Essay on Plato's Republic Justified

Socrates explains his theory of the city and its rules as the nature of ones life. It is not moral to fight against it. We were welcomed to live in it and accept it how it is.

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.

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

Plato’s Republic, is a classic philosophical novel that covers many points and topics regarding philosophy. One of these main points includes justice. In this essay I will be answering the question of whether justice in soul is choice worthy for its own sake. While this topic is quite complex, I will use a mixture of personal analysis as well as evidence from the book itself to assert that justice in soul is the best choice for its own sake. In the following paragraphs I will discuss what justice in the soul is, why justice in soul is choice worthy and finally to what extent this choice entails.

In Book I, Socrates states that "Injustice... causes civil war, hatred, and fighting among themselves, while justice brings friendship and a

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

Glaucon argues that no person would want to live in a city such as this one.  He argues that “If [the citizens of the city] aren’t to suffer hardships, they should recline on proper couches, dine at a table, and have the delicacies and desserts that people have nowadays.” (p.47 372 d)*  Socrates refers to the city that Glaucon believes the citizens should live in as the “luxurious city”*. The luxurious city, because it has poetry, music, art, desserts, comfortable furniture, prostitutes, and other delicacies, contains a much larger amount of people than did the healthy city. This increase in population requires more land, which must be seized from neighbors. The seizing of land combined with the fact that the luxurious city is much more desirable to attack than the healthy city leads to war*. Socrates believes that “warfare is a profession*(374b)”, so there must be a class of citizens

Much like the city, the same principle applies to individuals, that is, the aspects of the soul must occupy their respective roles in correct proportion. Socrates states that soul of man has a good part and a less good part, and that justice or mastery means that the better part must control the worse parts. Much like in the city, the best part is smaller than the multitude worse parts.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

What is the purpose of the city-soul analogy and does it help us understand the nature of justice?

After Galucon expressed his opinion, he asked Socrates to keep argue the question about just and unjust. And Socrates thought it would be easier to find just if they look into larger things. So they decided to find out what sort of things justice is in cities. And Socrates began built up a city with Galucon. Socrates first introduced the principle of “how each person must perform the role for which he is naturally best suited and that he must not meddle in any other business”(Sparknotes). For example, farmer must only farm and carpenter must only build. In Socrates’ opinion, the just city will have craftsmen, farmer, and doctors. Each of them will do their own job produce whatever is necessary for the city’s needs and will not engaging in any other role, they are called the “producing class” by Socrates. However, Galucon argued that this city is the “city of pigs”, and this city is unreachable. Because there are only basic desires in the city, once people’s basic desires are satisfied, they will have unnecessary desires, like luxurious surroundings, arts, rich food. So Socrates agreed that they would build up a luxurious city, which they will have merchant, actor, and poet. As a result, the city will become bigger, and it will lead to wars.

Socrates creates an imaginary city with a group of men and everything in this city is perfectly good and has all of the virtues. They identify these virtues as wise, courageous, moderate, and just. Socrates recommends that they should try to identify where each of these qualities lies. They identify wisdom first, which they describe as being found with the guardians because of the knowledge they have and their ability to run the city. They argue that if the guardians did not rule the city their virtue would not translate into the city, but since they are ruling the city then their virtue is translated into the city. Then they decide that the next virtue courage is located in the city’s soldiers because they are the ones that fight for the city.

On examining Thrasymachus' idea that it pays to be perfectly unjust, Socrates refutes this argument in Book 4 as he speaks of the souls three parts; wisdom, spirit, and desire. The civil war between these three parts is shown to be the cause of injustice, but before Socrates can correlate this with the regimes of certain

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.

“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