Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the Republica Platon
4 critique of Plato in the republic
Analysis of the Republica Platon
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After a deep reading of The Republic book I, and after analyzing how Plato criticized the sophist by attacking Thrasymachus, I will start this by paper by defining a sophist and then I will be developing in this paper the contrast in the aims and methods of philosophers and sophists.
Broadly, sophist is known to be a person who is a great public speaker who is capable to persuade and affect other people’s thoughts. Sophists used to cities to find rich people, and as soon as they find they, they convince them that they need a sophist to teach their children on how to become good public speakers and good leaders. Sophists used to do so because they thought that teaching the children of those wealthy people gives them more fame and makes them
…show more content…
You take hold of the argument in the way you can work it the most harm” (The Republic, 338 d). Thrasymachus is aware that Socrates is trying to humulate him and harm him. At this point of the conversation, Thrasymachus was getting upset everytime he was questioned about his definition, and he was also aware that Socrates was intending to ham him in his question about the infallibility of the ruler.” To defend himself, Socrates says: “Do you suppose I ask what I asked because I’m plotting to do harm to you in the argument?” Thrasymachus then replies “I don’t suppose, I know it well, But it won’t profit you”. (The Republic 341 b). Thrasymachus here is showing Socrates that he won’t let him profit from the humiliation he is trying to do. What proves that Thrasymachus is someone who likes to give long speeches to persuade people and that he is not really interested in discovering the true definition of justice nor in having the authentic knowledge is that he is getting angry everytime someone questions him. Thrasymachus is already convinced that he has the ultimate knowledge and he doesn’t like when Socrates tries to prove him that the definition he has is wrong or that he doesn’t know exactly what justice
...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.
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:
The meaning of sophist, is one who used his smarts to later manipulate reality, and Socrates did that, because many young men learned from Socrates, but Socrates later stated that he knew nothing.
The argument, originally given by Thrasymachus, contends that at the root of our human nature we all yearn for the most profit possible. It also contends that any man will act immorally if given free reign. The theory proves unplausible due to circularity in the argument and implications that prove untrue. Thrasymachus approaches Socrates, the main character of Republic and most of Plato's work, during a conversation on the topic of morality. The aggressive Thrasymachus interjects his own opinion; morality is "the advantage of the stronger."
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
After all the readings that we have had and the assignments that were assigned to the readings, one that did stood out the most to me was ”Isocrates, ‘Against the Sophists’”. Isocrates point of view of the sophist was neatly to show that he was against them. Isocrates contends that these sophists, in any case, make guarantees that are difficult to satisfy, saying that they would all be able to however make divine beings out of men. They put on a show to be searchers of reality keeping in mind the end goal to engage individuals, however they don 't really concentrate on it. I will be argue how isocrates criticism about the sophist can now be seen in modern time.
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
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.
Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the parts and their interaction motivate action. This essay will investigate each segment, and seek to explain their importance.
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
How would you feel if someone called you a sophist? Before you answer, it's important to know how the meaning of this word has evolved. "During the fifth century, sophists were teachers, speakers, and philosophers who were paid to use rhetoric (Mardner 1)." But many people opposed their style of teaching. Socrates was a philosopher who disagreed with the Sophist's point-of-view. The main differences between the Sophist and Socrates were their views on absolute truth.
MacIntyre begins by outlining the general amalgam of Sophistic theory: success. The areté (virtue) of a Sophist is to be a successful citizen through conforming to the social convention of justice (14). Employing the dialogue, Theatetus, he reveals Protagoras’ doctrine as being the link between relativism to knowledge, “As things seem to an individual percipient, so they are” (15). The truth is discovered in personal perspective, and therefore it was required to adhere to public convention to achieve success. However, MacIntyre questions this take on “personal realism” because it interestingly defeats the purpose of Sophism; if all ideas are equal in comparison to the truth, then superiority of truth is undefined.
Finally, the theory of Ideas reaches new height in the Sophists. The theory of Ideas in this work is a new concept because he redefines and extends it. The Sophist presents that there are hierarchy of Ideas and the whole complex of Ideas in defining the meaning of Sophistry. There are five categories of the sophist: motion and rest, sameness, difference, being, and non-being. Plato uses logos to define the meaning of each of the categories in which the being is dynamic and there is relationship among them which unity is important.