I will use this paper to explain and clarify the arguments for and against the concept of ethical egoism, with specific focus on the political problem it poses and the proper approach to addressing that problem, in terms of Plato's social philosophy. Before addressing the specific issue of ethical egoism, it is first important to understand the context of The Republic and what Plato was trying to accomplish in his writing. As a student of Socrates, Plato's goal in writing The Republic was to define justice. Furthermore, he aimed to define justice in such a way as to show that it is good for its own sake, in and of itself. In The Republic, Plato speaks through Socrates in an attempt to prove this claim.
Late in the text, a third character, Anytus, a politician, who would eventually be an accuser of Socrates, joins in the dialogue. In the text, Meno in trying to define virtue accidentally slips in to a paradox or contradictory statement, which Socrates immediately refutes. It is the purpose of this paper to recognize the paradox, examine how Socrates disproves the paradox through argument and evidence. Socrates also brings up a key distinction between true opinion and knowledge, relating to the paradox, which will too be examined. Socrates then gives basis for more argument regarding the paradox, and why he does this will also be examined.
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 brings on another question if those in power in the different states are infallible or not. Thraysmachus responds to this, as those in power are liable to make mistakes. But Socrates refutes to the answers given to him and Thraysmachus thinks Socrates is maliciou... ... middle of paper ... ...s is where I agree with Thraysmachus’ argument. In conclusion, “The Republic” is one of the “great books” of Western Philosophy because it discuses the real meaning of justice. The true meaning of justice shows how we can have an ideal society without corruption.
Socrates begins by asking t... ... middle of paper ... ...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates. Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence.
Socrates defends his view of justice against his friends Glaucon and Adeimantus. Socrates asserts that justice, in itself, is a naturally good and is desired. To defend his view of justice, Socrates must first construct what he believes to be a
Socrates’ creates a republic to criticize democracy, and by doing this he compares the healthy soul to the unbalanced one. Socrates’ indirectly attacks democracy in ancient Athens when he discusses the differences between opinion an... ... middle of paper ... ...strate the faults with the souls of the people of the time, and he gives them the republic as a guide on how to improve their souls. His vision for these balanced souls is one that moderates desires with self-control and rationality. The Republic is ultimately a search for the meaning and use of the form justice. Socrates says that he pursues absolute meanings such as justice not by sensory perception, but by discovering how and why such a form functions in relation to other things, and that is what he continues to do during the duration of the dialogue.
However, the argument with Thrasymachus raise some questions about justice and injustice and the advantages they offer to men. In order to attempt an answer, it is important to understand what is justice according to Plato himself and what other definitions it could have. Then it is possible to demonstrate that he succeed in a certain extent to refute Thrasymachus and Glaucon's opinion. In the first book of the Republic, Plato imagine a meeting between Socrates and some of his friends among whom Thrasymachus and Glaucon are present, at the occasion of a celebration taking place at the Piraeus. They are all invited at Polemarchus' house, where his father Cephalus who is an old man and friend of Socrates also resides, to celebrate and philosophise amongst themselves.
To fully understand my position, if I had a magic ring, can only be fully comprehended once the purpose of the ring, pertaining to morality is understood. I feel as though the Socrates of The Apology and of The Republic would answer in a consistent way. Namely, that regardless of possession of the ring or not, one should act justly. “Why act just”, is a theme through out the philosophical works of Plato, in The Republic, Plato aims to address the issue of how justice becomes a virtue in society. Please note that The Republic, in addition to The Apology are works of Plato, but the main character is Socrates, Plato’s teacher.
This paper, then, is about Plato’s noble lie. Roberto Unger’s Knowledge and Politics provides an invaluable lens for examining Plato’s discussion of law and justice in the Republic, the Apology and the Crito. In the Republic, Plato sketches the outlines of a just, ordered city-state. The Apology presents Socrates’ defense against an unjust accusation before the court of law. The Crito sees Socrates accept his unjust sentencing to death and defend the rule of law.