Philosophy Paper

Glaucon begins by arguing that people only act justly because they believe that the action will reap reward. He essentially argues that justice is a necessary evil and without it society would tear itself apart. He argues that justice is a social contract formed because the ‘disadvantages of suffering injury exceed the advantages of inflicting it’(Plato, 2008). Essentially he

The topic of justice first comes about through a conversation between Socrates and Cephalus. The two are reflecting upon their old age,

According to Socrates one of the most important things that identify with human being is their desire. Socrates argues that desire that can change people minds quickly and very abnormally. The three-part division of the soul is crucial to Plato’s overall project of offering the same sort of explication of justice whether applied to societies or individuals.

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.

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

Socrates’ argument for why the soul is analogous to the city begins with an observation--that the city is comprised of individuals. The city is therefore a reflection of the characteristics of the individual. This observation allows Socrates to derive the characteristics of an individual from the characteristics of the city that had previously been discussed and established. However, this task is more difficult than it seems at first because of the differences between the soul and the city.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

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.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

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?”

In the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

In book VI of The Republic, Plato uses Socrates as his mouthpiece to reveal the ideal city. Plato points out that the idea city is based on the foundations of three basic forms. Consequently, these three forms are manifested in the individuals that make up the city. The functioning of the city will thus depend on the analogy of the structures within the city and within the souls of the people. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the argument by Socrates with respect to the three forms in the city and in the soul. Additionally, the paper seeks to analyze the rationale behind Socrates’ comparison and subsequent establishment of analogy between the forms in the city and the forms in the city in the context of justice. The paper also

Question: The analogy Socrates and his companions make between the just city and the just person falls apart on close inspection. The commoners and auxiliaries are persuaded by the myth of the metals that the guardians are best suited to rule, but it 's nonsensical to believe that spirit and appetite can be persuaded of anything. After all, they are merely constituent parts of the soul (the parts lacking a deliberative capacity). Only a fully formed human being with a capacity for reason can understand the Noble Lie and be persuaded by it." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Defend your position through a close reading of the text. Be sure to explore the implications of the statement for the politics of Plato 's kallipolis.

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.

According to Socrates, the city is similar to a human being in a sense that it also consists of three classes: the money-making (appetitive), auxiliary (spirit), and deliberative (reason). He claims that the city is just if, and only if, all these three classes do their own job and do not interfere in one another’s actions. Consequently, a person is just because all 3 parts of his soul are doing their own job, according to provided analogy.