Socrates once said “the just man is the much happier than the unjust, but a just man 's life is only pleasant”. Throughout his lifetime Socrates searched for the type of individual who lives the happiest. In eighth book of Plato’s republic Socrates describes five different types of individuals, in which he believes all humans fall under at least once. As a philosopher he also believed that humans would attain happiness once they have found their souls, although he also claims that only philosophers can find their souls. Dr. Joe Freeman provided a lecture discussing democracy in the United States related to the ideologies of Socrates. In the lecture Dr. Freeman provided a pyramid of how Socrates rated humans based on his categories, justice …show more content…
Throughout the eighth book in Plato’s Republic, Plato explains how Socrates believed humans should be characterized. Based on the characteristics of the people he came up with five categories to explain the behavior of human’s philosophers, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyrant. A timocracy, is a person who is honor driven and is ruled by the government. Necessary appetites are the drive in an oligarchy man, while unnecessary appetites are the drive in a democratic man. In this book he points out that a man who is has the character of a tyrant is the person most likely to be successful. While they might be successful he claims they lack happiness. A truant man is a man who uses selfish ways to work his way to his goal. He might be able to reach the positions of his desires but he will lack happiness because he will not be able to find his soul. Through book nine Plato explains Socrates ideology of dreams. Socrates believes that …show more content…
They are most likely to manipulate people to attain power and gain control. A person who wishes to attain the power of a communist leader the usually have people who owe them political favors, people to manipulate and forms of illegal persuasion. Not only do communist leaders use unjust ways to gain power even some presidents of the United States have use some unjust way to gain political power or even to keep their power. President Nixon and President Clinton both have had some presidential scandals during their elections and none ended up impeached. One in order to maintain his “good name” resigned his position as president. Unjust people have their way of manipulating people to get what they want, without caring who they hurt on there way up.
Although, Socrates labeled humans as unjust and just or philosophers and tyrant 's he does not really create a real classification for humans. His classifications might be useful to identify behaviors but do not provide enough evidence to be used as actual classifications. Even with socrates claim that a person can not attain full happiness until they have found their soul, happiness is defined different in every human being. Even the people we may consider unjust have their own definition of
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
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.
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.
takes this a step further and states that something that is good must not only
In consideration to Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s view of the great-souled man is that of an individual that represents happiness and obtains the five virtues: wisdom, justice, bravery, self-control, and the overall goodness within an individual (happiness). The magnanimous person is very complex and displays the proper virtues at the proper time, and in the proper way. In addition, the great-souled man accommodates to his surroundings where he is honorable but not boastful in his actions. Aristotle believes that it is only possible to attain happiness within a political organization because happiness represents living well without being concerned with others, they solely live for the truth and not approval.
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
As Socrates also believed, Aristotle thought that the life of the philosopher was the most pleasant and had the potential to bring the most happiness to oneself. Happiness is a state that is interpreted differently by each person. Aristotle describes happiness as a final end meaning that is not chosen as a means to something else. As health is the goodness, or completeness, of a person’s body, happiness is the goodness of a person’s soul. For that reason, one should not seek happiness in itself, but should seek deserving to be happy. This is the same as one not seeking health, but deserving the health by exercising and eating correctly.
Happiness is a challenging emotion or state of mind that is hard to define. It is remarkably difficult because every person on earth has a dissimilar view on happiness. Happiness should be understood as something that fulfills the person’s abilities. If he or she achieves happiness, then that equates to a balance of pleasure, honor, and self-sufficiency. Aristotle believes the greatest good is happiness. He describes happiness as, “an activity that is guided by and exercises the human virtues” (60). Is the highest good happiness? What are the characteristics of good? Do we all require habituation to become good? Such questions as these stirs up emotional reactions among debates of the topic.
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Aristotle is a strong believer that reaching happiness is the ultimate goal of humans. He says, “Another belief which harmonizes with our account is that the happy man
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
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and scientist who understood happiness as a common goal shared among all humans, happiness was the achievement of human flourishing something he called ‘eudaimonia’ (Sober, 2009). Eudaimonia translates as the perfect happiness, human excellence and fulfillment, a universal interest to everyone, and a quality of goodness that enables a person to be able to reflect on their life and be happy with it (Brook, 2015, p. 315).
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.
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.