In this paper we will show that Glaucon and Thrasymachus' positions on justice are entirely different. We argue that Thrasymachus despite his slippage and confusion between a traditional and immoralist definition of justice, is really intending to illustrate a political system ruled by a rational-minded and exploitative tyrant. On the other hand Glaucon clearly presents justice as a necessary evil originating out of a social contract constructed by the weak of society. He then challenges Socrates to prove to him that the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.…
The the men come up with the most important question who will make the laws and rule the city. Socrates says the guardians will rule. With this ruling they come up with many different attributes that the guardians must…
One conversation between the parties was that of how a truly just state would look like and Socrates answers by declaring that a state might find justice when the overall happiness of the state has priority of desire to ones selfish ambitions. Socrates also says in reason people want to do what their desire bids them achieve and be trained in such a way that they would not care about anything but what their position in that society would have them do (The Republic, 376c-377e). This leads on to Socrates being asked to describe in detail how the laws of such a state would be where justice is to be found. Socrates says that for him to explain such a place to them would cause such humor to the group because his ideas are quite contrary to the ideas of people in the society in which they live(The Republic 450d-452e). He explains that three ideas that would push could be implemented that could make up a society that may contain justice. One is the common education of men and women another is women and children held in common the third is the idea that philosophers should rule as kings.…
What is justice? Today, where it is common for people to only look out for themselves, justice is an extremely important tool. But what exactly is justice? What is right, what is wrong, and who decides that? To find an accurate definition, we as a society should not just focus on one opinion, but the views of many. Similar to how our society is today, the society in The Republic, lived the same, struggling to determine what the correct definition of justice was, and how to pursue the right answer. In the paper, I will be discussing all aspects of Plato’s Republic, including the Philosopher King and his nature, and justice in that time.…
What is justice is a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of Plato when he wrote The Republic to present day. In the book, Plato uses the dialectic, between Socrates and other Athenians like Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Glacuon, to try and find the definition of justice. Through the voice of Glaucon, Plato defines justice as a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear, and injustice as the things that we wouldn’t…
Socrates lived a life of inquiry in order to achieve a fulfilled life of eudaimonia and success. I argue that the Socratic examined life is a process, which should be valued because it teaches one to be critical thinkers, and aids us in the understanding our true actions.…
In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the individual, but it becomes apparent in the analysis and evaluation of the analogy that there may have been several purposes behind it. Inconsistencies within the analogy itself also raise questions to the validity in Plato’s definition and justification of justice.…
After this, Socrates goes on to show that there are four types of regimes, listed in the order of most just to least just: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Then he goes on to say how each develops from the other, and why each is just and/or unjust. Similarly, the men from each era represent the amount of justice in their souls. This in turn proves that the just man is happier than the unjust man.…
He must do this regardless of the opinion of the majority or possible consequences for himself; he must act only in accordance to the opinion of the few wise, knowledgeable men who understand what is justice, and the laws of the State. Unfortunately, in all of the dialogues the author of this essay has read5, Socrates never clearly explains what ‘the laws’ really are — they remain a sort of abstraction, a divine essence of justice. However, this does not invalidate our definition of a champion of…
Before I started reading Plato's the Republic, I was loathe to admit that reading those philosophy books were gonna really change how I view myself. It was totally a waste of time to read these vague and complicated books. As I went on reading the republic, I saw many similar things that still existed in our society. In the book, Plato prescribes severe dictates concerning the cultural life of the city. He rules out all poverty, with the exception of hymns to the gods and eulogies for the famous, and places restraints on painting and architecture. Does this look like "Cultural Revolution" that happened in China in late 60s in twentieth century? There are differences though, which is how the leaders see the results of the destruction of human civilization. Plato expresses regret at these aesthetic sacrifices, he feels they must be made for the sake of education, which transforms the unhealthy luxurious city into a pure and just city. However, our great leader didn't see any ruinous effects on our society until he reached the end of his life.…
In Plato's Republic, Socrates goes to great lengths to explain and differentiate between the ideas of opinion and knowledge. Throughout society, most common men are lovers of sights and sounds. "Lovers of sights and sounds like beautiful sounds, colors, shapes, and everything fashioned out of them, but their thought is unable to see and embrace the nature of the beautiful itself (Republic 476b)." The few who do recognize the beautiful itself are followers of the sight of truth, the philosophers.…
The social contract allows human beings to leave the state of nature, based on fear and violence, but this will only be possible if there is a power to enforce it. For that reason, as part of that contract, are transferred unconditionally to a person or body collective, the sovereign authority, the powers that will enable it to exercise power to ensure peace and justice that are the objective of this contract social and defend the weakest from the domination of the strongest. From this mode justifies the birth of government the great Leviathan. On the contrary, Socrates provides different values such as virtue and introspective analysis as the main philosophical guide to run a government.…
In this essay, I explicate connections between Socrates’ descriptions of himself and his role as a citizen and educator in his home city, Athens, as portrayed in Plato’s Apology. The Apology depicts the trial of Socrates, and its entirety is narrated from the point of view of Socrates. Therefore, in the account of this trial, we have a lens through which we can view Socrates’ ideologies and convictions. Additionally, because Socrates is speaking directly to a jury of five hundred and one Athenians, from this dialogue we can interpret how Socrates saw his life and purpose in relation to Athens and her people through his direct interaction with them.…
In the Republic of Plato, Justice has been discussed in the first two chapters. Many conversations are presented either by people engaged in these debates or Socrates himself leading these debates. Individuals engaged in the debates discuss on how can a person be “Just” or “Unjust” to get to the main understanding of “Justice” itself. In particular to be a just person, this justification has to be examined on the political sense, which is basically the definition of justice in the city, and in the psychological level in a person. That person would do his/her best to create a just city and would obey all the laws in the city to become a “Just” person in the perfectly said “Just city”. In this just city there are different groups of people who are ordinary class citizens, guardians/soldiers who fight for the city and rulers at the top. The rulers are the ones with power and knowledge who are required to create justice so that a whole city established accordingly. Soldiers also known as guardians are also in the level of power and have the share of the knowledge that alone among all the other kinds of knowledge are to be called wisdom and this wisdom would helped them secure the city and the citizens in times of need. The wisdom enjoyed by the rulers would be used to ensure that the city has good judgment. The guardians/soldiers of the city would be educated in order to absorb the laws in the finest possible way. At the beginning of Book II, Plato’s brothers challenge Socrates to define Justice in the mankind. This conversation goes along until to the point that there were only two people involve in the speech for the definition of Justice in the presence of Socrates; Polemarchus and Glaucon. This essay will interpret the idea of justice based on Polemarchus’ idea of justice and Glaucon’s critique of justice in general to Polemarchus’ understanding of justice in particular.…
1.1. there are some awfully black clouds in the western sky so 1 [it is likely to rain soon], so C [ i had better take my umbrella…