Socrates’ greatest failing is the same as his greatest achievement; the great Republic he builds is not intended to last—nor can it. Socrates and Polemarchus agree that it is impossible to change the nature of the unjust man with the misapplication of justice. Harm, they agree, will simply drive the unjust man to more injustice (335d). The next three books then proceed to deal with this thorny problem—how to transform the unjust man into a just one, for the benefit of society? Adeimantus’ creation of the vegetarian polis with little or no personal property seems to lack injustice (371d). It is only with the introduction of the Glauconians and their fierce and greedy nature—later rebranded as the guardians—that injustice starts to rear its …show more content…
He has already undermined the guardians’ ability to honor friends. By organizing the guardians’ society so that women and children are common, it’s impossible to honor specific ancestors instead of a whole generation (457c). With gods of the home being particularly important to Greeks, Socrates also reduces the guardians’ pantheon and common ground they could have used to bond with the bronze citizens. Juxtaposed against the bronze class citizens, Socrates’ guardians have much fewer chances at the type of honor he describes than the common man. Yet the citizens are “wage givers and supporters,” while the guardians are “saviors and auxiliaries,” (463b). Socrates elevates the guardians as a class to partially sate their thirst for glory; those who seek more earn it by participating in battle to the benefit of the city. He thus turns one of the guardians’ more destructive tendencies to something useful for …show more content…
If they choose not to act, the society continues on in the same manner. Initially, this emerges as the best option; the guardians have to go against neither what they have learned nor what they feel is right. But it causes the newest generation of the guardian class to face a disadvantage on the field of battle, where they face enemies learned in the latest techniques. Reasonably, it could weaken the defense around the city, at the cost of a ruler’s brothers, sisters and children. Rather than be vulnerable to the wolves brought into the home, they would face the creatures outside the city gate. Socrates’ system seems to do no more than simply prolong the inevitable. That, of course, being the goal all along. Adeimantus and Socrates share a long discourse at the end of Book Two, attempting to form men into the images of the gods. For the purposes of the planned republic, they necessarily have to change that image, but both agree that the transformation of a god would involve the god becoming worse (381c). It’s similar to Polemarchus’ and Socrates’ agreement that harm fails to change an unjust man into a just one (335d). If men are in the gods’ image or are simply men, the results are the same-- the forced conversion of a man’s character will fail to produce any
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question
Nietzsche, a philosopher who seems to have made his reputation largely by being gloomy and arrogant. It should not be surprising to us that a man who had little good to say about anything (other than himself and the things he liked) would criticize the greater portion of the history of any art form, but what is interesting -- and, moreover, an instance of a particular mistake which seems to have afflicted others as well -- is the reason he gives for his displeasure. According to Nietzsche, worthwhile