Plato Republic Essay

Plato: Republic: By Allan Bloom

In the Plato’s Republic mainly discuses the idea of what justice is. The answer to this question has a variety of answers according to the Republic, which makes it very interesting. Throughout this book, you will be driven in many directions of what justice is. Some may the answer is to primarily is doing the right thing. The main issue comes from about is whether to try and be just at the expense of staying poor, or lie, or even use the very unjust means to get what one wants in life. The main point of the book is a man who tries to be very just, may spend life wandering in the streets in search for money, while the man who lies to get their way, will be rich. This essay looks at the Thrasymachus’s concept of and the Socrates’s concept of justice. The essay also looks at the author thinks that the unjust man will be happier that the just man. It explores the reasons why the concepts are right or wrong.

In book one, Thrasymachus definition of justice is, “the advantage of the stronger” (341d). His view on justice that justice always gives more authority and rule to people who are already in power. The argument that Thrasymachus makes is difficult to understand. His statement may make one believe that the people who are being ruled are considered to act right when their actions are going towards benefiting the rulers. You can also make an interpretation that the ruling class acts fairly by doing things that will benefit them. The confusion comes because Thrasymachus expresses his belief that, when the ruling classes do things that is geared towards benefiting them, they are acting unfairly. In his quote he says “advantage to the stronger”, which means Thrasymachus is arguing the concerns of justice...

... middle of paper ...

...ons of the people. Socrates brings out the argument that the leaders do whatever they do for the interests of the people. The leaders are stronger than the citizens, the leaders should consider the people as their bosses and work for them. This explains why Socrates accepts that everything the leaders say or do. They do things with the interests of the others. As Socrates argues, leaders are not in power to benefit them. They are in power to serve the interests of the people who put them to those positions.

In conclusion, the concept of justice defined by Thrasymachus and Socrates has opposing views. Thrasymachus views justice as making one unhappy. He says that lying and stealing is a way out. On the contrary, Socrates brings out justice as a pure of the soul. Socrates reflects the wishes of the society while Thrasymachus reflects a society that has rotten values.