Socratic Methods

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

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

Still unresolved, the debate moves into a second stage, where tyranny, or perfect injustice, and benevolent rule, or perfect justice, are evaluated against one another. Again, through a series of examples, Socrates prevails--the unjust man's pride and ambition are shown to be weaknesses,

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

The first change in character begins with Glaucon's position on whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. This is seen in Book 4, 445b, when he argues

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

Benefits of justice given by Glaucon and Adeimantus are based on the idea that they are desired based on their consequences. In this sense, many people would place justice as a necessary evil, which allows individuals to avoid a greater evil that would exists without justice. Justice is something that comes from the vulnerability to humans, they are all affected by the injustices of others. As such, people continue to act just because without it, there would be more collective suffering. Rather than being practiced for the sake of being just, it is something produced similar to a social contract that comes out of fear and weakness. Adeimantus adds another benefit of justice in regards to what one can gain which will benefit them in the future. He claims that no one praises justice for being justice, but rather for the rewards that will come from it in current day and in the afterlife. In doing so, they can question Socrates about the benefits of justice, when it does not produce external rewards.

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

1. Do you think Happiness no matter how formulated is the purpose of our lives? Defend.

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 fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

According to Adeimantus, there is a great temptation of the unjust life, and no one is willingly just (363e). The gods and families decide what is just and their justness lines up with the justice as defined by the city. The main idea of this is demonstrated in modern American culture with the character of Santa Claus. Parents use fear and songs of fun to convince children to be good or to be placed on the naughty list and receive coal as their Christmas present. Additionally, as he continues, it is very easy for a person to be unjust as compared to being just (364a). He argues that there is little motivation to be just, besides the fear of being known for your unjust attributes, citing a quote from Pindar “‘Is it by justice or by crooked tricks that I make the wall rise higher’ so as to fortify myself to live my life (365a)?” meaning one must build a wall in their life to succeed and it is easier to do with injustice and conspiracies.

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.

Back in Plato’s day pleasure was considered the good of the time and people lived by this standard. If something made you feel good simply just do it. It was a very hedonistic lifestyle people and needed guidance. Now to get into the mind of Plato and try to piece together the entire idea of what “goodness” even is it’s important to read Chapter 23. There you will find the “Analogy of The Sun”. The analogy of the sun is basically one huge metaphor that was used in a conversation between Glaucon and Socrates. Socrates carefully used the metaphor after being urged by Glaucon to “define goodness”. In the analogy Socrates mentions this force called "the child of goodness". Basically Socrates compares this "child of goodness" to the sun, claiming how like the sun illuminates from the sky giving the us ability to see and be seen so does this “idea of goodness”. Thus lighting the way to show those “intelligible” the truth. In the case of Plato’s republic, the “intelligible” Socrates talks about can be assumed to be any individual who society deems fit to handle and interpret complex truths. These would be men of thought such as philosophers. To take this role these individuals must have an initiate skill they were born with in order to properly bestow their

Glaucon's argument begins with a question of whether the just or unjust man is happier, and continues on a tangent from there. He states that morality is based on convenience, and that it is natural to pursue one's own interests. He says that justice can pretty much be summed up as splitting the difference of two evils. The first, being forced to restrain one's self from certain interests, and the other being becoming the victim of injustice from another person. This, to me, is the most convincing part