As promised previously, I will now assess Plato’s success in his responses to the three difficulties. Books III and IV provide a response to the first difficulty: most people believe the origin of justice to be that doing an injustice is naturally good but to suffer injustice is bad, making it a fictional compromise. Foremost, Plato states that they ought to consider justice on a large scale before a smaller one because this will provide a clearer understanding for their “unclever”’ minds. He then states that since there is both justice in a city and in a single man, perhaps there is more justice in the large thing and it will be easier to learn what it is on this larger scale. Therefore, he suggests that they ought to first “find out what …show more content…
They decide, for justice’s sake, children ought to first be taught by music and poetry and, furthermore, the music and poetry taught ought to only be fine or beautiful (377 c). He defines a “fine or beautiful” and consequently just story as a story that does not tell a great falsehood (377 e). Socrates further states, that in order for a great falsehood not to be told, a god ought to be represented as he truly is (379 a). Next, they discuss what the actual essence of a god is. They determine that a god is good and only the cause of good things, that gods are in every way in their best condition and, thus, unconditionally, they do not change, and that they hate true falsehoods (379 c, 381 c, 382 …show more content…
His response, again, is a part of his “city of speech.” He begins this response by stating that the poets “…mustn’t… attempt to persuade our young people that the gods bring about evil or that heroes are no better than humans” (391 e). As discussed earlier, these things are both impious, untrue, and therefore unjust, for we demonstrated that is is impossible for the gods to produce bad things (391 e). On the other hand, he then states that it would ideally just to make an agreement “…about what stories should be told about human beings only when we’ve discovered what sort of thing justice is and how, by nature, it profits the one who has it, whether he is believed to be just or not” (392
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.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
Plato was a dominant moral philosopher in the ancient world. In Plato’s time, Athens had been rocked by the Peloponnesian War and political chaos after its defeat by Sparta (Bagnall, 2006, pp. 29-38). Perchance these events influenced Plato to search for answers that would bring harmony and clarity. It is important to note that Plato’s idea of justice is more in line with the New Testament’s interpretation of justice. The Greek word “dikaiosune” or righteousness, is what the bible translates to mean justice. Plato’s belief was that the root of justice or moral conduct, relied heavily on another worldly belief. “That process is the recollection of the things
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
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.
Plato has had a lot of influence on the philosophy that we have today. In this modern time we do not really have our own philosophy we are learning our philosophy from a guy that wrote it hundreds of years ago. It is really significant that we are still going with his thoughts on justice and things like that, but the ideas are a little old and not very well applied to the modern ways of life. I found this person who was writing about why Plato was wrong and she made some very good point in which the language and arguments make no sense and there really is no information there. “Plato takes forever to say anything, spinning what should be a single sentence into a page or more. This makes it very difficult to quote his argument directly so that
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
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.
Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is. During the time Socrates and his fellow citizens spent looking for a definition, they came across many different examples. Well-known Athenians, such as Polemarchus, bring out their own definitions of what justice is, with examples like Justice is "Doing the right thing, or "Giving everyone his due.
... reminds Thrasymachus that he had earlier admitted that justice is an excellence of character. Thus, is must follow that the just person is the happy person.
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?
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
Grappling with the question: is justice natural? People can believe that justice is the will of the strong and yet others insist justice is what the weak blames unfortunate events on. Those that agree with Plato’s idea of a society would say the latter form of justice. That justice can be used as a scapegoat in the event of a catastrophic event. This form of justice can destroy a society and caused infighting within Greece. Plato’s philosophic ideal city has no merit because it is not practical. Justice is natural but not in the sense that Plato sees as it relates to his
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In