going to learn some formal tricks and tests that will help us get a little better on certain concepts. Mickey out.

Transcript for:Exploring Socrates in Plato's Crito

Transcript for:
Exploring Socrates in Plato's Crito