Plato’s Republic was a Socratic Dialogue discussing justice and the perfect State. Today, I will summarize, evaluate, and show application for our society in Book V of Plato’s Republic, “On Matrimony and Philosophy.” Glaucon begins Book V by asking Socrates, “What sort of community of men and
children is this which is to prevail among our guardians? and how shall we manage the period
between birth and education which seems to require the greatest care?” This question forms the
foundation for the rest of Book V where Glaucon, Socrates, and Adeimantus discuss what the
perfect community of men, women, and children in their republic looks like.
According to these philosophers, men and women should perform the same tasks and
duties.
…show more content…
Additionally, no parent or child should ever know who is related to whom to ensure that there would never be a rebellion. Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus believed this way of life would be the most beneficial for the people of the State and for future generations.
Evaluation:
From a worldly perspective, Plato’s description of the perfect State makes
complete sense. Allowing men and women access to the same education and equal rights would translate to the best forms of Guardians; the best Guardians would produce the best State.
This seems to follow the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest.” However, from a Christian standpoint, this is not an ethical way to form a State. Although equality between a man and a woman has merit, it is a woman’s God-given role to bear children and keep household in order, while the man provides for his family and is the leader of the home. Additionally, God makes all children in His image, not only a supposed perfect race of Guardians. God has order in His universe for a reason; it is for the best
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
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
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.
Plato, G. R. F. Ferrari, and Tom Griffith. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
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.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon seeks to define what justice is and whether it could truly be considered an end in itself. He starts by asserting that there are three types of good. First there are goods that we choose out pure enjoyment and pleasure, these goods have no negative after effects. Second are the goods that are valued for what they are in and of themselves not just the good that comes from them. Thirdly there are the goods that an individual will only pursue because of what they believe they will acquire, not for what they are themselves.(36) Glaucon believes that justice should be placed in the second tier of goods where everything of intrinsic value is also placed. However he goes on to explain that the majority of people
Plato, and G. M. A. Grube. Five Dialogues. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002. Print.
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
The second book of the Republic shows the repressive quality of Plato’s society. Plato, talking through Socrates, wants
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
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.
In Book V of Plato’s Republic, he details his view of an idealistic society. His main arguments include a platonic view of marriage which is comparable to animal breeding. He also shows a strong belief in communal family. In addition, he explains why he believes that philosophers should rule.