In the beginning of the Republic, Socrates pursues knowledge in a similar way to his other dialogues; approaching the self-proclaimed masters to gain the knowledge. In doing so he asks them for their definition of certain topics then begins a conversation with the other, in an attempt to understand the definition fully. During Book 1, Socrates is pursuing the definition of Justice and receives differing answers: “It gives benefit to friends and harm to enemies” (332d-e), “justice is useless when [other crafts] are in use, but useful when they are not […] It can only be useful for useless things” (333d), and lastly, the one he spends the most time discussing; “justice is really the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger” (343c). As these definitions are presented, Socrates begins to ask questions, primarily where he sees holes in their argument, or where there exists ambiguity. In this sense, Socrates takes something that is presented, then breaks down the argument in such a way that individuals concede to his persistence. The goal of Socrates, …show more content…
This is due to an attempt by the others to get Socrates to contribute to the conversation by to present his own definition, rather than just breaking theirs’ down. The conversation moves in such a way that Socrates, that in order to give his definition, must define a just society. During books 5 through 7, the conversation is more of Socrates presenting his own ideas rather than letting others present theirs, then dismantle their arguments. It appears to be more of a situation in which those he is in conversation with are working together to create and understand the idea of a just society. Rather than asking for their input and expertise, Socrates aims to create a society in which those he is speaking with will be satisfied - and while continuing this discussion he reaches that the most ideal leader for the just society would be a
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
He says justice is what is good for the stronger (Bloom 338c).he considers that when the superior are truly strong then justice is worthy. It is best when the weak follow the laws set by the strong to fulfill their benefits only. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (Bloom 339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (Bloom 341). On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate.
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
The character of Socrates in Plato’s Republic is a curious one. Socrates is rarely satisfied with widely or casually accepted statements, and is fearless in taking on enormous topics for debate. One such topic that Socrates tackles early and often in the Republic is that of justice and the just life. It takes little time for Socrates to begin an attempt at demonstrating to two of his friends, Glaucon and Adeimantus, that in fact it pays to be just. After much debate and even the creation of a fictional city, a resolution of some kind is reached. Socrates does succeed in convincing his opposition that it pays to be just, however he does not demonstrate said fact. The difference is subtle, but profound.
Socrates is a little bit of a liar as well because he kept saying the definition of justice is and give an example that does not even pertain to justice it is just a word picture that confuses you even more than you already are after reading the 90 pages to get there. There is no definition and Socrates knows that while he is talking, but he has to “teach” them the different views and Rowett agrees with why he is even trying to fulfill this task, it will never happen. “Is this Socrates Plato? Or is he a Socrates obsessed with an impossible quest, one who will never be able to answer the question of what justice is in the way he had hoped to answer it, because(as Plato the author is well aware) the question is not well-formed, and no satisfactory answer can be found?” (Rowette) This is why he is wrong about justice he does not know what he is talking about he is just saying things to make himself sound intelligent. Socrates bounces around throughout the entirety of the book first justice, then he moves on to the ideal individual, then state, and then back to the individual he couldn’t sustain the argument for very
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
Throughout Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates sets out to answer two questions: (1) What is Justice? and Why should we be just? Book 1 seems to be a large argument where in the end there is no progress being made. As Book 1 begins, Socrates is beginning his return from a religious festival where they are convinced to go to friends house. At this point, they begin to discuss old age until the conversation changes to that of justice.
The Republic by Plato is a dialogue that discusses the importance of education and truth. Separated into multiple books, the excerpts analyzed were Book VII and Book X. Similar to Euthyphro, the dialogue is spoken by Plato’s teacher, Socrates. The seventh book focuses on a narrative inside a cave, with prisoners that have never stepped foot outside of the cavern. They are also bound by chains directly in front of a wall, with a flame that creates the shadows of “men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials” far behind them (pp. 1). He then explains a situation where one is freed from the chains and is able to face the flame and statues nearby. Where before he only knew the light and shadows, He is now able to see for the
For example, whenever he exchanged answers with The Laws it was an “you’re wrong,” where as it when it came to Critos it was an, “I can’t.” Socrates demonstrates that the conversation that each situation differed was that one was with an audience he could trust and one that he could not. Socrates had demonstrated The Laws that were unjust and had to come up with some “smart” way to get him behind bars because he recognized that both sides knew nothing, including him. He explains to them that their wisdom should be classified more as ignorance because all that Socrates has ever tried to do was to help the citizens of Athens. His goal was to influence the community on how one can live a more valuable life by listening to the truth rather than falsely accusations stated by the
At 2:13 PM EST on April 11, 1970, NASA released four brave souls into the abyss of space, ultimately testing their endurance, courage, and patience. Collectively, both astronauts and ground control used their wits to endure long hours and solve a seemingly impossible problem, getting four marvelous men back home from space safely. Through this mission, Apollo 13 undeniably extracts the wisdoms of Socrates philosophies and embarks them on untested waters, the crew takes use of this philosopher’s definition of justice as well as his allegory of the cave as they overcome a plethora of complications in which even one negligible mistake could mean death, ensuing perfect teamwork and compliance.
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.