Socrates Vs Cepachus

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

Question: What problem does Socrates point out with Polemarchus’ claim that justice is doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies?

In the Republic, Plato narrates a dialogue about justice and what it means between Socrates and some of his peers. Socrates argues with three of them about what is justice and is it to be just. Socrates begins his dialogue with Cephalus, then shifts the conversation to Polemarchus and then has Thrasymachus finish the debate. Each of them gave different perspectives to what justice means and what it is to be just. In this paper I will show how each one of their definition is unique yet can also be seen to be quite similar. I will also suggest which one of the definition I like to be right, if any.

Next, Euthyphro says that piety is “that which is pleasing to all the gods.” He further explains his father has been charged with murder. All gods are not favorable to those who commit such an act. Socrates argues that there are certain times that murder would be favorable. For example, killing someone in defense of the self. Also, killing someone in the defense of others. A soldier on the battlefield who faces his enemy is not viewed as a murderer but as a hero. The context in which a murder happens is what determines if it is an act that the gods will favor.

In a section of the Gorgias dialog, from 466-468e, Socrates argues with Polus about the status of orators in a city. Polus believes that they hold the greatest power and influence and are ones held in high regard. Socrates, however, concludes that they hold no power and that they do “just about nothing they want to, though they certainly do wwhatever they see most fit to do” (466e).

Socrates argues that justice is not what is advantageous for the stronger and that justice is an objective truth. We must use rational thought to determine what justice is. It is a Philosopher's job to do this because they live the contemplative life. Contemplative life is a life oriented around contemplation and purely intellectual activity. This life emphasises intellectual virtue, particularly wisdom. A Philosopher lives the contemplative life. They possess wisdom that that they can use to discern what the objective truths are. Philosophers also are wise enough to know that they are not omniscient and that they must continually pursue knowledge through rational activity.

In Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates debate with Cepahlus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus on what justice is. Thrasymachus, the sophist, has the most complex account of justice. He states that justice is the advantage of the stronger, which Socrates vividly rejects. In this essay, I will look into Socrates’ refutation against Thrasymachus, and examine how successful his refutation is.

As mentioned in the lecture, Plato’s Republic makes you ponder as to what is the correct meaning of justice. Cephalus, a rich elder who is well-respected, describes justice with the Hesiodic conception: living up to your requirements and being truthful. Socrates denies the definition with the example of borrowing weapons from a friend, then he turns into a madman, requesting his weapons back. Everyone knows that the weapons should not be returned for the sake of people’s life. He declares that is not justice, that is, “telling the truth, and returning what you have been given.” Celaphus’s son, Polemarchus, brings a new description of justice: helping out friends and hurting our enemies, which Socrates dismisses it. He declares that our own

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

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.

Socrates initially assumes that justice is virtuous, while injustice is vicious; however Thrasymachus attempts to argue otherwise. At 348c, Thrasymachus notes that justice is “high-minded innocence,” while injustice is “good counsel.” Socrates, still seemingly under the impression that injustice couples with corruption, asks Thrasymachus if injustice is not only good, but prudent. Because Thrasymachus had earlier articulated that injustice is profitable, his response becomes an elaboration on how those who can master injustice will be able to subjugate men and cities to themselves. After Socrates recognizes that a few rhetorical questions will not alter Thrasymachus’ position, Socrates delves into a deeper line of questioning that relies heavily upon implicit premises, metaphors, and references from earlier in the text.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

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 Book IV of Republic by Plato, begins with the discussion between Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus and their view of just society. Socrates emphasizes that his Kallipolis would consist of more happiness of state and community instead of on a personal level. He also reiterated that guardians and auxiliaries must be properly educated and groomed into the future leader and soldiers. Socrate views justice as someone taking responsibility and accountability for their own business and minding their own business. However, Socrates view of justice could be considered hypocritical and contradicting, Although Socrates asserts that a just man minds his business, Socrates fails to do that himself.

In book one of The Republic, Plato introduces the main character, Socrates, and he’s traveling home from a festival with his young friend, Glaucon. Along the way, a few other characters are also introduced. Our characters subsequently begin a debate about old age, when suddenly the debate turns into ones definition of justice. Some characters in particular that make strong argumentative perspectives are Polemarchus and his father, Cephalus. Cephalus definition of the word is “to speak the truth and to pay your debts” (Plato 181). One can say his proposition to the word justice is to look in regard to the future after death. “Hope cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice and holiness” (Plato 181). He further explains that to attain a wonderful life in the afterlife, one must form hope. However on the other spectrum, Polemarchu’s definition is doing good to friends and doing evil to enemies. From his point of view, it’s a balance. Justice is a mixture of two types of good and evil together. In other words, the truth about this argument is that it would spread more evil to the world, in which it contradicts the word justice itself. In fact by doing evil to anybody, the path to the word justice is aimless.