Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Examine the nature of justice in Plato's republic
Justice in platos republic book 1essay
Examine the nature of justice in Plato's republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Examine the nature of justice in Plato's republic
Justice is a concept whose definition and connotation can carry a different meaning depending on which person is asked to define it. In the context of Plato’s The Republic, the idea of justice was far more nuanced than originally thought. Each of the men in the dialogue held completely distinctive ideas as to what justice meant to them. But according to one character, Cephalus, justice is “speaking the truth and paying debts”(Plato, Book 1). Using Cephalus’s definition of justice it can be argued that Galileo is a just man because he was trying to teach people the truth about the Earth, while Dr. McElroy and other members of the Texas Board of Education are unjust by faulting on their debt to society through their unwillingness to just teach the empirical truths about evolution. By examining the thoughts and actions of both Galileo and Dr. McElroy through the lens of Cephalus’s definition of …show more content…
justice it can be determined which man is really acting justly. Throughout the first book of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates asks the men around him what their notion of justice is.
Thraysmachus states that justice is “created from the interest of the strong” (Plato, Book 1), Polemarchus believe that justice is “doing good to friends and evil to enemies”(Plato, Book 1), while Cephalus believes justice is simply when a person “pays his debts and tells the truth”(Plato, Book 2). Using Cephalus’s definition as a basis, one can claim that the historical figure and scientist, Galileo Galilei is a just man for he is just trying to tell people the truth about the orientation of the Earth and the Sun. Galileo’s chief scientific and mathematical finding was that “the sun to be 65 situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial 66 orbs while the earth revolves about the sun” (Galileo, 65-66). However, after Galileo published a document where the Church’s positions were satirized via a character named “simplicio”(Cunningham-Bryant, September 7), the Church clamped down on Galileo’s writings and called him in to be
questioned. The two main criticisms against his conclusions are that they are both heretical and false. Galileo argues that his findings do not contradict the bible because they were “founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations” (Galileo, lines 160-161). The justification behind this claim is that humans use their senses, logic and understanding to establish observations. In fact, Galileo even states that it was “God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect” (Galileo, lines 297-298). So then it can’t be considered heresy to use observations as evidence because observations are determined using the senses that God gave mankind. Furthermore, Galileo states that his findings are objectively true because he based his discoveries off of nature and not from the bible. He explains “But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her” (Galileo, lines 265-266); while the bible “is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects” (Galileo, lines 273-274). Galileo here demonstrates that his scientific assertions are empirically true because they unlike the Bible, Nature’s meanings and laws are not open to misinterpretation and subjectivity. Since Galileo is telling people the truth about the world and how it is orientated, he meets Cephalus’s definition of justice and is therefore a just man. Now while Galileo meets Cephalus’s definition of justice, Dr. McElroy and some of the members of the Texas Board of Education miserably fail to adhere to do so. In fact, McElroy as shown in The Revisionaries not only fails to tell people the objective truth about evolution, but simultaneously disregards his responsibility to pay his debts; his debts to society. In this particular case, McElroy’s debt to society is his responsibility to give children a good education so they can be prepared for college or life in general. McElroy himself believes that “since each child is created in the image of God, I want to see that they have the best opportunity possible”(Thurman, 9:45). However, McElroy believes that the faults of evolution should be taught in school because he believes “the evidence doesn’t support it” (Thurman, 30:37). McElroy fails to acknowledge an established fact that has been confirmed through scientific consensus and wants to teach students about theories that echo his religious views. When McElroy and the rest of the board decide to purposefully distort scientific truth they are knowingly miseducating society’s children. In fact, Socrates talks about how what students are taught should be carefully considered because at their age they are extremely impressionable. Socrates states that "and shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons” (Plato, Book 2), to demonstrate how crucial it is to be cognizant of what children are learning. Socrates’s position on education is mentioned because it ties into Cephalus’s definition of justice. By failing to give children an objective education then they are faulting on their debts to society by consciously raising a generation that will be more ignorant than the preceding one. In addition, McElroy and the Texas Board are also choosing to not teach children the truth about evolution. Instead they are choosing to pollute the curriculum with unsubstantiated claims that try to “teach young earth creationism through the back door” (Thurman, 14:52). So, when McElroy and members of the board of education fail to teach objective truths they are articulating mendacities and failing to pay their debts; which according to Cephalus’s definition of justice would make McElroy an unjust man. It is imperative for McElroy and the other board members to give children an objective, truthful, and factual education because it is the only way in which children can be taken out of the dark shadow of ignorance and be brought into the bright light of enlightenment.
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Galileo even as a boy seemed destined to challenge the scientific thought of the day. He has often been characterized as a pioneer of rebellion against authority. If that was true then he was only following in his father’s footsteps. His Father, a revolutionary man in the world of music who spoke out against the music theories of his day, was quoted as saying, "It appears to me that those who try to prove an assertion by relying simply on the weight of authority act very absurdly" (White, 196). Galileo continued in his father’s rebellion against contemporary views with his support of a helio-centric-universe, a view previously argued by Copernicus, but for the most part ignored by scientists for its contradiction with the established, church-endorsed system of Ptolemy.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
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 The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Galileo Galilei was an Italian philosopher born in 1564. As an adult, he didn’t believe the universal geocentric theory of the planets and heavens which was established by the Catholic Church. The church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around our planet. Another theory that the Church supported was that the Earth stood still while the sun rose and set every day. Society in the 1500’s believed that the Pope spoke for God through a divine connection and to against the church was to go against God. To speak out against the church in this time was strictly taboo. If one was to speak against the church was considered to be heresy, which is exactly what happened to Galileo. Galileo invented the telescope and began studying the heavens above and noticed that changes within the stars and planets. He noticed that the “stars” that surrounded Jupiter moved. He came to the conclusion through rational thinking, that the Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was correct. Copernicus was a scientist and philosopher whose theory proposed that the sun was stationary and the heavens orbit around the sun. Galileo tried to convince the church not to aboli...
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In
Much to the dismay of the Church, two astronomers Galileo and Kepler had the audacity to challenge the authorities by suggesting that the sun-not the earth-was at the center of the universe. The church had a stronghold on the way the spiritual and physical world worked, so these discoveries only added to the Church’s resistance to their aims. Their discoveries came only after Kepler and Galileo began to question ancient theories about how the world functioned. These ancient truths were widely held but were inconsistent with the new observations that they had made. Kepler had discovered the laws of planetary motion which suggested that the planet would move in elliptical orbits, while Galileo followed with his discovery of the principle of inertia. Galileo concluded his finding b...