the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus.
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity.
Plato’s: “Obedience to the State” is a passage that takes place after Socrates has been condemned to death by the jury of Athens. Crito, a student of Socrates appears outside of his cell and makes one last attempt to persuade Socrates to flee Athens and save his life. Crito makes many valid points in trying to convince Socrates to escape, but Socrates feels he should accept the decisions that has been made regardless of the lethal ramifications. The following paragraphs will analyze Crito’s arguments and Socrates response, as well as express how Socrates position is the stronger due to his knowledge of justice.
Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and Phaedrus both consider the idea of rhetoric. Rhetoric being the art or skill of getting something from the masses or individuals, and often used in getting away with a crime. The type of rhetoric being argued about in the Gorgias dialogue is public rhetoric, what exactly rhetoric is, whether it is an art or not, and how it is best used so as to promote the highest good. In the Phaedrus dialogue private rhetoric is being discussed over the issue of love. This paper will examine how eros is central to both the Gorgias and Phaedrus dialogues.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances.
Plato’s noble lie is one of the most radical ideas to divide a city due to its heavy reliance on a lie and the successful manipulation of a great mass of people. Plato first introduces his noble lie when explaining to his friends how a guardian would be created: “All of you in the city are brothers…but god was moulding you, for those of you fitted to rule he used gold as part of the mixture…which is why you are the most valued, while for the auxiliaries he mixed in silver, and iron and bronze for the farmers and craftsmen” (415b-415d). By associating the most precious metal, gold, with the guardian group of society, Plato sections off the top twenty-fifth percent of the citizens like they’re more valuable, and so on with the auxiliaries, farmers and craftsmen. The noble lie belittles and reduces the bottom fifty-percent creating unhealthy and unstable relationships and standards in the just city which, in reality, are extremely unstable. Furthermore, Plato adds what would happen if two metals of different values were to mix and produce offspring. “And if their [gold or silver] very ow offspring turns out to be touches with bronze or iron, they won’t in any way feel sorry for it, but instead accord it the honor its nature
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends. Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold. However, the number three cannot ever be even for it holds a natural form of oddity that cannot be changed, the same is found with immortality. A soul cannot admit to death, which is the opposite of its essence immortality just as the number three cannot admit to being even. Leading to Plato’s conclusion of how a soul then must have to retreat, connecting back to Socrates believing death is best characterized by the soul separating from
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
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
In The Republic, Plato writes about his thoughts on good, justice, and how we can achieve it. He starts off by stating that for human happiness and to live the best life philosopher-kings are needed. Not everyone can become a philosopher; certain people simply are non-philosophers also called lovers of sights and sounds. Plato makes the distinction between lovers of wisdom(philosophers) and lovers of sights and sounds clear using beauty as an example. Non-philosophers see ''fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them''(476b) but are unable to see or to understand absolute beauty. While lovers of wisdom will search for knowledge in everything and seek to find true beauty.
Throughout the last five weeks, I have read three of Plato’s dialogues: the cave allegory, Euthyphro, and the Apology. While reading them, I was able to see Plato’s view of a philosophical life. To live philosophically is to question appearances and look at an issue/object from a new perspective. In this essay, I will explain Plato’s cave allegory, Socrates’ discussion with Euthyphro, and the oracle story in the Apology. I will also discuss how they all express Plato’s conception of what is involved in living philosophically, and how they all relate to the cave allegory.
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. His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point.
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.