Intro: (Thesis) Thrasymachus believes justice is having an advantage over another because of strength. Socrates soon brings out the fallacies in this argument by mentioning how rulers help their subjects, improve the art they specialize in, and how they should be reimbursed for the service they provide. Socrates successfully refutes Thrasymachus’ theory by bringing up these fallacies and showing that justice is not just the stronger surviving, there is a genuine good in people that prevents this theory from taking hold. Main Argument: Thrasymachus’ theory is that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. He provides an example of how different cities are governed by various forms of government like democracies, aristocracies,
In The Republic, justice is supposedly being defined for society and is meant to benefit everyone as a whole. However, in Antigone, the definition of justice from Antigone’s perspective mostly seems to be for personal gain; she wants to be able to say she did the morally correct and “just” thing by properly burying her brother. Going off of the apparent societal benefit in The Republic, there is usually some economic theory thought about. Economics is a large part of every society because this is how a society functions. In Book II, Plato “assume[s] that [man] has the same three principles in his own soul which are found in the state” (Plato 34 PDF).
Socrates and Athenian Democracy The Apology of Socrates, as told by Plato, is an essay including Socrates’ speech that he made to a jury while trying to “convince his fellow citizens of his innocence” (Lualdi 62). Socrates was attempting to make the Athenian assembly see the world from his own perspective, as he recounts stories of going to ones who have “reputation[s] of wisdom and [observing]” them (Lualdi 63). He explains his outlook on the world, which therefore explains his actions and teachings. He also comments on Athenian democracy while doing so, pointing out that in his way of thinking, he believes “the word of God… ought to be considered first” (Lualdi 64). This is being brought to light in contrast of what the reality of the system is: the word of God not being considered first.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
No one would question this part of his claim since they believe in Apollo and the oracles predictions. The weakness is that Chaerephon is dead so his evidence can neither be confirmed nor denied. He
Furthermore, just decision making should not be interfered with in the face of death because we simply do not know that death is a bad thing. Socrates explains this further in passage 29a, “You see, fearing death, gentlemen, is nothing other than thinking one is wise when one isn’t, since it’s thinking one knows what one doesn’t know. I mean, no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people, but they fear it as if they knew for certain that it’s the worst thing of all. Yet surely this is the most blameworthy ignorance of thinking one knows what one doesn’t know,” (Plato, 44). In this passage, Socrates conveys that because man does not know what the consequences of their own death are, whether it is the worst thing or best thing that can happen to them, it is selfish and irrelevant to let their irrational fears of the unknown interfere with their lifestyle and decisions if they believe themselves to be leading a just and honorable
Socrates shows that the three parts of the soul, reason, thumos, and appetites must work in harmony much like the city to achieve optimal success. Only through harmony can the soul just. When the soul is just, the body can function properly as a whole. At this point, the quest for knowledge can be achieved. Through knowledge, one can ultimately achieve the good.
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. Alcibiades and Socrates try to figure out what the self really is because in order to cultivate it they would have to know what it is.
Socrates compares these three forms of the soul to the three classes in the city: producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. Socrates concludes that in a perfectly just society, each class would have a fixed and equal place in the city in which they only carry out their specific purpose. As stated previously, the city can be divided into three basic classes. The guardians rule the state and love knowledge above all else. The auxiliaries, or soldiers, are charged with the defense of the state and value courage and honor.
Aristotle calls such a state by the name of polity. It is the state where the citizens at large administer for the common interest. Though constructing his state ideally Aristotle does not ignore reality and practicability of his state. He believes that for the state as well as for the individuals, the best life lies in the pursuit of virtue rather than of power and wealth. The plan suggested for his ideal or best state based on the principle of golden mean, depends upon the following materials: i.
. . . if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men. But if you think that only what is your is yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thin unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all.” (Epictetus: The Handbook, pg.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b). This argument, though most people would intuitively disagree with it, is in reality quite compelling. Just as those who are colorblind can not paint, and the crippled can not run, those with a naturally flawed or warped view of what is good can not be virtuous.