Emila Durma Essay #1 Dr. Daniel Thompson ASI 110 September 20, 2024 Glaucon’s Challenge In The Republic, famed Greek philosopher Plato discusses the nature of justice. Having been taught by Socrates, he constructs a socratic dialogue between his teacher and his brother Glaucon to discern the view of justice held by the masses. Glaucon's request is to be truly persuaded by Socrates that justice is good not only for its own sake and the personal pleasures it supplies, but also for the consequences that arise from it. Through a lengthy series of questioning and concessions, Socrates and Glaucon attempt to reach this destination. Glaucon believes that the masses see justice as burdensome. He asserts that the masses view justice as only being favorable for the consequences, such as …show more content…
He then claims that anyone with the option to be able to practice injustice without the hindrance of judgment for his behavior would accept the opportunity. To better illustrate his assertion, Glaucon recounts the story of the power of the Gyges of Lydia. In this tale, a man opens an enchanted chasm during an earthquake. In this, he finds a ring which he later discovers possesses the ability to turn the wearer invisible. Glaucon posits that if two men were to receive these rings and their power, one just and one unjust, they would end up “traveling the same road” (359c). He states that this behavior is human nature; there is no soul on Earth who is so righteous that they would not stray from the path of justice if given this kind of opportunity. If justice is done behind closed doors, no one views it positively. It is only seen as positive if it can actually be seen. Because of this, private actions of injustice are likewise invisible, which prompts the actor to indulge in unjust processes. Glaucon’s opinion on how the masses view justice is very plausible, however it does not apply to
Many philosophers have read and written about The Republic by Plato because the book is fascinating and makes one think critically while exploring the dialogues. Many issues and arguments have arisen throughout the Republic. However, one of the most notably prominent is Glaucon's challenge. In being such a well-known issue in the Republic, Socrates in every part of the Republic then takes the chance to respond to this challenge raised by Glaucon. Glaucon raises the issue of whether a person is happier
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
Katie Shunk Philosophy 100 10-12-16 The Challenge to Socrates Socrates, a world renown Greek philosopher, is respected for intentionally making himself appear more intelligent by making others look and feel dumb. Those who are aware of Socrates’ intentions should not be surprised of his actions in The Republic of Plato. As the narrator, Socrates writes a monologue between himself, the master, and Plato, the student. Socrates soon addresses two main questions that lead to greater discussion throughout
In The Republic, Book II Glaucon develops the story of the ring of Gyges’s ancestor where he raises the argument that one would not practice justice if they could be unjust without being caught. Glaucon states that justice is only attractive to the eye if there is a reward at stake, “…Justice belongs to the onerous kind, and is to be practiced for the sake of the rewards… but is to be avoided because of itself as something burdensome.” (Republic, page 999 section 358). The idea of unjust practices
“The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, the meaning of justice is debated in book I and II. Thrasymachus ' definition of justice is challenged by the different views of the characters in the book. This in fact, claims to question whether justice is always the better path to decision making, morality and educating individuals. The book acknowledges various interpretations of justice. It is established that justice is something that all humans should strive towards. In book I “The Republic of Plato”
reputation are taken away from them. Through Allegories, Plato makes Glaucon, Adeimantus, Thrasymachus and others to understand this nortion. The Republic is considered by many philosophers as the best of Plato’s greatest dialogues which had vast influence on the Western thought. Plato establishes theories and mythic stories touching on reality and knowledge, human nature and politics, ethics, education and arts within the very ambitious republic book. Plato uses the myth of the cave to allegorize views on
argument to answer Glaucon’s Challenge. In the first section, I will explain the challenge by describing the different classifications of goods and how Glaucon’s definition of virtue places it at the lowest category. In the second section I will explain the notion of happiness in terms of Eudaimonism and how it relates to the challenge. In the final section I will explain how Julia Annas’ connects virtue and happiness via Eudaimonism to answer Glaucon’s Challenge, but how her response is not sufficient
Plato's Republic uses dialogue between Socrates and fellow Athenians in order to tease out the complexities of the idea of justice. In Book II, the question of the value of justice is raised, through the dialogue between Glaucon, his brother Adeimantus, and Socrates. Socrates is challenged by the brothers to refute their view on justice, and to explain whether justice is good in and of itself or only for its results. Socrates fails to completely refute Glaucon and Adeimantus' view, by failing to
In the Republic that Plato wrote in 380 before J.C. to give his opinion of the political state and justice, many definitions are given through the character of Socrates, who was Plato's mentor, and through characters inspired of Greek philosophers, generally sophists, as Thrasymachus, and Glaucon, who was Plato's own brother. Definitions are given as outcomes of debates between Socrates and the sophists, during which each character leads at a moment or another, until a stronger argument, usually
Glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure Socrates to give a more convincing argument for living a just life. He was unsatisfied with Plato’s counterargument against Thrasymachus. Glaucon wants to believe that justice is good and that living a just life will result in a good life, unlike the Fool in the Leviathan. However, Glaucon strengthening the argument that the unjust life is better. Glaucon starts his argument with the three ways
comes from a small section in book two of Plato’s The Republic, in which we are shown that most people are just only unwillingly. The “Ring of Gyges” is a story that is written by Plato to enforce the reader to be able to evaluate his or her own sense of morality. It was originally produced to be a response to the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus, in which he stated that justice is in the interest of the stronger, or might, is right. Glaucon was not satisfied with the explanation given by Socrates
Emily Arvin Gabriel Gottlieb Ethics 27 February 2014 Justice In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon begins by exploring three definitions of good and then revives Thrasymachus’ argument towards Socrates as a way to better understand the meaning of justice. He presents three claims; justice finds its value in people’s want of power to do wrong, people who practice justice do so against their will, and ultimately the unjust man lives a better life than the just man (358c). Given Socrates’ claims
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,
The Prince and Socrates, from Plato’s Republic, there is no way to avoid the clash between realism and idealism. The contrasting of both of these states of minds, when it comes to ruling a city, per se, is fascinating because, while they are extremely different, they’re perceiving the same objective: ruling a civilization successfully. Machiavelli uses the concepts of virtù, fortuna, and free-will to describe political success. On the other hand, in The Republic of Plato, Socrates uses Justice and
In this essay, I argue that it is better to lead a life of justice than a life of injustice. In The Republic of Plato, Socrates sets out to determine what justice is. He and a group of his peers discuss justice, its core tenants, and what it means to lead a just life. Socrates is then accosted by three of his peers. Their argument is that the man who leads a life of injustice will be happier, make more profits, and succeed in life more than the man who is just. Socrates argues each of these claims