In The Republic, Plato, speaking through his teacher Socrates, answers two questions. What is justice? Why should we be just? Book I sets up these challenges. While among of both friends and enemies, Socrates launch this question, “What is justice?” He disagrees with every suggestion offered, showing how it has hidden contradictions. But he never offers a definition of his own, and the discussion ends in a deadlock, where no further progress is possible and the interlocutors don’t feel sure of their beliefs anymore. When Book I opens, Socrates is returning home from a religious festival with his young friend, when Polemarchus, tell them to take a visit to his house. There they join Polemarchus’s aging father and others. Socrates and the aging …show more content…
At first, the only challenge was to define justice; now justice must be defined and proven to be worthwhile. Socrates has three arguments to launch against Thrasymachus’ claim. First, he makes him admit that the view he is advancing defines injustice as a virtue. In this view, life is seen as a continual competition to get more (more money, more power, ..), and whoever is most successful in the competition has the greatest virtue At this point, Cephalus excuses himself, and his son Polemarchus takes over the argument for him. He launches a new definition of justice: justice means that you owe friends help, and you owe enemies harm. Socrates shows many contradictions in this view. He declares that, because our judgment concerning friends and enemies is fallible, this will lead us to harm the good and help the bad. Socrates points out that there is some contradictions in the idea of harming people through justice. Socrates then conclude that injustice cannot be a virtue because it is contrary to wisdom, which is a virtue. It’s contrary to wisdom because the wise man, the man who is skilled in some art, never seeks to beat out those who possess the same art. The mathematician, for instance, is not in competition with other
However, we can find in his next objections aspects that may be controversial. Socrates begins saying that whether a just man would act to overcome another just man. Both had the same opinion that just man may consider it right to overcome an unjust man. Proceeding, what the unjust man will do is overcome and benefit from everyone and anyone. In this situation, Socrates would relate the unjust/just men with the craftsmen.
The general theme of The Republic is the meaning of justice captured by Socrates and Cephalus speaking about the benefits of growing old. The conversation quickly becomes an argument between the two about what justice is. Cephalus is a business man, a pillar of the community, and a man of religion. When speaking about his wealth he seems apathetic about money; this is when Socrates has an epiphany about Cephalus inheriting his money and explains the manner in which one acquires their money as speaks volumes to how intently they appreciate it.
According to Socrates if three of the first descriptions are found in a state, then justice will be easily found. He goes on to saying how the definition for justice includes principles of some one practicing one thing only, and that thing should only be to which he can naturally adapt to. Justice also incorporates the concept one doing his own business. Socrates outlines how injustice is done to the state if one causes harm to his own city, so the one who handles his own business is doing just to the state is what defines justice. This definition differs when applied to an individual because when one only is practices temperance and self mastery to gain personal achievements by pushing lower class down, walking over the poor and using wealth and power to gain control and wealth is doing unjust to the people, where as those who treat others equally and fairly are the ones who portray the virtue of being just.
It is challenging to lead a private life while truly fighting for justice. A man can fight for justice through examining the greatest issues in human nature that Socrates found essential to the private life. However, this knowledge can have the biggest effect when brought into the public life such as through teachings. These two things can then combine to reflect how the state should be changed. Socrates sometimes crossed this line himself, even if unknowingly.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
After discrediting the arguments of Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Plato instead defines justice as a virtue of both individuals and societies with descriptions of the just man and the just city. In order to accurately identify justice in the human soul, he first builds the just city, where this virtue acts the same except on a grander scale. The just city’s founding principle relies on each person performing his proper function in society, which is divided into three groups: the ruling guardians, the aspiring guardians, and the working class
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 bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
He begins his arguments with describing doing an act of injustice like killing, justly. Socrates compares killing
Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
This premise is perhaps the easiest to find fault in, as there is always much debate over the true definitions and meanings of different words, especially when considering abstract concepts like justice and injustice. Many critics would argue that justice covers a much more broad spectrum than “wisdom and virtue,” and the same for injustice being defined as “ignorance” in 351a. Another major criticism of Socrates’ first premise can actually be found in 351c when Thrasymachus states that through using Socrates’ definition of justice, then his theory is correct, but that his theory would not hold if Thrasymachus’s definitions for justice and injustice were used. This is a very important statement, because it now becomes obvious that Socrates’s entire argument is founded a great deal upon his specific definitions of justice and injustice, and may not be able to be carried out if other definitions are used in their place. The second premise in Socrates’ argument states that injustice breeds factions and hatred, while justice breeds oneness of mind and love, which is a solid, logical next step under the assumption that the first premise is true.
Socrates reacts that in a vile city, everybody is unjustifiable. Fighters in a shameful armed force are miserable and not able to unite against a foe, as simply men could. A low individual is in a consistent condition of agitation, constantly disappointed, and his own particular foe. Socrates considers whether the simply have a more content life than the vile. Since the divine beings are simply, the unfair are foes of the divine beings.
In The Republic: Book 1 by Plato, the main argument and discussion being told is the definition of justice and the different perspectives and interpretations. One of the characters in the novel Thrasymachus, an angry guy who thinks everyone is wrong represents the original and analytical explanation. He defines justice as “the interest of the stronger” suggesting that power is correct. Thrasymachus believed that every person acts for themselves and attempts to get what they can but however only the toughest will get what they want. A popular example that portrays this understanding of the definition of justice is how a government serves the interest of its people.
He comprehended that all the theories proposed by Thrasymachus, Socrates and other has one common component. The common component was that all these considered justice as an external force that was kind of an achievement that needs to be carried out for the survival in the habitat. According to him, it is not a relationship of a superior and inferior, whereby an inferior follows or complies by the laws set by the superior, not does justice is born out of fear. Rather the person performs such duty as the nature has casted over him for a specific purpose. He states that justice is done when a human being wishes to do a duty, without under any fear.
Plato, being the pivot figure in the history of Western thought, established the compound, yet complete and multifaceted philosophical system, which methodology and perspicacious semantic substance laid the foundation for the future human development for hundreds of years to come, igniting curiosity in the minds of numerous scholars throughout history. Essential political ideas of Plato are predominantly expressed in his groundbreaking work “The Republic,” including the fundamental theoretical discussion of an ideal state that I am willing to analyze in my essay. Plato’s idyllic Polis, resembling the human soul that incorporates the trinity of appetite, spirit, and reason, is composed of three types of inhabitants that correspond to each constituent