Comparing Plato 's And Socrates ' Arguments Of Life And The View Of The Athenian Democracy

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.

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

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.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

In order to question and reassess Thrasymachus’ view of justice, in this essay, I will first bring up cases for Thrasymachus being accused of being contradictory and inconsistent in his view for justice. For the second part of the essay, I will provide a counterargument in order to prove Thrasymachus’ consistency followed by a discussion on Socrates’ own contradiction in regards to his account of the city.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

The republic is a wonderful classic book. Book 1 has three levels of mythos (image), Eragon and logos (discussion). The narrator Socrates reveal the events that take place in cephalus house at the Piraeus (the port of Athens) on the festival day of god (artemis). Socrates has done many adventures, explorations and democrats that is essential to give power that drove Athens to empire and democracy. In book Socrates makes a tour of contemporary definitions of justice and shows the problem with each. Socrates discuss the meaning of justice with cephalus , polemarchus , and thrasymachus . Now we will talk about cephalus , the old rich man and he was economic dealings with no rights. He think that justice is telling the truth and paying your faith , so he is trapped by Socrates example of giving a sword back to a friend temporarily mad with anger then polemarchus join the discussion said that justice is doing good for friends and harm to enemies . Socrates objected about polemarchus definition if person will also be good at useless things and at being unjust. We often do not know who are our friend and enemies are. Socrates at the end of that justice does not seem to be treat anyone badly not enemies only.

Plato, a prominent Greek philosopher, examines the concept of justice and society in The Republic. One of the significant views that Plato argues is seen in the fourth book through Socrates where he discusses the concept of individual justice and the soul. He examines the different parts of the soul and how they define and control our actions. This part of The Republic is important, as Plato’s interpretation of justice and soul is essential in order to understand moral philosophy and life. This essay will examine Plato’s outlook on the different parts of the soul and the significance of it. It will furthermore argue that Socrates’ argument on the different parts of the soul is thorough however can be further supported.

In Plato’s book, The Republic, the main theme is, “What is justice”? The Republic is Plato’s attempt to explain and define justice. In The Republic, Plato made Socrates as a representation of life. Throughout the book, Socrates is the one that disputes everyone’s view of justice. One of his argument is that a philosopher should be king, because philosophers wants to live life based on knowledge. A utopia, as Socrates views it, is called a Kallipolis in the book. A ‘Kallipolis’, is a perfect city that it is ideal, it is not attainable. The reason being, that it cannot succeed because the country would be ruled by one person. The person would have all the power and rule like a tyrant. Even though being knowledgeable is needed; having power is also a very crucial part in running a country. Thus, this is the flaw to Socrates’ argument, that we will discuss.

The Republic, written by Plato, examines one major question throughout the readings and it is “What is justice?” To the common eye justice can be easily defined with a quick look in a dictionary and is often defined as being fair. Plato’s main character, Socrates goes to much deeper lengths than this to define what justice is. This essay will look to reassess the discussion of justice between Socrates and Polemarchus and identify a problem that arises with justice, “the love of ones own”. To better explain this problem an example derived from Polemarchus’ and Thrasymachus’ versions of justice will be used. I will also briefly touch on the story of The Ring of Gyges to further convey how “the love of ones own” is an obstruction to justice.