Justice is Dying The debate between Just and Unjust Speech highlights the ongoing debate between old and new traditions. These traditions can range from how to interpret laws to family values and the struggle between them is highlighted in Aristophanes Clouds. The battle between old and new is seen in argument between Just and Unjust Speech and the arguments between father Strepsiades and son Pheidippides. The constant battle between old and new is seen in many different areas throughout the Clouds such as justice, piety and issues of law. The debate between Unjust and Just Speech in Aristophanes’ Clouds draws the reader’s attention to the theme of natural pleasure versus lawful justice. The debate begins with the two Speeches representing …show more content…
154, 960-65). Just Speech praises a strict system of education and to live a life centered around moderation. Unjust Speech refutes the entire argument about education and represents the modern way of living a more dishonest, hedonistic life, paying no attention to the consequences you may cause. Unjust speech wins the attention of Pheidippides when he appeals to the “necessities of nature. You’ve done wrong, fallen in love, committed some adultery, and then you’ve been caught” (pg. 159, 1075-76). Unjust Speech argues that men should live a life centered around hedonism, and luxury without any care for the consequences that may come. In issues of law, the old way of viewing things would fall along the ideas of strict constructionism where as the more modern version would be closer to loose constructionism. The modern way of interpreting the law implies that the law is constantly changing and evolving over time as society continues to change. A strict constructionist or originalist views the law as what they mean to people when they were originally written; the law stays constant throughout history …show more content…
Strepsiades went to Socrates directly for his help and yet Socrates has no influence or input on which side his son should choose. Socrates may be absent because he does not directly teach injustice rather he lets his students listen to the exchange between the two. He does not take part in the debate and the teaching because he does not want responsibility for the events that may happen in the future because of Pheidippides’s education. While Socrates does teach him some things that neither Speeches could teach him, the main part of his education is from the Speeches and not Socrates. Socrates realizes that what Pheidippides is being taught is not what Strepsiades was looking for but he knew that Strepsiades did not mean well when he came to visit the thinkery so he took advantage of him without actually being responsible for the lessons that Pheidippides was taught. Socrates may also not be present because Unjust and Just speech both represent Socrates and some of his ideals that he maybe is afraid to teach. Unjust and Just Speech teach Pheidippides to speak in ways that simply confuse other people, the same way that Socrates talks to many other people including Strepsiades when he first comes to the thinkery. Socrates does not concern himself with typical city matters or politics so maybe he wasn’t present during the debate because the debate was centered around
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
Athens, Greece has been one of the most influential cities for Western culture the world has ever seen. At the forefront of Athens’ resume lie three names: Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle. Each of these three great philosophers had different ideas on life, wisdom, and the god’s role in everyday affairs, but each significantly influenced Western thought and culture. Sophocles, the first of these philosophers to have lived, was put to death by the state around 400 BC for charges brought against him of corrupting the youth and impiety. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by a group of his piers (vii). However, Sophocles did not commit the crimes the “plaintiffs” claimed he did, therefore rendering a generally just punishment unjust, causing his execution to be the real crime committed.
In this essay I argue that it is Michel Foucault Cynic parrhesia that is more adept or able to create an atmosphere where we are only forced to ask ourselves to reexamine our political responsibility within our society. In Foucault’s Freedom of Speech given at the University of California he discusses this topic of parrhesia in great length describing what it meant to the Greeks and how they interpreted it using examples from them when used in such little texts. After describing this in detail with examples Foucault later describes that it can lead to more than just that that we can see two forms of parrhesia in Cynic and Socratic the second coming from excerpts in Socrates however it is the Cynic for me that is more interesting and riskier form that can help us understand this further.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
Aeschylus’ tragic trilogy, the only play to survive from Ancient Greece, repeatedly calls our attention upon a central concept of justice: justice as revenge. This is a relatively simple concept, with a powerful emotional appeal, linking vengeance to the family and their feelings for each other and for their collective honor. However, one must look past this superficial theme in order to fully appreciate and understand the depth and beauty of Aeschylus’ work, and regard it as a philosophical investigation into the concepts of justice rather than a great artistic fiction or a poetic exploration. The former approach is unfortunate because the Oresteia is not a rational argument. It is, on the other hand, an artistic exploration of abstract and theoretical issues. What matters in this case is the complexity of the feeling that emerges from the characters, the imagery, the actions, and the ideas in the story. In other words, the writer is dealing with a case of how human bei...
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.
Throughout his comedy, The Clouds, Aristophanes ridicules aspects of Greek society when he destroys tradition by denouncing the importance of the gods' influence on the actions of mortals, and he unknowingly parallels Greek society with today's. Disguised by laughter, he digs deep into the truth by which citizens of Greek and future cultures will abide. Aristophanes challenges humans' strength in belief systems, fortitude of character, and ability to deal with the complexity of parenting. He also defiantly misrepresents an icon like Socrates as comical, atheistic, and consumed by ideas of self interest, which is contradictory to the Socrates seen in Plato's Apology or Phaedo. However different from each other, each writing contained a role for Socrates, which symbolized the messages trying to be conveyed in each. So even if the name is alike, the ultimate purpose of a good character was met.
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.
From the creation of the very first civilizations, people have been using laws for potential disputes and or other issues that they come across. With the evolution of time and the expansion of the legal system, many laws were established that did not promote justice and equality. In essence, they did not take into consideration the ethical and racial implications that these laws generated. In our days, laws of this nature are still in effect and are characterized as unjust. They can be found anywhere and can take various forms.
The theme of justice is evident during Oedipus’ meeting with Tiresias. Oedipus brings over Tiresias, the renowned prophet to tell him who the Laius’ murderer is. Tiresias, at first, tries to hide the answer, but through Oedipus’ pressing, Tiresias is forced to reveal that Oedipus kills Laius a long time ago and is the source of “the corruption of the land (178).” Oedipus, enraged at the answer, tells Tiresias that he should be ashamed for cooking up such a story and asks Tiresias who told him to do this. Tiresias responds, “You did, you forced me, twisted it out of me (179).” The most rudimentary definition of justice is fairness, and back in Ancient Greece prophets’ words were reg...
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.
Aristotle’s analysis of justice in the Nicomachean Ethics is viewed in the account of the illustration of geometric proportions and economic transactions. Though one might get the impression from this formulaic quality of justice that is neat, a matter of simple adjustment. Compared to the “neat” illustration of justice from Aristotle, justice in Antigone can be seen as “messiness.” Sophocles’ Antigone is a tragedy that is an augmentation of Aristotle’s conception of justice in the Ethics. Not only does Antigone problematize the relationship between justice and law, however in many ways the play represents what is at stake in justice. From this essay, I will assess both Aristotle’s and Antigone’s view on justice and argue which one enjoys more
...rinciples of law that were founded outside of his or her own opinion. They are not the source of what is just or unjust, but rather they merely apply the rules already established from years of social progression and political influence. Thus, when Divine Command theorists argue that they have successfully conquered the Euthyphro Argument, they must be reminded that the opposite is true, and the age-old dilemma has actually reduced their deities to magistrates of morality.
Sophocles’ Antigone and Euripides’ The Bacchae are indubitably plays of antitheses and conflicts, and this condition is personified in the manifestation of their characters, each completely opposed to the other. Both tragedians reveal tensions between two permanent and irreconcilable moral codes; divine law represented by Antigone and Dionysus and human law represented by Creon and Pentheus. The central purpose is evidently the association of law which has its consent in political authority and the law which has its consent in the private conscience, the association of obligations imposed on human beings as citizens and members of state, and the obligations imposed on them in the home as members of families. Both these laws presenting themselves in their most crucial form are in direct collision. Sophocles and Euripides include a great deal of controversial material, once the reader realizes the inquiries behind their work. Inquiries that pertain to the very fabric of life, that still make up the garments of society today.
The play was considered comic by the ancient Athenians because of its rhyming lyricism, its song and dance, its bawdy puns, but most of all because the notion and methods of female empowerment conceived in the play were perfectly ridiculous. Yet, as is the case in a number of Aristophanes’ plays, he has presented an intricate vision of genuine human crisis. In true, comic form Aristophanes superficially resolves the play’s conflicts celebrating the absurdity of dramatic communication. It is these loose threads that are most rife with tragedy for modern reader. By exploring an ancient perspective on female domesticity, male political and military power, rape, and efforts to maintain the integrity of the female body, we can liberate our modern dialogue.