Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's concept of Justice
Criticism of Plato's ideas
Plato's concept of Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato's concept of Justice
Plato has had a lot of influence on the philosophy that we have today. In this modern time we do not really have our own philosophy we are learning our philosophy from a guy that wrote it hundreds of years ago. It is really significant that we are still going with his thoughts on justice and things like that, but the ideas are a little old and not very well applied to the modern ways of life. I found this person who was writing about why Plato was wrong and she made some very good point in which the language and arguments make no sense and there really is no information there. “Plato takes forever to say anything, spinning what should be a single sentence into a page or more. This makes it very difficult to quote his argument directly so that …show more content…
Socrates is a little bit of a liar as well because he kept saying the definition of justice is and give an example that does not even pertain to justice it is just a word picture that confuses you even more than you already are after reading the 90 pages to get there. There is no definition and Socrates knows that while he is talking, but he has to “teach” them the different views and Rowett agrees with why he is even trying to fulfill this task, it will never happen. “Is this Socrates Plato? Or is he a Socrates obsessed with an impossible quest, one who will never be able to answer the question of what justice is in the way he had hoped to answer it, because(as Plato the author is well aware) the question is not well-formed, and no satisfactory answer can be found?” (Rowette) This is why he is wrong about justice he does not know what he is talking about he is just saying things to make himself sound intelligent. Socrates bounces around throughout the entirety of the book first justice, then he moves on to the ideal individual, then state, and then back to the individual he couldn’t sustain the argument for very
In book four of Plato's “The Republic” Socrates defines justice in the individual as analogous to justice in the state. I will explain Socrates' definition of justice in the individual, and then show that Socrates cannot certify that his definition of justice is correct, without asking further questions about justice. I will argue that if we act according to this definition of justice, then we do not know when we are acting just. Since neither the meaning of justice, nor the meaning of good judgement, is contained in the definition, then one can act unjustly while obeying to the definition of justice. If one can act unjustly while obeying this definition, then Socrates' definition of justice is uncertifiable.
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
He set out to “go to all those who had any reputation for knowledge to examine its meaning. And by the dog, men of Athens – for I must tell you the truth – I experienced something like this: In my investigation in the service of the god I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable”(22a). This conclusion of his investigation helps his appeal to the audience men who are less reputable than others, but provokes those of highest reputation such at Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. Socrates is aware that speaking out in this form makes him “unpopular”, but he continues to say it regardless. He is convinced that he is not going to hold back his thoughts and speak the truth to the jury. The issue with these statements is that ultimately the people of greater power and more authority are the people that he is insulting by calling them less wise that the rest of the citizens. Since he acknowledges that what he is doing makes him unpopular then, he knows he in aggravating those who are listening to him but he continues to do regardless. This is worse because now his audience knows it is intentional and he is willingly choosing to behave in this manner. This is clearly unethical because if Socrates is aware that he is aggravating those around him then why would he
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
...ates. The image the Apology forms of Socrates is man who was not afraid of death. No matter what the consequences may result to be, Socrates was always truthful and not afraid to stand firm in his opinion even if that meant standing alone. He always wanted to seek justice for all and do what was right no matter the situation. Lastly, he was a man that believed that pleasing god was the most important. Even though that this image may or may not be entirely correct, the viewpoint of Plato’s about Socrates shows how a few saw him a positive example, even though most people believed he was corrupt.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
Plato's rhetoric uses dialogue and dialectic as a means of making meaning known. Anthony Petruzzi says that Plato’s “Truth is neither a correspondence with an "objective" reality, nor does it exist solely as a coherent relation to a set of social beliefs; rather, truth is concomitantly a revealing and a concealing, or a withdrawing arrival” (Petruzzi 6). However, for Plato truth becomes a matter of correspondence or correctness in “the agreement of the mental concept (or representation) with the thing” (Petruzzi 7). In other words, the tr...
Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
In summary, Plato's comments are incredibly perceptive and relevant: a lot of what he says has been proved true in one way or another throughout history. The transition of our own country from an early 19th century Oligarchy to the Democracy we have today seems to have been predicted by Plato over two thousand years ago. It may also be true that our contemporary politicians are to be ousted by the dissatisfied public, and replaced with a tyrannical dictator. Finally, though not everything Plato says is in concordance with what we can now see for ourselves, his ideas are still relevant in any study of modern politics.
Justice is generally regarded as an important virtue. It is seen as the hallmark of a truly free and fair society, as well as one with a good sense of morality. The average person might see justice as a state where crime is not prevalent, and where individuals are fair and understanding towards one another. However, in order to reach a working definition for justice, one must consider its value and understand the components that make up a greater virtue. Throughout The Apology and Republic, Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece, attempting to explore find the true meaning of justice. Throughout The Apology, Socrates dispels commonly held views on the nature of justice and discusses how individuals