Plato's Republic: The City Of Words

Plato’s Republic is one of the more affluential books in western philosophy and is perhaps most notable for both its sophisticated philosophical dialect, as well as its contributions to our contemporary definition of justice. Speaking through his intellectual predecessor (Socrates), Plato outlines what he deems to be a “model” city known as The City of Words to scholars today. This city has been the cause for much debate over the years; however the central topic of debate seems to be whether Plato represents this city as either possible or impossible, to which most would agree that the latter is the more plausible argument. The City of Words as outlined by Socrates is to be taken as a metaphor, a heuristic device used to advocate for a

Glaucon defines justice as an advantage to the weaker, the reason being that justice is a safeguard from injustice. By adhering to the principles of justice we have accepted a social contract to not harm one another because we are weak beings individually and should band together to combat further disadvantage. He then proceeds to prompt Socrates into giving not only a definition of the term ‘justice’, but to also prove that justice is desirable. This argument shifts the onus back onto Socrates to prove that to be just is better than being unqualifiedly unjust. Similarly so both Glaucon and Thrasymachus both agree that injustice appears to be more desirable, to which Socrates later heuristically resolves later in Book IX with another parable. “In truth, then, whatever some people may think, a real tyrant is really a slave, compelled to engage in the worst kind of fawning, slavery, and pandering to the worst kind of people. He’s so far from satisfying his desires in any way that it is clear – if one happens to know that one must study his whole soul – that he’s in the greatest need of most things and truly poor. And, if indeed his state is like that of the city he rules, then he’s full of fear, convulsions, and pains throughout his life.” (579d8). Here Socrates utilizes the highest level an unjust person can obtain (the level of tyrant) as a prime example as to why being just would be the most desirable option. He illustrates that a life ruled by appetites (an unjust life) may tangibly or materially wield results, but it comes at a cost, and is therefore not desirable. The unjust person lives a tormentous life, and is a slave to his appetites as well as his fears of the loss of power. All the definitions so far have only been partial with respect to justice; however what is for certain is that the discussants are shifting their points of view on the