Plato's Writings

1705 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: What is the nature of justice by plato

Plato's Writings

Plato's profound early writing on politics, ethics and education discussed in the Republic are the foundations of today's governments, nations and discourses. At least that is what I am told. Plato's ideology and reasoning are not always the most believable and desirable, it makes me wonder which part of today's government practices must give due to the Republic (to be discovered in Gov 101). While it is easy to be disgusted with Plato's idealism and philosophy, which seems to deter any type of an acceptable nightlife, it does leave the reader with a desire to keep trudging through endless mounds of self-indulged prose to discover Plato's reasoning. One such view, that I've been asked to dissect, is Plato's idea of justice. Before I read the Republic justice always seemed like such a simple thing, what is right, however now it's more than that. I shall examine Plato's description of a discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus on justice in order to understand some of Plato's views.

Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Book I, 338c). This bold ignorant statement causes Socrates to spring in and draws Thrasymachus into a debate on what true justice entails. Thrasymachus expands his statement with the example of tyranny; the tyrant, the strongest, is able to enforce all their wants on the citizens, the weaker. Therefore the tyrant will always get what he desires, justice for himself, and injustice for the weaker. Socrates envisions justice as something more than the advantage of the stronger and pulls Thrasymachus into a lengthy argument on the subject.

Socrates' arguments usually involve a large amount of word twisting and manipulating Thrasymachus'...

... middle of paper ...

... The truth is, at least virtually, there is a difference between my soul and my body, and so Plato is right too. But that is the extent to which their philosophies make sense to me.

To me it does not matter whether a rock is really a rock, if the true rock exists in some distant plane, or even if it is part of my being. My own spiritual exploration is limited to the nature of my interactions with other people and to the earth. So long as its not about people, Heraclitus and Parmenides can argue over inertia all they want, and Plato and Aristotle can wrestle out the definition of form. The nature of being is a philosophical debate which will continue as long as there are people to think about it. I am aware of my own identity, and I am also aware that my connection with everyone on this earth is so intricate and inextricable, that it is like we are all one.

Show More
Related

  • Justice and Moderation of the Soul in The Republic, by Plato

    3023 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Critical Summary Of Plato's Republic

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Glaucon's Challenge and Plato's Theory of Justice in Plato's Republic

    1807 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Conceptions of the Soul

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Plato, the body and the soul are separate entities. The soul is capable of existing before life of the body and after death of the body and it is constant, unchanging and non-physical (invisible). The soul resembles what is divine, immortal, and always remaining true to itself. The body, however, resembles what is human, mortal, and destructible. The body is changing and never able to maintain its true identity (Plato, 80b). Due to this radical difference between body and soul, their relationship is can be described as antagonistic. In Phaedo, Plato says that body always hinders the soul from possessing truth and intelligence. Therefore if, by death, the soul can pursue divine and unchanging truth without being distracted by bodily desires, death is the real liberation or purification of soul from the body (Plato, 67c-e). This definition of the soul is embodied in a rational framework. In other words, Plato arrives at his conclusions through deductive reasoning and ideals. He believes that the body contributes to cognition only by the senses, only in which "seeing and hearing are neither precise nor clear" (Plato, 65b). Thus, senses are fallible and all true knowledge comes by way of reason and rationale. The other approach to obtaining knowledge of the soul, challenged by Aristotle in De Anima, holds that there is nothing in the intellect which is not learned from experience. He believes that the world can ...

    Read More

  • Rene Descartes, Nagel And Plato's Approach To Understanding The Difference Between Soul And Soul

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Republic of Plato

    1306 Words  | 3 Pages

    Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.

    Read More

  • Justice vs Revenge

    1309 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hourani, George. Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic. 2. 7. Focus Publishing, 1962. eBook. .

    Read More

  • Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice

    1494 Words  | 3 Pages

    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?

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. 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.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

    651 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

    678 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice Essay

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus believes that the definition that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Thrasymachus definition quote

    Read More

  • Comparing Aristotle and Plato

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Justice In Plato's Republic

    1440 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Plato's Writings

Open Document