Genesis. Aquino
Phi:100-019
Due:3/23/14
What are the means of Justice?
Plato's Republic, being written in 380 B.C. The main questions which Socrates prepositions are What is justice? And why we should be just? What does it mean to be just in as a soul? What does is mean to be a just city?
In Book 1, throughout the Dialogue, Socrates(The main speaker, who was Plato's mentor, died in 399 B.C ), Cephalus (A wealthy and retired old businessman, head of a business family.)Polemarchus Cephalus' (son and the pupil of Lysias, a teacher of rhetoric),Glaucon (Also a half-brother of Plato), Thrasymachus (A sophist, teaches of anything in regards to persuade the masses, people who do not teach with accuracy.) Have an argument regarding what is known to be of one of the many virtues, that which is Justice. Through the many conversations taking place, Socrates then begins a deep philosophical conversation regarding to the matters of Justice. He rises the main questions of the argument in which through the dialogue he defends with his rationalistic explanations. Thrasymachus after listening to Socrates beliefs with rationalistic thoughts towards Justice stands at Opposition to what Socrates definitions are for Justice. Then decides Thrasymachus along with his own argumentative nature, to express his definition for Justice. Thrasymachus, believing that Justice works only on the behalf of the strong though he says this because he is a sophist, and sophists believe they are in power and they are good for arguments and expressing their ideas vs. Socrates believing that Justice is actually a virtue, beneficial and healthy for the soul. Proving that Thrasymachus concept behind Justice is incorrect, Socrates claims that injustice cannot be a...
... middle of paper ...
... have because then it then becomes a healthy soul.
In my opinion was it successful? Socrates' was indeed successful because he had all the men in the circle in an agreement that 1. Justice is good for the soul and has it's own reward within itself. 2. A Just man is a happy man. As for the majority of his theories, most of the men at least were won over and did not bother debating with Socrates after he's made his prepositions. Lover's of wisdom such as Socrates, have a tendency to also have love for Justice. It is wise to be just and it is just to be wise. It is wise to be just because philosophers are lovers of wisdom and if you love wisdom then you should automatically be a truth seeker and love truth as well. Justice is good and it's fair to everyone.
“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
― Plato, The Republic
In “The Apology,” Socrates represents himself in his own trial. He boldly questions the morality of the people of court. In this report, I will be analyzing portions of “The Apology” in order to reveal the intellectuality of this text within this time frame. I will only discuss bits of “The Apology“ on account that it is a lengthy piece. However, before discussing the speech it is important to set the scene. Socrates was born in 469 B.C.E. and lived to 399 B.C.E. (Nails, 2014). What we do know about him is second-hand knowledge, or recounts from his former students, Plato and Xenophon (“Plato and Socrates”). Nevertheless, his legacy has influenced philosophy and continues to do so.
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
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.
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
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
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
Cephalus is presumed to be the role model of Book 1 in Plato’s Republic: he examines his past with admirable insight, uses holy diction when discussing secular topics, and dutifully attends his sacrifices. In fact, Cephalus’ only fault seems to be teaching Polemarchus the wrong definition of justice: “doing good to one’s friends and harm to one’s enemies” (332d). Nevertheless, Socrates easily forgives this transgression as he respects Cephalus very much. However, through Glaucon and Adeimantus’ invalidation of Cephalus’ righteousness in Book 2, followed by Socrates’ direct rebuttal of Anytus’ claim from Meno, Plato reveals Cephalus is actually the most unjust character of Book 1.
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.
Throughout Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates sets out to answer two questions: (1) What is Justice? and Why should we be just? Book 1 seems to be a large argument where in the end there is no progress being made. As Book 1 begins, Socrates is beginning his return from a religious festival where they are convinced to go to friends house. At this point, they begin to discuss old age until the conversation changes to that of justice.
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
Thrasymachus, tired of holding his tongue back, barges into the argument and asks Socrates exactly what justice is; since Socrates cannot answer Thrasymachus offers his perception:
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 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