Bibliography: Annas, Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981. Cross and Woozley, Plato’s Republic. Macmillan, London, 1964. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy.
Book I starts off with Polemarchus saying justice is obedience to some kind of principle. Socrates counters with the fact that justice involves an act of evaluation and the creation of evil. Thrasymachus enters the argument and says justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger, injustice can gain more than justice. Socrates ends the book by saying injustice destroys individuals and states. In Book II, Glaucon joins the argument.
Socratic dialectic can be bluntly described as a pursuit to seek for wisdom concluded by an in depth understanding through a group dialogue. Whereas sophistry can be described as a deceiving type of confab, this values debates and argumentation that teach virtue. The aim of a Socratic dialectic is to establish truth from discussion which helps those within a group to establish veracity on a basic or broader subject. Rhetoricians or Sophist teach the purpose of virtue; sophist way of communicating would prefer to argue and debate specific subjects, which only in turns leads to skeptism, and success of a winner. Clearly seen Socratic dialectic is an approach to a conversation that opens up a dialogue which allows participants to speak and gain knowledge from others, thusly leading to a truth that cannot be revealed through sophistry.
Plato's Republic: A Philosophical Commentary. New York: St. Martin's Press. Pappas, Nickolas, 1995. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic. London: Routledge Rowe, Christopher, 1995.
In order to do what we want we must have the knowledge of moral goodness to do what is right, and not to inflict suffering on someone else. In order to be morally sound it is better to receive the suffering at the hands of another than inflict injustice on us and become miserable. Though Polus does not want to accept this Socrates, in the end, brings him to his side. So though there are many questions that are left hanging in the balance from this argument, Socrates point is clear that it is better morally to receive injustice than to inflict it.
Socrates and Properties By Characterizing himself –Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous?
Although Socrates reiterates the concept of justice over and over again it all comes to his discourse on the perfect city-state, which seems a bit off the mark, considering his original subject. However, one of Socrates’ main points is that goodness is doing what is best for the common. It is greater good as opposed to that of individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own reward. His first major point is that justice is an excellence of character.