Glaucon's Views Of Socrates

57 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: The euthyphro dilemma essay

Socrates has, at this point, put the issue of justice to bed. However, Glaucon decides to challenge Socrates’s view and puts to him a few claims. He says that all good can split into three categories: the highest of the classes being things we want both for what we get from them and, for their own sake.

Show More
Related

  • The Logical Response To The Fool, By Thomas Hobbes

    1004 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 in which something can be good: good in itself, good in itself and good for its consequences, and bad or indifferent in itself but good for its consequences. After presenting these three types of good things, Glaucon asks Socrates to place justice into one of the three categories. Socrates’s responds by saying the he would define justice as the kind of good that we like both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon then requests that Socrates present a convincing argument that justice is good for its own sake, regardless of its consequences. He essentially wants to hear a compelling argument that shows justice as a kind of good that is good for its own sake. Glaucon eventually developed a case that supports the unjust life. He argues that anyone, just or unjust, would commit acts of injustice if they could get away with it and not suffer any consequences. To support his claim, he

    Read More

  • Socrates and Socrates: A Philosophical Pair for the Ages

    2098 Words  | 5 Pages

    In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...

    Read More

  • Socrates, Aristotle, and Glaucon

    547 Words  | 2 Pages

    Plato’s character in “The Ring of Gyges” is trying to convey certain points about human nature and wisdom. In Glaucon’s fictional story, Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a mysterious ring which allows him the power to become invisible. Gyges eventually gives up his lowly life as a shepherd and becomes an authoritative and crooked dictator due to the power of the ring. Glaucon’s main point in this story is that people are inherently immoral and will look out for themselves over the good of others. Due to his assumption about the nature of the human race Glaucon proclaims that in order to keep human’s from causing damage to others our social order should emphasize a government that will contain their constituents. Glaucon’s proposed social order became the building blocks of the social contract theory of government; “People in a society mutually agreeing not to harm one another and setting up sanctions when they do,” (Caste, 2014).

    Read More

  • Plato Republic The Noble Lie

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    He is convinced that if an individual who is a cobbler or a farmer “goes to the bad and pretends to be what he is not” (The Republic of Plato X:III-420) the entire well-being of the state is not in jeopardy. But such is most certainly not the case if the person is a Guardian or Auxiliary. There is no point, Socrates says, in producing a happiness like that of a “party of peasants feasting at a fair.” Such a person who would aspire to such a community “has something in mind other than a civic community” (The Republic of Plato X:III-421). Of course, Glaucon agrees.

    Read More

  • Glaucon's Challenge and Plato's Theory of Justice in Plato's Republic

    1807 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Defense of Socrates

    1586 Words  | 4 Pages

    There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.

    Read More

  • Who Is Socrates A Gift To Athens

    1128 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.

    Read More

  • Last Days Of Socrates

    2263 Words  | 5 Pages

    Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.

    Read More

  • Socrates In The Apology

    769 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the opening of The Apology, Socrates informed the jurors how he intends to address them, what they should pay attention to in his remarks, and what he sees as his greatest obstacle in gaining an acquittal. How does he intend to address the jury? Socrates’ approach towards addressing the jury is way different than what you would see a normal defendant doing. Socrates does not stand in front of the jury and beg that he doesn’t get charged. Instead, Socrates believes that you shouldn’t have to cry and beg for the right to live in court if the defendant has done nothing wrong. The first thing that he says when speaking to the jury was to basically hear him out, and listen to even if he started to talk in his language of habit. He then said they should excuse that because he is seventy years old and has never appeared in court. “I must beg of you to grant me one favor, If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have been in habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the table of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you to not be surprised at this, and bot to interrupt me (Dover p. 19).”

    Read More

  • The Republic of Plato

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.

    Read More

  • Defense of Socrates

    589 Words  | 2 Pages

    Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.

    Read More

  • Justice and Moderation of the Soul in The Republic, by Plato

    3023 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Is Justice Profitable?

    938 Words  | 2 Pages

    Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.

    Read More

  • How Dose Socrates Prove “Virtue is Knowledge”

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    In second part (Meno, 79-80,87c-d), Socrates asks “do we say that virtue is itself something good, and will this hypothesis stand firm for us, that it is something good?” which means virtue is good. In addition, Socrates suggests “if there is nothing good t...

    Read More

More about Glaucon's Views Of Socrates

Open Document