Plato: An Analysis Of Plato's The Republic

Socrates & Snowden Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it.

Joseph Daunis Three Classes and the Soul In Book IV of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates draws a comparison between the classes evident in their fictional city to the human soul. Socrates clearly defines the three forms he finds in the city as being the appetites of mankind, or in other words, all human desires, such as pleasure, comforts, and physical satisfaction. The second form discussed by Socrates is the spirit or the component of the soul which deals with anger and perceptions of injustice. The third and final form is the mind or reason, which analyzes and rationally weighs options and solutions to problems. Socrates compares these three forms of the soul to the three classes in the city: producers, auxiliaries, and guardians.

Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.

Even to the very end Socrates was only interested in learning

This implies that the goal is to have desires satiated, and this will result in the good life. Socrates’ argument is effective because his use of analogy makes an abstract concept easier to understand for the reader. It is now easy to see how letting one’s appetite grow indefinitely would lead to an unsatisfied life of needing to constantly refill a jar. There is still the question regarding the fact of the nature of the process of refilling the jar and if that is pleasurable, as this would start to break down Socrates’

Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue according to Aristotle and this is seen

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

Through many of Plato’s works, such as the Republic, the Gorgias, and the Apology, the person that Socrates was and his personality shine through in his dialogue. Socrates was a man who asked many questions and always pushed not only his students but the whole city of Athens to look for more than just physical things. Many people claim, that Socrates went about teaching in the wrong way and that he is an arrogant fool and not an extremely wise person. However, I disagree with this claim. I believe that Socrates was a man who looked beyond the physical world and strived to gain as much knowledge as he could through asking questions and continuing to learn from others and in turn teach others, thus making him wise and striving to live the best life.

Here is my first piece of evidence to support my point. “I happen to be a gift of the god to the city; and this is how you can tell: Unlike most people, I have neglected all my own interests, and I’ve put up with this private neglect for so many years, while always attending to your business.” (Lines 108-111) In the quote stated above, Socrates claims that even with the annoyance people found in him, he pursued in his mission to help the people. Even though he had to give up his interests and hobbies, he did not give up his mission and focused on his work with the people all those years.

This relationship was based upon total compassion and love. Socrates was there in his Right’s last moments. He proved to be a loyal friend giving his own, fairly limited, wealth to better Right’s standard of living. This male relationship is different from the other two, in that it has much more vulnerability. Rather than Socrates serving as a mentor or challenger, he is serving as Right’s equal.

In all of Plato 's dialogues, Socrates ' main goal is to achieve happiness, although friends and foes alike present him pathways that could lead to pleasure, but not true happiness. Moreover, in Crito, Socrates pursues happiness by obediently following the Athenian law, whereas, Crito tries to lure him into committing an unjust action so that he can obtain the pleasure of having a friend and keeping a good reputation and so that Socrates can still have the pleasure of life on earth1. One can know that happiness and pleasure are different due to the fact that happiness is a state of being eternally fulfilled, but pleasure provides a person only an immediate and short-lived image of fulfillment. If happiness is being eternally fulfilled, then it would not be of this world because this world has many flaws and is mortal.

Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.

Examining one’s life can bring many joys. There are many things that give people the idea that their lives are meaningful. These ideas could be the pursuit of pleasure and happiness, entertainment, sports, power and money, possessions and security, being famous and success, meeting other people, knowledge and every other thing that can give the smallest amount of happiness to the person. In the apology Plato describes Socrates’ venture to question people would were wise and content with their wisdom, but when they asked a series of questions to test their wisdom they were revealed not to be wise and were now upset. The flaw in that was that these people did not examine what had happened to them and did not learn from it.

A fool can be satisfied but he will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus making him ignorant to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history. This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. Socrates might say that the fool’s satisfaction is not the kind that he would want, he would want a much more fulfilling satisfaction than one who seeks common wants such as wealth, fame etc… Would Socrates be satisfied if he knew the answer to every question he or someone else asked?

It is critical to recognize Mill’s argument that a degree of contentment can exist in periods of less happiness. However, Aristotle’s view of perceiving wellbeing or goodness as ultimate is more pronounced. Worth emphasizing, Aristotle deeply explores his arguments basing them on functions of a rational man and virtues out of habits. Today, a virtuous citizen is one whose actions are inward, in response to conscience and moral obligations as a member of society. Such a person, not waivered with intensities of pleasures, honor, and wealth but seeks to have a satisfactory level of happiness with friends, co-workers, and family among other