Both Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics deal with the issue of justice. In both of these pieces of writings, the authors are trying to determine what is the perfect city, and how justice plays a role in the city, and in turn how justice is present in both society and individuals. While some similarities may be present between Aristotle and Socrates’s thinking, they approach the situation completely differently. Socrates first builds what would be a perfect city to him. He then examines what makes the city perfect and relates it to the individual. On the other hand, Aristotle looks at the relationships between humans that exists in society and then looks for those relationships within the human soul.
In ‘Book II’ of Plato’s Republic,
…show more content…
These are things that we enjoy, but they do not lead to any result. Glaucon says that the feeling of joy falls under this category. The next classifications of goods are goods that are welcomed for their consequences. They are not directly good, but what happens because of these things is good. An example of this would be medical care and medicine. The medicine itself is not the good thing; it is the healing power of the medicine that comes from taking it properly that makes people happy. The final type of good, what Glaucon calls the highest type of goods are goods that are goods that bring satisfaction for their own sake and also the result of them. Glaucon gives the example of sight for this grouping. We use sight to be able to view things in life, but also to guide us. Socrates believes that justice should belong in this group of goods. Socrates believes that people want justice, and it also brings about good consequences. Glaucon, however, states that most people do not agree with Socrates thinking. He says, “This is not the opinion of the many, he said; they would put it in the wearisome class, to be pursued for the rewards and popularity which come from a …show more content…
He says that humans are the only animal sin which nature has “endowed with the gift of speech” (p. 129). Other animals have the gift of voice, but that simply gives them the ability to express pain and pleasure. Humans on the other hand, are able to express what is good in society and thus, what is just and unjust. This gives them the ability to express their dissatisfaction of the state, while also prompting others to believe in their beliefs. This relates to the notion of the highest good because communication is good based on its simple motive, to express what humans are thinking and what they believe in, the consequences of communication is to change what is wrong in society and persuade people to believe in changes. Thus, it is also valuable for this
There is a diverse amount of themes that could be compared in Republic by Plato and Leviathan by Hobbes. Through these books the two authors each construct a system in which their ideal state can thrive. Both writers agree that government is necessary for the good of the people, however what that government entails drastically differs. Their images of a utopian society are largely based on their perception of human beings. Seeing as how their views on human nature are quite opposite from the other’s, it is understandable that their political theories have many dissimilarities. Broadly speaking, the main reason for their contrasting states is that Plato believes humans are inherently good, whereas Hobbes holds a considerably more negative stance
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
In book four of Plato's “The Republic” Socrates defines justice in the individual as analogous to justice in the state. I will explain Socrates' definition of justice in the individual, and then show that Socrates cannot certify that his definition of justice is correct, without asking further questions about justice. I will argue that if we act according to this definition of justice, then we do not know when we are acting just. Since neither the meaning of justice, nor the meaning of good judgement, is contained in the definition, then one can act unjustly while obeying to the definition of justice. If one can act unjustly while obeying this definition, then Socrates' definition of justice is uncertifiable.
Glaucon begins his argument to Plato by separating goods into three classes. The first class is composed of intrinsic goods that we welcome for our own sake, stripped of their consequences, such as happiness. The second class is the type of good that we like for our own sake as well as its consequences, such as health and knowledge. The third class is an extrinsic good that we desire only for their consequences, such as physical training and medical treatment. Plato believes that justice belongs in the second class of goods that we like because of itself and its consequences, while Glaucon suggests that it belongs in the third class of...
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
The Republic by Plato talks about justice and what it means to be a just person. When having a conversation with Glaucon about justice, the ring of Gyges is brought up to prove a theory about people and the social contracts that make up our society. The legend of the Ring of Gyges tells the story of a man who was a shepherd but when an earthquake revealed a body of a skeleton of a giant from the past he was giving an opportunity to change his status. He stole the ring and discovered that by twisting it in a certain way he could become invisible. The thief would then sneak in to the castle and convince the queen to help murder her husband, and the thief took the throne. With the common knowledge of the thief and the ring Glaucon poses a question about what a supposedly good and decent individual finding the ring would do with the power of invisibility. Socrates believes that a just person would not even put the ring on, directly contradicting Glaucon.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon seeks to define what justice is and whether it could truly be considered an end in itself. He starts by asserting that there are three types of good. First there are goods that we choose out pure enjoyment and pleasure, these goods have no negative after effects. Second are the goods that are valued for what they are in and of themselves not just the good that comes from them. Thirdly there are the goods that an individual will only pursue because of what they believe they will acquire, not for what they are themselves.(36) Glaucon believes that justice should be placed in the second tier of goods where everything of intrinsic value is also placed. However he goes on to explain that the majority of people
If you had to choose between both greek philosophers to run a "just city" the best choice would be Aristotle. He had fully established himself under his mentor Plato and created better and stronger ideas. In ending I do believe Aristotle's views of democracy were highly optimistic in contrast Plato seemed to not think highly of every one having some sort of freedom in the political world.
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.