Plato's Republic

In the discussion between Socrates and Glaucon that involved how to create an ideal city, they divided the people into three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen. In this city each class has a certain role. The rulers are the highest of rank in the city. They are older, wise men who govern the state and make decisions in the best interest of the

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

The ideal society as suggested by Plato is composed of three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians.

On the subject of the Guardians, education is one of high importance. The Guardians are meant to be brought up in such a way that the City can depend on them to not only being highly intelligent but also fierce fighters. Plato breaks down their education into two categories : gymnastics and music. These two categories serve to enhance both the body and mind to the highest level. However, it is important to note that Plato planned to filter and censor the majority of what was given to the Guardians in the mind category. This filter included removing any and all teachings of Greek mythology, as well as only allowing the Guardians to study what was deemed beautiful and just by Plato and his attendants. The claim made to support this was “ we can

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

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

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 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

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.

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.

“Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth, workmen and their work are equally liable to degenerate” (Plato 277). On the other hand, poverty causes the craftsmen to develop a rebel attitude. As such, the will resort to evil deeds in order to sustain themselves in the city. Another class in the city is the soldiers. Plato, through his mouthpiece Socrates, argues that the courage of the people of the city lie in their soldiers. However, courage is not a state in which there is lack of fear. Rather it is a state of knowing and persevering in one’s own convictions. However, for this to happen, soldiers need access to good education, which will strengthen their convictions. Education becomes an important part in ensuring that the soldiers understand their role in the city. “Educating [soldiers] in music and gymnastic; we were contriving influences which would prepare them to take the dye of the laws in perfection” (Plato 286). In other words, without education, soldiers would not be able to make decisions that resonate with their beliefs. Thus, lack of fear alone would not serve a full potential as it forms only a smaller portion of what courage constitutes. The third class of the city is the guardians. According to Plato, “Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against which the guardians will have to watch” (277). Guardians are portrayed as people who have wisdom to watch over

“If beggars, men hungering for want of private goods, go into public affairs supposing that in them they must seize the goods…ruling becomes a thing fought over…destroys these men…and the rest of the city as well.” (521a) Throughout history, and in present political environments of the world, the leaders - or guardians - have not always been raised up to rule with an attitude of gratitude or obligation to ensure the harmony of the commonwealth. Many times kings, dictators, presidents and emperors have been, and are, the opposite kind of rulers that Socrates refers to in the earlier statement. Things that are good and just may be lost when states (countries, nations) come into conflict with other states that have contradictory leadership and cultures, like the just man being less well off than the unjust man in earlier

Rulers, otherwise known as “True Guardians” held the most worthy role, although not the most important. Their social metallic property was gold. The Rules were leaders and philosophers who kept society in order. To fulfill this role one must be specially educated in specifically math and dialect. Plato believed that rulers must live in poverty, with any possessions they do have held in common. The very things, then, that mean the most to commoners will be denied to the rulers. The next class were the Guardians, otherwise known as “auxiliaries”. As the name implies, they were soldiers or warriors. They were responsible for defending the city from invaders, and for keeping peace. They enforce convictions and ensure that rules were obeyed. Their metallic property was silver. Although not as worthy or as looked up to as Rulers, the Guardians held what is considered the most important role in society, much as in modern day society our

Thrasymachus’ definition of justice represents the doctrine of “Might makes right” in an extreme form. By this, he means that justice is nothing but a tool for the stronger parties to promote personal interest and take advantage of the weaker. Here, Thrasymachus treats the ruler as someone who imposes his “rights” by sheer force, and believes that the ruler-subject relation is a zero-sum game. As he states later in Republic Book 1, “ ‘just’ means serving the interest of the stronger who rules, at the cost of the subject who obeys” (Plato, 1941, 25). A perfect example of such a ruler is the tyrant, who has the will and the power to do good to himself and his friends and to harm his enemies. This is not a theory of social contract: it is not suggested that the subjects have ever made a bargain with the ruler, sacrificing some of his liberty to gain the benefits of a social order.

can also help one to distinguish it as a just city. Therefore, within Plato’s definition