The Virtues of the Populace: Cicero Marcus Tullius Essay

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 Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

Cicero thinks that the happiest condition for a wise man to be in is when he or she makes a decision and sticks by it no matter the circumstance (Discussions at Tusculum 95). Cicero also says that an “insignificant, obscur[e], or unpopular” lifestyle will not prevent the wise man from being happy and pursuing the good life (Discussions at Tusculum 106). In Cicero’s version of the good life, men and women stick to their beliefs no matter what trials or torture they occur, and he believes that being morally good is the path to follow in order to live the good life.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

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

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

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

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.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of

In The Trial and Death of Socrates, the question is posed to the philosopher whether it is right to act in one's own best interest or to obey the State. Crito argues that the State's punishment of Socrates is unjust, but Socrates argues rather that authority comes from God and that to flee the State's decision would be like fleeing God, which would neither be good nor in one's best interest. According to the teaching of Confucius, Socrates would have been following the principle of "Jên," which can be translated to mean "goodness." This paper will show why Socrates was right to obey the State and drink the poison; it will also show how the teaching of Confucius on goodness supports this decision and how Confucius' teachings, on account of their appeal to Goodness, are suppressed in a system of tyranny, where Goodness is essentially outlawed.

He tells us why we must not live only for our own advantage; because it is against our nature as humans to do so, because without the basis of this human characteristics, the whole human society would fall apart. The qualities we value most in our fellow human beings are the most natural to us because they were endowed to us from the gods so that the race of human beings and the human society could go on existing. We can know this from his words; "People who argue like this subvert the whole basis of humans community itself - and when that is gone, kind actions, generosity, goodness, and justice are annihilated. And their annihilation is a sin against the immortal gods. For it was they who established the society which such men are undermining." Cicero's belief in the natural goodness of the human race was stead-fast because he believed that it was endowed to us from the gods.

Knowledge and understanding of the very most basic human values is of basic importance to any human in the world, to make truly responsible decisions, and to give a responsible direction to one's life; and also to give a truly responsible direction to the development of one's children. Anybody in politics who is not aware of the most basic human values is unable to make responsible decisions, justice and to give direction to economic, social, or environmental development of his or her country. This Assignment will focus on the concept of justice as a moral value belonging to category of “goodness” by using one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice and also distinguish between