Who Is Socrates Promote Virtue In Plato's The Republic?

The topic of justice first comes about through a conversation between Socrates and Cephalus. The two are reflecting upon their old age,

Cephalus gets the conversation started when asked by Socrates what he considers to be the greatest blessing which he obtained from his wealth. Cephalus responds by speaking from his experience saying when “a man” has been close to death, and fears he starts to see the world differently, clearer. The wrongs he has done in his life start to haunt him and weight a heavy burden in his mind. He then starts off by saying “Hope” gets him through his dark times and it “cherishes the soul” of those who live in “justice and holiness.” (6). “What is justice” would immediately be the next question that would stomp not only Cephalus but the other men as well and yet again asked by Socrates. Socrates disagrees with Cephalus on his response which was to speak the

Cephalus and his son Polemarchus defined justice in various ways. Cephalus defines justice as the legal obligation to do what is right. According to him, a person will have done justice by honoring his legal obligation even if by honoring those obligations will jeopardize the lives of others. However, Socrates does not agree with this definition. He believes that, justice does not only involve doing just to others.

Education is a main factor that Socrates discusses throughout his trial in the “Apology” and in “Meno.” One of the main factors discussed in both texts are the role of teachers in society and if Socrates is a teacher. Socrates also relates past stories or experiences when giving his dialogues. This allows him to explain his thoughts and reasons on certain topics. One final factor that plays a role in both the “Apology” and “Meno” is the role of the gods through the dialogues. Teachers, stories, and the role of gods all play a key role in the “Apology” and “Meno” as Socrates attempts to explain and expand upon his views of education.

Socrates is invited into Polemarchus’ home, he begins to engage in a conversation with Cephalus where they eventually discuss the meaning of justice using Socratic dialectic. A Socratic dialectic is a cooperative discussion where common opinions, that most people will say when asked, are exchanged through socialization. To showcase Socratic dialectic in the conversation, Cephalus answers Socrates’ question and states his own view of what is justice which is to follow the law, which is divine, and to tell the truth. Socrates begins to engage Cephalus’ stance on justice which leads to the deduction behind his viewpoint. Cephalus’ reasoning for this definition hails from his elderly age where his wealth is enabling him to be just via paying

Socrates’s Argument for Justice as the Ideal Lifestyle in The Republic The theory of true justice is discussed multiple times throughout The Republic. From the very beginning of his discussion Socrates refutes every definition of justice proposed by both his friends and enemies, finding problems in every argument. Though initially he does not put forward any definition himself, Socrates still proves that he has a much deeper understanding of true justice.

Socrates believes that censoring what is being told to the youth will make for a society of just people with good character. Socrates believes that ones character is made through nurture, rather than the argument that character is something one is born with. This is why Socrates believes that it is important for youth to be told stories in which they will learn from and hopefully become just people from. Socrates believes that it is only nurture that has to do with someone’s character, but it can also be argued that both nature and nurture contribute to shaping one’s characteristics. It is interesting to point out that Socrates later contradicts his own

To be begin with, an individual cannot be good until they have attained the virtue of wisdom, and the same can be said for the city. For the individual, the person must not only be wise himself, but his soul must have wisdom. The only way to achieve this according to Socrates, is through for philosophy. In this way it is the same for the city, for in the city, wisdom lies with the guardians as they are the philosophers. The guardians are put in charge of the city because of their knowledge of how the city should be run. Because of this, the Guardians wisdom becomes the City’s. (Book IV)

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?”

Socrates asserts that a ruler will experience the most self-growth and will be able to make prudent decisions for the state only through introspection and self-realization. The ruler must realize how little he knows and how little he is truly capable of. Socrates states, “The wisest of men is he who has realized, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless” (Apology, 23b). Indeed, Socrates asserts that the wisest of men is he who realizes how little he truly knows. Thus, he must not deceive his people with falsehoods and must strive to continue learning. In essence, Socrates argues for universality and believes all of the ruler’s subjects must be provided for, even if it requires sacrifice and hardship for the ruler. As mentioned earlier, Socrates perceives the laws as parental figures who are responsible for instilling cultural and societal values in human

The use of Socrates’ inquiry in the Meno is a perfect example to show how Socrates pushed his listeners to question their own knowledge. Socrates never told Meno his definitions were wrong and his own were right, rather continued to question Meno’s conclusions to show him that he did not know the true meaning of virtue. The people of Athens were unable to accept the fact that many of them were ignorant on topics such as the definition of virtue, whereas Socrates himself was able to admit it. The Athenians disguised Socrates’ true desire to teach people for corruption and impiety because they believed he was trying to humiliate them. Although the people of Athens were blind of Socrates’ true intentions, his method of inquiry did in fact benefit the city of Athens. Socrates’ methods eliminated ignorance and increased proper knowledge on important things such as virtue and knowledge within the city of Athens, which is what he meant when he said he was “a gift of the gods to the city of Athens.”

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.

In Plato’s Republic Book I sections 336a through 354a, the main focus is the set of arguments between Socrates and Thrasymachus regarding the definition of what it means to be just and the difference between being just and unjust. Thrasymachus joins the conversation. And says that Polemarchus and Socrates are partaking in discussions that revolve around nonsense. He also demands that Socrates explain what is truly “just”. Socrates argues that the nature of his discussions with Polemarchus is serious and sincere, to which Thrasymachus sarcastically laughs at. Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of stealing wisdom from those he meets. Once their conversation gets past this point, Thrasymachus says that justice is nothing other than what is advantageous

Firstly, it is important to understand that Socrates was not merely arguing for virtue as being something that was not able to be taught. Socrates instead challenges Protagoras’ view on how he believes that virtue can be taught. Socrates considers that there are reasons that are sufficient enough to believe that virtue is not something someone can learn from someone else. In Athens at the time, every single citizen was capable of having a say in politics and the decision-making stemming from it. This meant that statesmanship was not akin to other skills that Socrates has mentioned such as ship-building which was something that required extensive training. Therefore, to Socrates this would mean that virtue is not something that one can learn or can provide to anyone else. He gives an example of this by mentioning that even the most virtuous of citizens cannot “transmit this excellence of theirs to others” (Protagoras 319e). From this one could gather that virtue, specifically in this example in terms of civics, is not something Socrates believes to be transferrable through teaching. Plato recognizes the taking account of the status

I agree with the point Plato is making towards Cephalus and Polemarchus. During Plato's time, Greek thinkers had already established the idea that the ''good man'' possessed four cardinal virtues: courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom. In Cephalus, Socrates (Plato), seems to have met a man who through experience of age, seems to have achieved the virtues of courage, temperance and justice. But as soon as it becomes clear that he has a philosophical subject in mind, Cephalus excuses himself from the conversation since he is not a philosopher: He does not pretend to be a philosopher and having achieved this knowledge, he also achieves wisdom. Socrates in the dialogue is trying to make a point that we have not achieved justice, just because we have not even been able to define justice. The work in the Republic by Plato reflects the philosophers' world by discussing his perspective and idea that how can one say they are just when that same person cannot define justice. It reflects our world because this question is still around nowadays. Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He claims that the soul of every individual has a three-part structure in sync with the three classes of society. There is a rational part of the soul, which seeks after truth and is responsible for our philosophical inclinations; a spirited part of the soul, which desires honor and is