That democracy in the Greek culture of the 5th century BCE was qualified is a matter of record. The society valued more republican ideals, in that the individual’s best interests – and freedom – were perceived as inextricably connected to the well-being of collectives, as in family, peers, and the societal structure itself. This then translates to a lack of true individual freedom, a reality challenged by two of the greatest minds of the ancient world. As the following will explore, both Sophocles’s Oedipus and Plato’s Crito present alternative concepts to the Greek democratic ideal, and actually promote individual freedom through indirect, but distinctly powerful, points of view.
Crito: Primary Argument
Plato’s Crito exists, certainly in a general sense, as a Socratic admonition on the dangers of the individual as acting against the will of the state. The work is famously regarded by virtue of the arguments of Socrates, victimized and imprisoned, yet rationally insisting through logic that acting on his own behalf is unjust. His sole obligation or recourse in regard to achieving his freedom lies in acknowledging the good of the law and devising a means to shape that law to accommodate his interests; anything else defies the common good by subverting the law in place to preserve it. This then translates to an abnegation of individual freedom, or at least a perspective unwilling to consider that an individual’s freedom supersedes the interests of the state. It is the primary argument of Crito, however, that a case is made for such individual freedom, and the “victory” of Socrates in no way lessens the insights presented. Ironically, Crito makes a stronger case for individual freedom than for compliance, and ostensibly in opposition to the intent of Socrates and Plato.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Plato and Oedipus Rex".
Plato’s essential point is well made in regard to why considering the impact of opinion is irrelevant to the case. This is true, however, only concerning Crito’s anxiety that the world will consider him weak for not having come to the aid of his friend. Viewed more broadly, Socrates’s dismissal of the opinions of the multitude is in fact strangely lacking in reason. Crito asserts that: “The opinion of the many must be regarded….because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion” (Plato), but Socrates’s response goes only to abstracts of morality; he disregards this because opinion may not create good or evil, is merely thought, and consequently of no importance. This in itself ignores how opinion, when held by a multitude, shapes action and law, so the Socratic dismissal defies logic. Good and evil are, in plain terms, moral concepts frequently put into practice by humanity, and it is then the obligation of the individual to be mindful of how collectives translate them into reality.
This in turn relates to another weakness in Socratic response, or reinforcement of Crito’s primary argument. Socrates’s basic stance is that, in having benefited from the society, he is ethically bound to adhere to its laws, as he expresses the view of the state: “He who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him” (Plato). The crucial flaw here lies in an implied infallibility of the state, or its right to dictate based upon the will of itself as establishing correctness. Unaccountably, Socrates does not consider that, in human affairs, laws evolve as more evolved ideas of what is right are entertained, and these invariably arise from the efforts and voices of individuals. Consequently, Crito actually promotes individual freedom, the persuasiveness of Socrates notwithstanding.
Oedipus: Reduced King
In an indirect but potent way, Sophocles’s Oedipus makes a statement lessening the validity of the state and simultaneously affirming a greater imperative for individual freedom. This is achieved through the dramatic trajectory by which Oedipus as king is reduced to a weak and “mortal” being. From the play’s beginning, it is made clear that all of Thebes reveres their king, and he is completely entrusted with the state’s welfare. When disaster strikes in the form of pestilence, the people turn to Oedipus for salvation and he commits to providing this, through uncovering the truth of the murder of Laius. When, however, it emerges that Oedipus is the villain, something beyond a powerful human tragedy is presented; there is as well the message that vesting power in a single individual is questionable at best, which in turn goes to the greater potentials in place when all individual freedom is permitted. Put another way, Thebes is in dire trouble because only one man is viewed as fit to act to save it, and the fate of an entire society rests on his “freedom” to act.
This is reinforced by how other individuals, even behaving “freely,” are constrained. For example, Teiresius is bold as he tries to inform Oedipus of the truth: “King as thou art, free speech at least is mine/ To make reply; in this I am thy peer” (Sophocles). Nonetheless, relaying the information is all he can do. In the end, only Oedipus enjoys the freedom to act decisively, and this king, reduced by his own tragic fate and flaws, the indirectly affirms how individual freedom must be accorded to all.
Conclusion
If both the Crito and Oedipus support, or take for granted, the rightful force of the state as eclipsing individual freedom, they also undermine this proposition in indirect ways. Plato’s primary argument of the obligation of the individual to act freely is actually more valid than the Socratic argument overwhelming it, just as Oedipus himself represents the danger when one individual dictates the course of a society, which in turn goes to denial of individual freedom for all. Ultimately, Sophocles’s Oedipus and Plato’s Crito expose alternative concepts to the Greek democratic ideal, and in fact promote individual freedom through indirect, but distinctly powerful, points of view.
- Plato. (2009). Crito. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved 23 Aug.2014 from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html
- Sophocles. (2009). Oedipus Tyrannus. Trans. F. Storr. Retrieved 23 Aug. 2014 from http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/oedipus.html
