Justice is Dying The debate between Just and Unjust Speech highlights the ongoing debate between old and new traditions. These traditions can range from how to interpret laws to family values and the struggle between them is highlighted in Aristophanes Clouds. The battle between old and new is seen in argument between Just and Unjust Speech and the arguments between father Strepsiades and son Pheidippides. The constant battle between old and new is seen in many different areas throughout the Clouds such as justice, piety and issues of law. The debate between Unjust and Just Speech in Aristophanes’ Clouds draws the reader’s attention to the theme of natural pleasure versus lawful justice. The debate begins with the two Speeches representing …show more content…
their ideas about education. Just speech represents the old fashioned way of living life by praising the men of old, and declaring that justice is with the gods and urges men to obey Zeus. Just speech presents the more traditional argument by saying, “First, it was needful that no one hear a boy muttering a sound; next, that those from the same neighborhood walk on the streets here in good order” (pg.
154, 960-65). Just Speech praises a strict system of education and to live a life centered around moderation. Unjust Speech refutes the entire argument about education and represents the modern way of living a more dishonest, hedonistic life, paying no attention to the consequences you may cause. Unjust speech wins the attention of Pheidippides when he appeals to the “necessities of nature. You’ve done wrong, fallen in love, committed some adultery, and then you’ve been caught” (pg. 159, 1075-76). Unjust Speech argues that men should live a life centered around hedonism, and luxury without any care for the consequences that may come. In issues of law, the old way of viewing things would fall along the ideas of strict constructionism where as the more modern version would be closer to loose constructionism. The modern way of interpreting the law implies that the law is constantly changing and evolving over time as society continues to change. A strict constructionist or originalist views the law as what they mean to people when they were originally written; the law stays constant throughout history …show more content…
no matter how evolved society becomes. Just speech tries to defend justice by arguing that, “By speaking just things… that comes from the gods” (pg. 152, 900-903) however Unjust Speech defeats this point by saying, “If justice exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father” (pg. 152, 904-905). Throughout the debate, Unjust Speech does not seem to give his own thoughts on issues of law and justice rather he continues to point out flaws in the argument of Just Speech, which eventually causes Just Speech to give up on on his argument. While this debate does touch on issue of law and politics, it does also relate to family life. Just Speech appeals to the traditionally by saying, “to stand up from your seat for your elders when they approach, and not to misbehave toward your own parents” (pg. 156, 993-995). Tradition places a high importance on family life and showing respect to elders whenever necessary. Unjust speech refutes this argument by saying, “If you obey him in these things, lad, by Dionysus, You’ll be like the sons of Hippocrates and they’ll call you honey-mama” (Pg. 156, 1001-1002). Unjust Speech does not believe in family respect, rather in standing up for ones self and that if you obey your father all the time you will be called a simpleton. All of these debates of old against relate to the relationship between Strepsiades and Pheidippides, especially the family values. Strepsiades opens the play by complaining to the gods about his son by saying, “Nor does this upright youth here wake up at night; he farts away, enwrapped in five blankets. I can’t sleep, wretched me, I’m being bitten by expenses and stables and debts because of this son of mine” (pg. 116, 8-14). Immediately, Strepsiades points out the conflict there is between father and son that keeps him up throughout the night. This concept of arguing and showing little respect in the family goes along with Unjust Speech and his ideals of placing less importance on family life. Strepsiades complains about the disorder in his house, “The servants are still snoring. They wouldn’t have ever before. Perish, then, O war, because among many other things, now I can’t even punish my servants” (pg. 115, 2-5). Strepsiades portrays the idea of old justice and order and this opening scene represents the idea that the old form of order and justice is dying. The debate between Just and Unjust speech highlight this point even more and eventually is proved once Just Speech simply gives up. One thing that is major throughout the debate is the fact that Socrates is absent from the whole event.
Strepsiades went to Socrates directly for his help and yet Socrates has no influence or input on which side his son should choose. Socrates may be absent because he does not directly teach injustice rather he lets his students listen to the exchange between the two. He does not take part in the debate and the teaching because he does not want responsibility for the events that may happen in the future because of Pheidippides’s education. While Socrates does teach him some things that neither Speeches could teach him, the main part of his education is from the Speeches and not Socrates. Socrates realizes that what Pheidippides is being taught is not what Strepsiades was looking for but he knew that Strepsiades did not mean well when he came to visit the thinkery so he took advantage of him without actually being responsible for the lessons that Pheidippides was taught. Socrates may also not be present because Unjust and Just speech both represent Socrates and some of his ideals that he maybe is afraid to teach. Unjust and Just Speech teach Pheidippides to speak in ways that simply confuse other people, the same way that Socrates talks to many other people including Strepsiades when he first comes to the thinkery. Socrates does not concern himself with typical city matters or politics so maybe he wasn’t present during the debate because the debate was centered around
political matters and city life. Socrates is apolitical throughout the play and would have no reason to be present during a debate that was centered around political events. The debate of old against new is a recurring theme throughout the Clouds and is seen in many different ways. From the beginning of the play, Strepsiades highlights the fact that the old way of living is becoming more and more obsolete. From the strict way of educating, to not ever arguing with you parents, the more traditional way of living is a rare sight. Modern times are centered around happiness and pleasure for everyone. Aristophanes’ Clouds highlights this theme that the old, traditional way of living is losing importance and will continue to loss importance as pleasure becomes more and more important to people.
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
In this essay I argue that it is Michel Foucault Cynic parrhesia that is more adept or able to create an atmosphere where we are only forced to ask ourselves to reexamine our political responsibility within our society. In Foucault’s Freedom of Speech given at the University of California he discusses this topic of parrhesia in great length describing what it meant to the Greeks and how they interpreted it using examples from them when used in such little texts. After describing this in detail with examples Foucault later describes that it can lead to more than just that that we can see two forms of parrhesia in Cynic and Socratic the second coming from excerpts in Socrates however it is the Cynic for me that is more interesting and riskier form that can help us understand this further.
Sophocles’ Antigone and Euripides’ The Bacchae are indubitably plays of antitheses and conflicts, and this condition is personified in the manifestation of their characters, each completely opposed to the other. Both tragedians reveal tensions between two permanent and irreconcilable moral codes; divine law represented by Antigone and Dionysus and human law represented by Creon and Pentheus. The central purpose is evidently the association of law which has its consent in political authority and the law which has its consent in the private conscience, the association of obligations imposed on human beings as citizens and members of state, and the obligations imposed on them in the home as members of families. Both these laws presenting themselves in their most crucial form are in direct collision. Sophocles and Euripides include a great deal of controversial material, once the reader realizes the inquiries behind their work. Inquiries that pertain to the very fabric of life, that still make up the garments of society today.
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.
Throughout his comedy, The Clouds, Aristophanes ridicules aspects of Greek society when he destroys tradition by denouncing the importance of the gods' influence on the actions of mortals, and he unknowingly parallels Greek society with today's. Disguised by laughter, he digs deep into the truth by which citizens of Greek and future cultures will abide. Aristophanes challenges humans' strength in belief systems, fortitude of character, and ability to deal with the complexity of parenting. He also defiantly misrepresents an icon like Socrates as comical, atheistic, and consumed by ideas of self interest, which is contradictory to the Socrates seen in Plato's Apology or Phaedo. However different from each other, each writing contained a role for Socrates, which symbolized the messages trying to be conveyed in each. So even if the name is alike, the ultimate purpose of a good character was met.
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.
From the creation of the very first civilizations, people have been using laws for potential disputes and or other issues that they come across. With the evolution of time and the expansion of the legal system, many laws were established that did not promote justice and equality. In essence, they did not take into consideration the ethical and racial implications that these laws generated. In our days, laws of this nature are still in effect and are characterized as unjust. They can be found anywhere and can take various forms.
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.
Aristotle’s analysis of justice in the Nicomachean Ethics is viewed in the account of the illustration of geometric proportions and economic transactions. Though one might get the impression from this formulaic quality of justice that is neat, a matter of simple adjustment. Compared to the “neat” illustration of justice from Aristotle, justice in Antigone can be seen as “messiness.” Sophocles’ Antigone is a tragedy that is an augmentation of Aristotle’s conception of justice in the Ethics. Not only does Antigone problematize the relationship between justice and law, however in many ways the play represents what is at stake in justice. From this essay, I will assess both Aristotle’s and Antigone’s view on justice and argue which one enjoys more
Athens, Greece has been one of the most influential cities for Western culture the world has ever seen. At the forefront of Athens’ resume lie three names: Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle. Each of these three great philosophers had different ideas on life, wisdom, and the god’s role in everyday affairs, but each significantly influenced Western thought and culture. Sophocles, the first of these philosophers to have lived, was put to death by the state around 400 BC for charges brought against him of corrupting the youth and impiety. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by a group of his piers (vii). However, Sophocles did not commit the crimes the “plaintiffs” claimed he did, therefore rendering a generally just punishment unjust, causing his execution to be the real crime committed.
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.
The play was considered comic by the ancient Athenians because of its rhyming lyricism, its song and dance, its bawdy puns, but most of all because the notion and methods of female empowerment conceived in the play were perfectly ridiculous. Yet, as is the case in a number of Aristophanes’ plays, he has presented an intricate vision of genuine human crisis. In true, comic form Aristophanes superficially resolves the play’s conflicts celebrating the absurdity of dramatic communication. It is these loose threads that are most rife with tragedy for modern reader. By exploring an ancient perspective on female domesticity, male political and military power, rape, and efforts to maintain the integrity of the female body, we can liberate our modern dialogue.
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.