Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
By including what immortality covers the argument makes sense talking about nonliving things and living things. As stated before, for nonliving things the argument would not would very well. I think just by including premise number two the argument became stronger and is now valid. In the Republic Socrates’ explained how injustice and other vices are bad for a soul, so I do not believe an argument could be made against how they could not destroy the soul. I think adding this premise makes the argument valid and sound.
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
Based on Plato’s theory, knowledge allows people to use this definition to base their ethics and pursue “the Good” through practice. As in the metaphor of the story, the man who has been exposed to the light feels remorse when he thinks of the people in the cave living their lives among the dark so he returns to them to spread the truth of light. While they seem to be harsh towards his beliefs, the people wish to exile him for speaking things of such a foolish nature. The knowledgeable man understands the disparity
To reiterate, the differences are as follows: where Aristotle sees politics being exercised to achieve the end of the good life, Machiavelli sees politics as a means to achieving glory; and where Aristotle sees human nature as innately virtuous through the disposition of the soul, Machiavelli sees human nature as intrinsically selfish and self-interested. Their similarities are hidden under the veil of the paradigms of each work. The first similarity lies in the necessity of opposing groups being content with their political leaders. For Aristotle, so long as the leaders aim towards the good life, the others ought to and will be content with their rule. For Machiavelli, the Prince relies on his people being content with him as they have the power to overthrow him when they feel as though he no longer protects them (39).
On that note, Socrates believes that virtue is a general form (eidos), meaning that there is a pattern (Plato 50). Although the two characters are both from esteemed backgrounds, unlike Meno, Socrates claims to know nothing and therefore is aware of his own ignorance. However, Socrates does know that virtue is like a recollection (anamnesis) of knowledge (Plato 49). In other words, virtue cannot come from instructions (as we learned that there are no teachers of virtue), but from an innate understanding of the soul (Plato
Thrasymachus’ View of the Nature of Justice In the Republic by Plato, Thrasymachus argues that justice is what the strongest define it as in order to benefit themselves. Thrasymachus is skeptical of commonly-held views of justice because he believes that a just person receives less and is unhappier than one who is unjust. According to Thrasymachus’ view, people should act unjustly, but have the reputation of one who is just. I agree partly with Thrasymachus’ view of justice because justice is often the way he describes it as “the advantage of the stronger,” but that does not mean that is how it ought to be (338c).
The question of whether Socrates was the only real philosopher comes from one interpretation of Plato’s writings, namely Apology. Written after Socrates was tainted with the sophistic brush, scorned by society and brought to trial. In this interpretation, it is believed that Plato derided all sophists and recognised Socrates as the only real philosopher among his contemporaries, and knew of no other who could be considered as such. I however, argue that Plato never regarded, nor defended, Socrates as the only real philosopher. Rather, he presented Socrates as one of the many ‘real’ philosophers.
Justice is characteristically thought of being good for society and virtuous to be just. In Plato’s Republic, he deliberates through Socrates and Glaucon whether justice is good for the soul. In the beginning, Glaucon believes that justice is not a natural function of the soul. However, Socrates is able to convince Glaucon that justice is a part of the soul that is good for humans using the function argument and examples. Socrates describes function as something an object can perform, while virtue allows the object to perform its function well.
Socrates presented justice as a way for a better life through the steps that can take someone there. He mentioned the steps as wisdom, courage, and moderation. He stated that these things will lead to justice, however he did not define what justice is. Socrates might have never known himself and wasn’t serious about defining the word. They stat that “after having considered moderation, courage, and prudence, this is what’s left over in the city, justice” (Bloom 111; 433c).
Plato Plato makes many arguments in the Meno and the Phaedo. Some of his arguments are for the preexistence of a soul and that knowledge is gained as a result from recollection. Using the Cyclical argument, he says essentially that everything comes from their opposite state so the soul of a living must be a soul from someone who has died. The second argument is for Recollection and it claims that since we are able to see a lack of a given “thing”, then we must have a prior knowledge of what that “thing” should be. Closing with the Affinity Argument, it is reasoned that since there are two worlds; the changing world of our perception and the static world of the Forms; and the soul is more like that latter, than the soul must return to the world of Forms upon death.
Plato expresses his personal convictions and beliefs through the dialogues of his teacher, Socrates. Through the dialogue Phaedo, Plato presents four different arguments that he felt supported his idea of the soul being immortal, and that we will live on after the body no longer exists in the physical world. The four arguments that Plato lays out in the Phaedo are the argument of Opposites, Recollection, Affinity, and the final argument of The Forms. These arguments have been analyzed throughout the ages, receiving not only praise, but at times, criticism for seeming insufficient and weak. The strongest arguments for the immortality of the soul presented by Plato are the arguments of Affinity and The Forms.
The Ancient-modern debate involves two main tenets and philosophers Boethius and Niccolo Machiavelli and both have extremely different and even contradictory views of politics and whether morality comes into play and how. Boethius covers the classical side of the debate where he gets some of his ideas from other philosophers in the classical rea like Plato and Socrates. Niccolo Machiavelli covers the modern aspect of the debate. Both speak on similar themes like the conception of happiness, the role of “Lady Fortuna” or Fortune and politics. The ancient or classical view of in the Ancient modern debate of human nature is that humans are naturally good and naturally political.