Socrates the Hypocrite Although many of Socrates' admirers could never believe that his arguments contradict themselves, the text of the Apology and Crito gives clear evidence for this conclusion. Specifically, Socrates contradicts himself by emphasizing the importance of obeying the gods in the Apology and then emphasizing the importance of obeying the laws in the Crito. Admirers of Socrates claim that this contradiction does not hold given his views on persuasion. However, this objection does not logically follow given the often-cited, textual evidence. Even if this objection did follow logically, it would not solve the contradiction because even Socrates' views on persuasion contradict each other. Also, the timing of the emergence of Socrates statement about persuasion reveals its mere ad hoc character. There is little contention about the claim that Socrates espouses differing ideas of obedience in the Apology and Crito. Socrates himself distinctively proclaims these ideas. During his defense, Socrates states: "If you said to me in this regard: 'Socrates, we do not believe Anytus now; we acquit you, but only on the condition that you spend no more time on this investigation and do not practice philosophy, and if you are caught doing so you will die,' if, as I say, you were to acquit me on those terms, I would say to you: "Gentlemen of the jury, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy" (29c-d) Socrates here states quite clearly that if his only punishment were prohibition against philosophy he would not follow the jury's mandate (the law). Supposedly he would not follow the law because he chooses to follow the will of the gods instead. Yet, while awaiting his death, Socrates says: "To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leaves one's post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one's city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice." (51b-c) Clearly, Socrates here claims that one must always obey the commands of one's city (the laws). How could anyone possibly claim that these two statements are congruent with each other? Socrates' devotees claim that his views about persuasion make these two statements perfectly agreeable. As the second quote says, one must obey the commands of the city, "or persuade it as to the nature of justice." During his defense, Socrates claims that he will follow the gods' will. The defense is his opportunity to persuade the court. When Socrates states that he must follow the laws, he has already lost in his attempt to persuade the court. So, he gives up his objections and follows the laws of his country as he claimed he should in the Crito. Therefore, some would argue that Socrates' supposed contradiction makes perfect sense within the context of his views on persuasion. The Socratic admirers' reply to the claim that Socrates contradicts himself is not supported by the above-cited text. In the first quote, Socrates says that he would disobey the command of the jury ("I will obey the god rather than you"). This act of disobedience would necessarily occur after his defense and attempt at persuasion. So, assuming that the jury's mandate is law, Socrates himself refutes the objection by saying that he would disobey the law even if he had failed in his opportunity to persuade. Saying that Socrates' view of persuasion makes his statements agreeable does absolutely nothing to untangle Socrates from his contradiction. Furthermore, Socrates' perspective on persuasion could not possibly reconcile his contradictions because even his views on persuasion contradict themselves. In the Apology Socrates speaks of failed instruction and the resulting punishment. While explaining to Meletus that any corruption of the youth was merely accidental, Socrates says: "Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but to get hold of them privately, to instruct them and exhort them." (26b) In this context, instruction is similar enough to persuasion to warrant using the two words interchangeably. Both involve employing a dialogue in an attempt to reform an undesirable behavior. Meletus does not prosecute justly because he never attempts to instruct Socrates; and only after attempts at instruction fail is punishment just in cases of unwilled wrongdoing (for after instruction unwilled wrongdoing necessarily becomes willful wrongdoing). So, if Meletus cannot persuade the one who wrongs unwillingly (Socrates), then only after this failed persuasion is he justified in submitting Socrates to punishment. This view contradicts the view given by Socrates in the Crito. There, it is Socrates who must persuade the one who unwillingly wrongs (the jury in their unjust verdict). After persuasion has failed to change the unjust behavior, punishment is justified. Punishment in this case would call for punishment of the jury and its laws (i.e. having Socrates escape!) Even when Socrates does speak of persuasion in the Apology he contradicts himself. Further evidence demonstrating that the persuasion argument is a mere ad hoc ploy of Socrates' is the fact that it was only spoken of in the Crito. Not once during the entire Apology does Socrates speak of the need to obey the laws if he cannot persuade them (although he does speak of persuasion). Socrates has many opportunities in the Apology to make proclamations about his views on persuasion. Just before the verdict is given, Socrates says, "I do not think it right to supplicate the jury and to be acquitted because of this (begging), but to teach and persuade them." (35c) This is the perfect opportunity for Socrates to proclaim his idea of giving into the law of man after persuasion has failed; yet, he does not take this opportunity. Conveniently, the desired thought is found only in the Crito. If this sort of argument had been a part of Socrates' thought from the beginning, why was it never spoken of? The persuasion objection is merely a last-second device used by Socrates to placate his followers in their concern over his self-contradictions. Socrates is considered by many to be the father of philosophy. Only pagans and devout Socratic admirers would take this to imply that Socrates is an infallible god. God's lead by revelation and command, Socrates led by example. Socrates was a mere man, and men make mistakes. One verbal contradiction does not change anything with regards to Socrates' devotion to virtue and philosophy. If anything, it makes Socrates' story all the more admirable, because it reveals Socrates' humanity. If he were a god, his actions would have been expected, not remarkable. Instead of criticizing Socrates for not being a god, we should praise him for being human.