Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflections about plato's republic
Justice in platos republic book 1essay
Platos theory of knowledge in the republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflections about plato's republic
In the Republic written by Socrates, Socrates attempts to prove that human beings ought to practice justice in order to live a more just life. Socrates moves through several examples in order to prove that the just life is one worth living and is the one that ought to be practiced. Through Socrates’s compelling argument in the book titled Plato’s Republic , one can see that the just life is the proper human life. Socrates explains in the Republic that there are three different types of people that dwell amongst each other in the world and the can be categorized into three different categories as such. The first category is the of money loving, the second is that of honor loving, and the third is that of truth loving. Wherever a person may …show more content…
Socrates uses the explanation of food and drink and knowledge and intelligence in order to explain what is in a truer form of being. He states that while hunger and thirst will eventually come back once they are subdued by food and drink the man whom seeks knowledge and intelligence becomes ever full. This fullness is what it is like for a man to live a just life and thus the proper human life. Since the just life is the most pure form of being. He backs this claim by asking several questions such as which is more? A thing that is always going to be connected to something else and that is the same and is also always true, or something that is connected to something that is never the same as one thing and is mortal and only exists in itself. The obvious answer to this question would be that of the thing that is connected eternally is more. This is because the only thing that is of the most substance and that is more is of the thing that contains knowledge. “And the being of that which is always the same, does it participate in being any more than in knowledge?” “Not at all.” Socrates goes on to further strengthen his proposal by saying that if something is less in truth than it is less in being. This holds true for man as well. If a man pursues truth in a lesser way then he himself is not living a just life, as the life of justice is the only life to live that is worthwhile. The type of man that care more about the body and things of that nature are less in the way of truth than that of a man who is more concerned with the
The pursuit of truth, just as Socrates, has always been a distinguishing part of who I am and what I regard as a noble and worthwhile approach to life. My mother told me that when I was a child I always had another question for every answer she ever gave me. I remember it as if it was yesterday. My mother and I had brought back some flowers from the nursery to plant in her garden. As she went about her business laying down the mulch and arranging the flowers the way she wanted them, I began to take notice of the many bugs embedded in the so...
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.
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
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.
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
Socrates follows by explaining what is taught to each citizen. You are told that you were born with certain laws. Your father and mother brought you to the world in which they live and thus you should respect and obey by their rules. The laws were already there. That means, that your mother and father are as important as the city and you should respect the city as so.
There is an ethical theory that we covered this quarter that I strongly agree with which is the theory of justice. There is a specific thinker that surprised me at and made me think about moral issues in a new way. That thinker was Socrates who surprised me and made me think about moral issues in a new way. I feel that socrates is someone who challenged what you thought or believed about ethics before taking this class. Those dialog investigates two vital inquiries. Those 1st inquiry may be “what will be justice?” socrates addresses this address both As far as political groups and As far as those unique man alternately souk. He does this to address those second Furthermore driving inquiry of the dialogue: “is those simply persnickety happier
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
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.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
“Plato, Apologia” is a primary source that is a story written by Plato, it is a written account of Socrates, a Greek philosopher, who was being tried for immorality towards the gods and for “corrupting the youth” (Strayer). In this primary source, Socrates is trying to plead his case so he won 't be charged; unfortunately, Socrates does get charged with the crimes he was convicted of and is sentenced to be put to death. Through his Socrates’ plea, his discusses what he believes is “the good life,” what “wisdom” is, and what “virtue” is.
Socrates discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
Socrates was an insightful philosopher who had an opinion on all the basic fundamental questions. He had very strong beliefs that he willed others into believing through questioning and proving ignorance in others beliefs. He has particular views on every fundamental question and particular views on how people should live their lives. He says God has spoken to him about philosophy and says that it is his destiny and it is his calling in life. Through philosophy he searches for answers to the fundamental questions and gains wisdom and knowledge. The fundamental question of condition is the question of what, if anything, has gone wrong with the world? The question of solution is what can fix the problem? Then there is Death which asks what happens