In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger. He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger.
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.
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
However, they focus more so on the plural form of good, while Aristotle talks of the singular form of good. This form of good is used to talk of goods that are loved for the goods themselves. He then says that goods should be called two separate things, the goods that are good for their uses, and the other being the goods that are good by themselves. Aristotle then asks if the goods that are good by themselves are called good merely because of a singular idea. What things would people call good by themselves?
Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
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
A proper comprehension of this phrase, according to Latour (1999, p. 216) is sure to allow a better perception of the distinction between the new science from politics. Latour tries to present the relationship involving the respect for uncongenial natural laws and the fight against decadence, ludicrousness, and political mayhem. This implies that the destiny of reason and that of politics are intertwined and that any assault on reason makes "morality and social harmony unfeasible." Latour argues that Right is the only element that protects the society against Might is reason and that it should be protected. In sum, Socrates asserts that technology and science will kill the Body Politic but to Latour, the science is the only element that will save humanity and even politics from moral
This justifies the use of rhetorical questions as an acceptable, rational persuasion technique. Immediately after this rhetorical question, Cassius uses compare and contrast by comparing Brutus to Caesar by saying, “Write them together, yours is as fair a name; / Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well” (1.2.48-51). By claiming that Brutus and Caesar both have “fair” names and that the names both “sound” equally honorable, Cassius highlights a clear comparison between Brutus and Caesar. The similarities between the two are emphasized by Cassius in order to persuade Brutus that he is equally as important as Caesar, and should not allow Caesar to establish his own tyrannical state. This rational method of comparing Brutus and Caesar serves to emphasize Cassius’s argument through a logical method of persuasion.
According to Lao-Tzu, “Recognize beauty and ugliness is born. Recognize good and evil is born. Is and Isn’t produce each other,” (Tao Te Ching 2). In this case, Confucius leans further toward Aristotle, as he places great significance on using correct names. A reader of both Confucius and Aristotle can immediately notice the resemblance between their views of how people should behave.
The Republic is an inspection of the "Good Life"; the accord reached by applying pure reason and justice. The Republic can be read in several different ways: As an essay on political theory and practice: As a educational handbook or as a protection of moral behavior. For example. While we 'll take declaration of each of these constructions along the way, our crucial attention in what trails will be on the elementary supernatural and epistemological subjects, opening questions about who we are, what is real, and about how we know it. Read in this style, the discussion as a whole invites us to share in Plato 's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality.