Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context. The argument begins when Thrasymachus first states that, “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (pg.
Plato's purpose when writing "Apology" was to acquit posthumously Socrates from false accusation. In the Apology Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. In the first way Socrates describes his method and
Socrates was rejected by the Athenians and accused of being harmful to the city and wanted him dead more for the informal charges than the formal charges against him. Socrates argues that he has provided a great amount of wisdom to the city and forces them to think about his philosophy and wisdom. Socrates is like a gadfly because he continuously provokes the city with ideas and criticism. His criticism rises when he is trying to awaken the city of Athens when he believes that they are becoming lazy in regard to the truth. Gadflies also seek for their own interest which is what Socrates does when he is trying to make the city question their own knowledge and beliefs about the accusations that Socrates faces.
Throughout history there has been an abundance of ancient philosophers, including Plato, who explored metaphysics and its relationship to the real world before Descartes’ began questioning the idea. Nevertheless, his views on dualism are very different from Plato’s. As we know, Plato thinks and feels as if the body is just a vessel for the soul, but Descarte on the other hand strongly believes and shows proof that both your soul and body are connected and intertwining. Stating one is not superior to the other, both work hand and hand, affecting each other. Descartes states that “I reflect therefore I am.” Descartes shows through his dualism that though the mind and body are separate , they are connected and reliant on one another.
Socrates has been accused of two things; corrupting the youth and Impiety but also of another. Socrates mentions early in his speech he addresses his first accusers who accused him a ‘wise man’ of speculating about what’s above and what’s below ground. His prosecutors said of him, ‘Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others’. Throughout his speech he defends himself against his first accusers first followed by his defence against his second accusers.
Parmenides v/s Heraclitus (Being v/s Becoming) Introduction: Through this assignment, I intend to critically view the ideas of the Pre Socratics – Parmenides and Heraclitus. It would be an interesting clash of ideas as both of them have exactly opposite views towards the creation of world though they agree that it is formed from a single substance. My job is to find how do other philosophers view this clash and also whose ideas I would accept. Body: I wish to take a brief look at the metaphysical systems of Heraclitus (535-475 BCE) and Parmenides (515-445 BCE). These men were similar in many regards.
In Plato’s dialogue Republic, Book X, the main topic discussed is what type of republic would produce the best people and the best way of life. By having this written in dialogue format, readers are given the ability to think, with the speakers, about these ideas being put forth. The main idea Socrates discusses and believes in is that art should be banned from the republic because it’s imagery is imitated, unreal, and by the end of the dialogue he calls it out to be the works of wizards. To understand Socrates ideas of this topic, we must first understand the classification of objects and producers. According to him, the three types of producers are gods, craftspeople, and imitators (artists).
We can find the first intellectual exchange on these views in the normative debate between the Sophists and Plato in the fifth century BC. Individualism and collectivism were deemed as antagonistic and have largely been since. For example, the Sophists promoted personal agency, that is, the individuals are in charge of their own life and free to act as they choose without following the group norms while Plato criticized them for not having moral standards of what is good and proper and advocate a civic life. Plato’s Republic that expounded an ideal state governed by philosopher king has been considered a collectivist text These are competing philosophies, collective here means a community or a group of people, in which human is part of it regardless of the consent. More often or not, collective is a country, and later collectivity means oneness of everyone.
Justice in opposite points of view Plato tries to describe what justice is in reality by the different characters ' points of view in his book “The Republic”. In “The Republic” the characters, such Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Cephalus, Adeimantus, Polemarchus give their opinion about justice. The people in the Just city are divided into 3 groups: gold, silver and bronze that means ruler part, guardian part and labor part of citizens. Thrasymachus says that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but Socrates argues that justice is being honest and do own role in society. Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not.
In today’s era, there have been continuous changes in the society and criminal justice system was expected to fall into steps with those changes to attain its objects. But unfortunately, it has failed to do so. The reason for such failure does not lie in its objectives or principles. It has failed due to various limitations in its mechanism such as lack of effective law enforcement authorities, huge pendency of cases, ineffective investigation, inordinate delay in disposal of trials and appeals, substandard prison conditions etc. These are some significant issues that our criminal justice system is