Pato: A Just Life

In sections (352d-354b) of the book, “The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, Socrates begins by arguing with Thrasymachus that the just life is the happiest and best (352e). He provides rhetorical appeal of logos and compelling arguments that all living things have a function. Socrates establishes a well-rounded statement to counter argue against Thrasymachus by including multiple statements on how the just life has virtue, while as unjust brings the opposite of happiness. He pieces together to puzzle that blocks Thrasymachus from understanding the correct rationality for the attributes that we possess.

What does it mean to lead a just life in principle and how should we behave in order to be just as an individual?

to be equally educated in a well rounded fashion in order to promote a just

Plato aims to give an account of the ethical life. Themes for example knowledge, the well-ordered life, and wisdom are connected into the discussion of ethical life, however, the principle of justice and the organization of the good life is the central topic of Plato's theories. Today we associate justice with the successful implementation and execution of political law. To the Ancient Greek's justice was used to describe the proper and correct method of living. Justice is harmony and was believed it could be achieved through learning. Plato first established that justice is good, and part of the good life in Book I. Plato listens to other philosophers theories and argues that justice is an excellence of character. The role that justice plays is to improve human nature. In addition to other things, justice is a form of goodness that cannot contribute in any activity that attempts to harm one's character.

For Plato, “Justice, I think, is exactly what we said must be established throughout the city when we were founding it…everyone must practice one of the occupations in the city for which he is naturally best suited” (Cahn 147). This only happens when the city is not in a state of internal conflict with itself allowing the highest principle, good, to be seen; making it the most unified, therefore being just.

doing only the tasks assigned to them by nature. This is the fundamental notion for

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

How will this happiness be accomplished? It will be accomplished by making the State just. Plato believes that justice for the individual consists in fulfilling one’s proper role – realizing one’s potential while not doing what is contrary to one’s nature. This is also true for justice in the State. Each class and each individual has a specific set of obligations to the community that will result in a harmonious whole if everyone fulfills them.

In this paper, I am going to argue that living a just life is more worthwhile than living an unjust life. I will do this with evidence provided from the text. The argument in question is why (given the advantages of living an unjust life) would anyone want to live a just life. This very question was a major debate that carried on during most of the text of The Republic of Plato. Throughout the text we see Socrates, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus and Glaucon take on this challenge. They thoroughly go through what they feel is just, and unjust. They also outline the benefits of living both types of ways. They take the various ideals discussed and pick them apart in every which way possible. There is no point of view that is brushed under the rug. After seeing the stance of several of the characters in this book, I see myself siding with Socrates on many levels. This challenge is taken on heavily and incorporated in many of the other concepts discussed within Socrates’ circle.

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.

Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in

It follows that Plato's ideal of justice be exemplified in the philosopher-king, since it is only the philosopher that would have the requisite justice in his soul that would make him a just ruler of a just society.

If you asked a random person on the street “what is a good person?” or “what is the good life?” you would likely receive a different answer from everyone. These answers would be different because everyone has their own ideas and opinions of what the answers should be. For many, a good person is someone who lives a good life, is a Christian, or someone who helps other individuals. For some, a good person might be someone who puts others first and someone who is reliable. The same applies to the answers you would receive from “what is the good life?” Just like everyone had different opinions on what a good person is, they will also have different opinions on what the good life is. You might get answers ranging from spending time with one’s family to having a lot of money. These answers vary depending on the individuals values and world view. For some individuals this desire for money can cause them to act on it, driving them to steal in order to gain happiness. Bronk supports this idea by stating, “Our answers guide our actions, influence our decisions, and inspire our dreams” (2008, p.713). This paper will discuss how philosophers believe everyone should live and what kind of people we should be, what a good person is, what the good life is, and what the relationship between goodness and human reality is.

Wise man, no matter how many times you try, you will never be able to reach the essence of Justice. Your ignorance blinds your soul, and blinded, you content in the commodities of the world. Does this make you not wise, but a fool? Or is it better to say that Justice is unreachable and unsolvable, and for this reason, is beyond human understanding? Perhaps Glaucon is right to say that we are selfish individuals who expect to be benefited when we do good deeds or stay away from wrongdoings. Or maybe Socrates’s idealistic individual could actually be attained if one follows certain forms of disciplines that lead to virtue and Just character. The constant search for Justice has brought up more questions than answers. In the republic, Plato