You are in an argument with your friend, would you rather be the one who is winning or the one who actually takes something away from the argument? This was the case for Protagoras and Socrates throughout the text Protagoras. Protagoras represented sophists, while Socrates represented philosophers. A sophist is a teacher of virtue, they twist what is being said to make it positive. They make others into skillful speakers.
In this case we rely on our own beliefs that may be through passed down morals or through ones belief in a higher power to find justice. In my view I feel that Socrates respects the states law and ability to find justice but is willing to question it when his own morals or views on justice conflict with the states. With this idea in mind, I feel that Socrates would also take the same actions as Antigone in Sophocles's Antigone. The story Antigone takes place in Thebes where Antigone's uncle Creon is the temporary king until Antigone's twin brothers Eteocles and Polyneices grow to an age where they can take over the thrown. when they became of age Creon was to choose one to take the throw.
Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome. Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice.
Socrates argued that actively seeking out knowledge leads to the ability of man to moderate his behavior accordingly. If one examines a situation thoughtfully, and from several angles, the most logical course of action will present itself. By exercising this method of reasoning a person becomes wise. Socrates would call this the ability to govern the qualities of your soul properly and it is undoubtedly what he sought. The process brings out the virtuous qualities in man and allows him to make decisions based on truth, which leads ultimately to good.
A Hobbesian and Heroic Unreflective Citizenship In Meno, Plato asks “what virtue itself is” (Plato 60). This dialogue on virtue between Socrates and Meno ably frames a wider dialogue on ethics between Thomas Hobbes, the Greek heroic tradition, and the sophists of 5th century Athens. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Aristophanes’ The Clouds introduce three classes of ethical actors to respond to Plato’s inquiry: Hobbes’ ethical lemmings, the heroic ethical traditionalists, and the sophist ethical opportunists. The Meno also helps capture the essence of contemporary discussion of the morality of desire and emotivism, as articulated by Roberto Mangabeira Unger in Knowledge and Politics and Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. Finally, I will examine—and then problematize— the Hobbesian and heroic responses to ethical subjectivism.
Socrates and other characters are purely vehicles of Plato’s thought-provoking persuasion. In the Symposium, the interlocutors give praise to everything good about desire; the nature and purpose of love (eros) is explored and, in the end, a broader concept of desire is reached. In the Republic, however, justice (dikaiosune) and reason are the main objectives while desire appears to be something that should be suppressed in a just man. Both dialogues aim to discover the nature of these concepts, their link to Virtue, and man’s relationship to the good and the beautiful. I will argue that the attitudes of these characters may seem to vary between dialogues, but the overall message of the pieces remains consistent and, moreover, that they supplement one another.
In defending his philosophy, Plato does not simply walk us through it, rather he weaves into a narrative that we both invest ourselves in and truly learn from; Crito best defends Socrates and the activity of philosophy because it puts Socrates’ convictions into action and more effectively carries Plato’s message. Before going
In The Republic, Plato speaks through Socrates in an attempt to prove this claim. In Book I, he focuses specifically on a couple of questions: What is justice? Why is justice important? Book I of The Republic puts Socrates discussing justice within a group of companions. Their conversation begins by discussing and arguing the various definitions of justice and what it is.
Although Socrates reiterates the concept of justice over and over again it all comes to his discourse on the perfect city-state, which seems a bit off the mark, considering his original subject. However, one of Socrates’ main points is that goodness is doing what is best for the common. It is greater good as opposed to that of individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own reward. His first major point is that justice is an excellence of character.
From the works of Plato to the views of Socrates, the definition of justice has been argued and disputed by the wisest. Socrates believed that justice was good and discovered a universal good; therefore every man is capable of finding good. Good exists as happiness, determined by what we value most. What lies in the midst of our thoughts, that an “unexamined life” is acceptable? Through the use of questioning we begin to break down the walls of ignorance and live a life that is worth living.