Socrates allows Thrasymachus to entertain his ideas in a public setting, but questions his position on the fallibility and infallibility of rulers. Thrasymachus is in favor of the strong ruling as opposed to the weak, while Socrates believes that those with the proper knowledge and capabilities should rule over the general population. Through asking the correct questions, Socrates was able to deconstruct the argument that Thrasymachus believed was untouchable. Thrasymachus could have answered Socrates in a more successful way by putting more thought into his answers, and by treating Socrates with more respect. Due to Thrasymachus’ incapability of completing the aforementioned, Socrates has the stronger argument because he demonstrates that
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for
Justice is derived from the root word just, meaning agreeing to what is considered morally right or good; treating people in a way that is morally right; or reasonable or proper. However, society has become so entangled up in the power which certain individuals possess, they forget all about what is “just”. The justice theory is that justice is at the advantage of the stronger. When an individual is described or depicted as being “strong”, that individual is typically of a larger build, possesses some sort of weapon that causes them to be mighty, and is typically large in size. No matter what circumstances arise, these individuals are expected to be victorious in each battle they fight. The justice theory states that justice is at the advantage of the stronger; however, there have been cases where even the strongest have been defeated. Take Ovid’s Apollo and Daphne for example, or from a biblical perspective, the Book of Judges, or even Elie Wiesel’s novel Night. These writings each
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best. His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point.
The Republic, by Plato provides us with four different definitions of justice which are given by the four characters Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. According to Cephalus, the definition of justice includes the laws and repaying one’s creditors. Socrates doesnot agree to the idea that of repayment of creditors as always to be a good idea. The second person to define Justice was Polymarchus, the son of Cephalus. In his opinion, justice is defined as helping your friends and harming your rivals. Socrates say’s this cannot be true because most of the people in this world make mistakes in judging who the real friends are and who the enemies are. Thrasymachus’s impression of justice is that the stronger person decides what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice raises two questions which needed clarification. First question is what exactly
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends. Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,
In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life.
Callicles states that in most cases nature and convention oppose each other, something that is shameful in nature may be okay in convention and vice sera (482e-a). Callicles states that laws are conventions made by the weak or the majority to prevent the strong from being able to take advantage of them (483b-c). This leading into natural the strong rule over the weak which is what he later calls the natural justice (483c-484a). A man that is strong will break past the conventional restraints and rule over the weak. Callicles shows that convention is made by the people while nature is the ultimate outcome or what is truly right. Callicles believes that the naturally strong can do at they wish because they are able to get away with it (484a-b). Socrates refutes these claims by saying that the stronger are the mightier and the mightiest are the many (488c-d). Meaning that the stronger are the ones that make the laws so by nature the strongest are the ones that make convention (488e). Rhetoric has the lowest power, the flattery used in rhetoric is to persuade people, this persuasion only works if most people believe it to work. Without ignorant people a rhetorician would be
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument. I believe that
In Book 1 of Allan Bloom’s “The Republic of Plato”, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus present their ideas on what justice is. Plato’s Socrates responds to each of these characters’ proposed definitions of justice by pointing out the contradictions and logical inconsistencies within their arguments. The dialogue between Cephalus and Plato’s Socrates reveals how one’s age affects his perspective on the virtue of justice and his system of values.
According to Socrates perspective, the democracy of Athens was corrupt and even though they courts were made in such a way that everyone was judged fairly, it wasn’t such because there were no rules or principles set forth. When a person was brought to court in the Athenian court and the person spoke against the jurors or offended them, he or she could be prosecuted based on that. In summary, judgment was passed based on emotion rather than on justice.
In Gorgias, Socrates was having a conversation with Polus and through this dialogue Socrates reached to establishing a hierarchy of wrongs. Socrates classified that doing injustice is much worse than suffering injustice. Another idea Socrates states is that doing wrong act and escaping punishment is much worse than being punished on that act since punishment can remove the evil from a person’s soul. I am going to discuss these ideas as I think that doing injustice is not as bad as suffering injustice.
Considering how the Piraeus, Athens’ port area, contains individuals hailing from various locations, it would that such a place would be where Socrates encounters different definitions of justice. In Book One of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates challenges Cephalus’ belief that justice is simply being honest and paying back the dues that one owes to the gods and to his fellow men. By providing examples of where it would be unjust to repay one’s debts, Socrates refutes Cephalus’ definition of justice. In these scenarios, paying back those debts would pose a risk of harm to innocent people, which would be unjust since justice does not involve harming others.