The Between Glaucon And The Socrates

different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that

In Republic II, Glaucon and Socrates pose the question of whether justice is intrinsically good, or instrumentally good. Further, the two men wish to discover which life is best - the just life or the unjust one. While Glaucon argues that the unjust life is best, Socrates argues that the just life is truly better. In this paper, I will summarize both Glaucon’s and Socrates’ arguments, and provide a critical analysis of the opposing views. Glaucon begins Republic II by describing different types of

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues for the importance of living a just life. However, Glaucon asks why any person favors the just life over an unjust one. Glaucon would like an answer regarding this type of justice, and if it is good only for its results or good in itself. Socrates argues that justice in the individual is the balance between sprit, reason, and desire (scc. 435a). Socrates’ account of justice, displays a life in which a justice provides benefits not only for the individual, but

defining difference between right and wrong. We grow to understand that justice is not just an idea or something we should do, but something that everyone in the world understands and subscribes to. However, at some point in our lives we often waver in how just we are, questioning if being just is really so important. In Book two of The Republic, Plato’s account of the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon and Adiemantus outlines this very question. Glaucon and Adiemantus push Socrates to give reason

the Republic, Plato through the mouth of Socrates attempts to engage in a discussion with Plato’s two brother, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who challenge him to address the value of justice and, why it would always be more profitable to act justly rather than not. But before we have even made our way through half of the Republic, Glaucon seems to believe that they have successfully answered this question by the end of Book IV. He takes it that after Socrates has explained what it is for the soul to

This philosophy study will argue against Socrates’ “virtuous soul” as the motivation for just acts in The Republic. Socrates’ argument for the “balanced soul” as a motivation for just acts is defined in relation to the contrasting arguments of his contemporaries, such as Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. This ideological view of the “virtuous soul” does not provide a practical explanation for the motivation of a “just act” in a hierarchical society. The argument of Thrasymachus defines justice

Lombardini Due October 5, 2014 at 5:00 PM Pondering the Policy and its Principle Book II of Plato’s Republic focuses on a debate between Glaucon, Adimantus, and Socrates about whether justice is beneficial for “the sake of whatever is to be got from it in terms of pay-off” (p.43) or if it is to be “valued both for its own sake and for what it gives rise to” (p.43). Glaucon, arguing this first point, relies on the assumption that humans are primarily driven by greed. As a result, humans believe that

Was Socrates Really a Real Person? (A discussion of how Socrates was influential and intriguing using Plato’s Republic) To learn about the past, people in today’s society often consult the internet or history books. To an extent, all we know about the past is from what we have read or heard, so what is actually truth, and what is just a captivating story. Scholars believe that some people from history are just made up to portray ideals or tell a story with an important message. Socrates was a real

In the book, Plato Republic, Socrates had a discussion with Thrasymachus and Glaucon about justice and unjustice. In this essay, I shall argue that Plato’s solution of the temptation of the ring is successful in a few ways. I will describe Thrasymachus and Glaucon’s idea about justice, and how Socrates discuss with them in terms of the justice of the city, justice of individual soul, his theory of forms and the importance of the knowledge of the good, and the sun analogy and the allegory of the cave

most, however, is the idea of the "noble lie." I find this completely disturbing for a number of reasons. It is immoral and wrong to deliberately deceive someone. This idea also completely contradicts Socrates' argument that it is beneficial to be just. 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