Telemachus And Socrates

Book I By Ivan Miranda Book I of “The Republic of Plato” is mainly about one question asked by Socrates: “What is justice?” Although Socrates was the one asking the question, Socrates never gives his definition of justice, only counter-arguing the men who dare to try to define justice. Socrates vs Cephalus: “Justice is telling the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another” Cephalus is the first to offer a definition of justice. He says that justice is simply living an honorable life: following the law, returning what is lent to you and being honest. Socrates response is: “Would be right to return a weapon to an angry friend?”

Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not. For this Thrasymachus says: “…in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger.” (Plato, The Republic, book I, page 16) In this point, Socrates gets an idea that the government, the ruler or gold

In his canonical work The Republic, Plato grapples with the topic of justice. He provides several alternative theories of justice throughout the dialectic through the literary manipulation of the characters in the piece. The characters of Thrasymachus (whose opinion has been the subject of lengthy debate ) and Socrates both provide accounts of justice that fall into a three-part typology of ethics provided by Lee C. McDonald in his “Three Forms of Political Ethics” (1978). In this essay, I attempt to make two claims concurrently: (1) that interpretations of both characters’ descriptions of justice fall into each of the categories that McDonald provides and can be used to elucidate McDonald’s claims about each of the three categories, and

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

Socrates say’s this cannot be true because most of the people in this world make mistakes in judging who the real friends are and who the enemies are. Thrasymachus’s impression of justice is that the stronger person decides what justice is. Thrasymachus definition of justice raises two questions which needed clarification. First question is what exactly

Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.

Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)

Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of

In effect, Thrasymachus tries to invalidate the entire notion that justice should be a guiding moral principle: a strict or universal definition within these terms is not only unnecessary but also factually incorrect. This view presents an pessimistic position on the nature of humanity, and seems to suggest that there are no intrinsically good ways to live one’s life or structure a society. One could characterize these beliefs as a kind of nihilism. The idea of justice, from this point of view, is purely used under pragmatic

In the “The Republic” by Plato, Socrates is debating the matter of Justice and what it is in their society. This discussion is brought up when Socrates meets Polemarchus’ aged father Cephalus, who says that wealth wards off god’s wrath once he commits an act of injustice. Socrates then begins to bring up a thought provoking question based off of this opinion. If justice is nothing more than to speak the truth and pay off debts, then are there no other exceptions? Socrates asks “that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him?

Soon, Thrasymachus enters the scene and argues that justice benefits the stronger. He claims that justice is not equal, nor worthwhile. Socrates immediately disputes this with his thesis, that justice in fact creates a healthy soul. The argument continues, yet it has not reached a solution by the end of Book I. Socrates’s goal is to prove that justice is worthwhile. Glaucon and Adeimantus, close friends of Socrates, soon explain the differences between injustice and justice.

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or

Basically, what Polemarchus is trying to say in this sentence is that each person is owed something, and in order to be just individuals, one has to give that person what they owe when he encounters him. Socrates does not agree with this definition of justice right away. He wonders how we can owe something to our enemies. Polemarchus defends his definition by saying; “I believe that is what is properly due from

The quest to define justice leads the main characters of this book in a wild goose chase. It seems that Socrates (the mouthpiece of Plato in this book)easily refutes every attempt made for a definition. At this time the question is also raised, is it even beneficial to be just, because it seems that many unjust men are extremely well off, and the just

No matter what either them thought, explaining justice started with one thing, the problem. Glaucon and Adeimantus have a very simple definition of justice; a just person does just things, selflessness.