Socrates Vs Socrates

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.

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 his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the

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

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?”

“Different men are apt for the accomplishment of different jobs” (Bloom 46). This is the basis in which Socrates’ “Just City in Speech” is founded upon. The idea of “one man, one art” allows for the creation of an ideal state by assigning each member of the city a designated role. This, then, allows the city to flourish since each individual is specialized and skilled in one specific art. As the city grows larger, Socrates acknowledges the fact that an army is necessary to protect against enemies and invaders. Abiding by the city’s fundamental standard, it is determined that soldiers too should be adept in their field of work. Consequently, in an effort to provide an army fit to defend such a city, Socrates sets out to establish “which are the natures, and what kind they are, fit for guarding the city” (Bloom 51).

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.

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.

It is argued that one of the most important part of the book is when Socrates tries to define justice and find it in his artificially established city therefore I chose to critically analyze the passage from Book IV. Before starting to assess the argument he

Plato goes a long way in attempting to distinguish Socrates from the likes of Protagoras, a self admitted sophist. In Protagoras, Socrates is depicted as a street smart, wisdom dispensing young man, brash with confidence and a bit of arrogance that goes a long way when confronted with the old school rhetoric of Protagoras. Plato begins to separate the two at the hip right from the get go. The dialogue between Socrates and his inquisitive friend Hippocrates went a long way to show that Socrates had more questions than answers about Protagoras, the sophist, especially when it came to talk about what it is exactly that he offers. Socrates' companion is eager to hear the words of

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

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

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 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

The "city" that Socrates and his companions develop through their discussions cannot be interpreted as a moral system, nor even as a model of a moral system in practice, because it does not allow for that autonomy presupposed by moral agency. In Book IX of the Republic, Socrates argues that if one