sometimes in each persons life there is a turning point, a point in time when a revelation is reaveled to you. If you cannot see this revelation sometimes your vision may be clouded over by a voice that may or may not be your own. In the novel, many people are telling san jose to stop listening tom his own voice and folow them. But he knows that is wrong. At Polemarchus' house, Socrates discusses old age with Cephalus, Polemarchus' aging father. Cephalus says that old age is really not as bad as people say it is; if you're a moderate and contented person, your virtue makes old age pleasant. Socrates notes that some would say that it is Cephalus' wealth that makes old age bearable for him. Cephalus says that this is not true, wealth can help someone be virtuous, but it isn't the deciding factor. Cephalus defines just behavior as paying one's debts and speaking truthfully, and notes that wealth does help in these things.
Socrates questions Cephalus' definition of just behavior, but before they can discuss it Cephalus leaves, leaving his argument to Polemarchus. Polemarchus defends his father's definition, saying that justice is giving each what is owed to him--treating friends well, and enemies badly. Socrates finds numerous problems with this definition. First is that, since people are sometimes mistaken about who their friends are, it appears to endorse treating bad people well and vice versa. Second is that, since injustice breeds injustice, it says that it is the job of the just person to create injustice.
Just as Polemarchus agrees that his initial definition is incorrect, Thrasymachus, another guest at the house, roars into the conversation; he announces, with some pomp, that "justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." In all cities, the rulers enact laws that are in their own best interests, and these laws are declared just, and so clearly justice is always at the service of the powerful.
Cephalus' principles are based on an elderly, wealthy perspective of life which focuses on what happens after death and reflects on his past life. On page 6, Cephalus expresses his concern of what is to come when he states, "when the prospect of dying is near at hand, a man begins to feel some alarm about things that never troubled him before."
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
This paper will discuss the many unique aspects of Oakland, California. Divided into five major parts, Oakland is a very diverse city. The five major parts include: Downtown Oakland which is located in the heart of the city, East Oakland which consists of the majority of the city, West Oakland, North Oakland, and the Oakland hills where the terrain is quite different from other parts of the city. While many may perceive the population to mainly consist of African Americans and Whites, there is a significant growing population of Latinos, and Asians. The topics covered in this paper will shed light on the city of Oakland itself, and discuss the unique city that it is. I will also give my personal experience and perception on the city, after living there for 16 years of my life.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
In book I of Plato's Republic, when Socrates (speaking for Plato) is discussing what does, "doing the right thing" mean with Cephalus is when the morality of lying is first brought to discussion. Cephalus stated that justice is, speaking the truth and paying debts. Socrates argues and states that," Everyone would surely agree that if a sane man lends weapons to a friend and then asks for them back when he is out of his mind, the friend shouldn’t return them, and wouldn’t be acting justly if he did. Nor should anyone be willing to tell the whole truth to someone who is out of his mind." Socrates thinks that when you are friends with someone than it is just to tell a verbal lie to protect them, which is what a good friend would do. Plato approved of lying when telling the truth is the wrong thing to do. Plato thinks that it is never right or just to do evil or harm to anyone, and if you have to lie to protect someone then it is a just thi...
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
Cephalus is the first to give a definition of justice which is, living up to your legal obligations and being honest. At first I thought this definition was somewhat accurate because if everyone did their legal obligations everything would be fine. Socrates refutes this definition by using the example of a madman. Basically, what happens if you would owe a madman a weapon, but him having it is unjust and causes others harm. At this point it would almost be better to be dishonest. I found myself switching my opinion on this definition after Socrates gave this example.
One example of symbolism is a fresh start. This symbol means that you are given basically a free pass in life to start over and reinvent your life. This symbol is important to the story because...
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
...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.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.