Plato's View on Life
In his book titled The Republic Plato arises many questions concerning the philosophy of life. One of the most difficult subjects that he touches is the definition of justice. He tries to explain to his fellow friends how is the good man supposed to behave, and which is better to be just or unjust but that answer becomes very complicated and leads Plato to examine that rather complex subject in great detail. He demolishes the three popular definitions of justice that are brought up, which imply that justice is "
paying one's debts," "helping friends and harming enemies," and "whatever is to the advantage of the stronger" and argues that these definitions are not complete. He promises to find a better explanation of justice that would satisfy everyone. Plato argues that in order to find justice in an individual one must find a justice in a city as a whole first, because ideal form or structure of the perfect city resembles the ideal form of the good person. Once we know what justice is it will be easy to see the injustice. In order to define justice correctly he starts to create his ideal polis, a perfect city, where justice must play a major part. Yet, the city that Plato creates develops in two stages; first, the healthy city where there are only the things that are needed for survival and a luxurious city where people have more then they need.
Plato decides that a polis begins because we cannot all be self-sufficient. It arises out of the wants of man. His first want is food; his second a shelter; his third a clothing. The sense of these needs and the possibility of satisfying them by exchange, draw individuals together on the same spot; and this is the beginning of a State, which we take the liberty to invent, although it is the necessity to live in a larger community that actually invents the polis. In order for the community to satisfy its basic needs, it will need a farmer to produce food, a builder to build houses, a weaver to provide food, a cobbler, and someone who would provide medical care. In Plato's eyes, four or five citizens at least are required to make a city. Each of these people would have to contribute equally to the community and since each person can only one thing well, there must be a division of labor into different employments; into wholesale and retail trade; into workers, and makers of workmen's tools; into shepherds and husbandmen.
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.
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 conclusion three notions of justice developed in Book I of The Republics of Plato are outlined in On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is viewed as telling the truth and paying debts, doing good to friends and harm to 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.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
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.
...ct city consists of everyone feeling equal to one another from birth to present. Plato thinks a just city is formed on the beliefs that everyone is forced into specific factions and told who to unify with, despite the persons personal beliefs. Plato's views on a "just city" were to far fetched and had a very similar ideology to communism. Aristotle even agreed that taking away private property was a bad idea because it "takes away the incentive to work hard" (Aristotle, ppt9).
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?
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
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
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
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.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.