...Plato: The Republic (Book II) Glaucon to Socrates: How do you classify things we call good? 1. Do you think that there are some which we would gladly have, not for their consequences, but because we appreciate them for their own sake; as, for example, enjoyment and those harmless pleasures which produce no further effects beyond the mere pleasurable experience? 2. There are some which we prize both for themselves and for their consequences as, for example, thought and sight and health. These and similar good things we appreciate for twofold reason. ?????? 3. Do you recognize a third class of good things, which includes gymnastic exercises, the undergoing of medical treatment, the practice of medicine, and the other forms of money making? These are things which we call troublesome but advantageous. We should never take them for themselves, but we accept them for the sake of the rewards and other consequences which they bring. Question: how are gymnastic exercises and the undergoing of medical treatment forms of money making? Socrates’ response to Glaucon: Amongst those which he, who would be blessed, must love both for their own sake and for their consequences. Glaucon to Socrates: That is not the opinion of most people. They place it in the troublesome class of good things, which must be pursued for the sake of the reward and the high place in public opinion which they bring, but which in themselves are irksome and to be avoided. Glaucon...
Words: 2056 - Pages: 9
...define “justice”? On what grounds does Socrates refute them? In the first book of Plato’s Republic three possible definitions of the term “justice” are brought up by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus which Socrates is able to refute. Though Socrates presents no personal opinion himself he is able to question each explanation given to him by the others. The book begins with a discussion between Socrates and Cephalus where the question of justice is initially brought up. What makes Cephalus different from the other characters is that he does not offer his own opinion but that of traditional Greek beliefs. He simply states that justice is achieved by giving back what one has taken from another and by being an honest man. Although Cephalus does not boast about his fortunes, it becomes apparent that he is very economically-oriented and he possesses a very black and white view that justice is something that can be paid off. From this Socrates then questions how that can always be right. He provides an example of if one friend took weapons from another who was mentally unstable and they demanded them back. Would it be just for the mentally stable friend to simply return them even if he knew dangerous consequences could follow because the person was legally entitled to the weapons? Cephalus agrees that this would indeed contradict his definition of justice. From this Cephalus’ son Polemarchus interjects by disagreeing with Socrates argument. He states that he agrees with...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
...From book one of the Republic of Plato we find various renditions of what specifically justice is. Socrates begins the conversation of justice with an elder statesman by the name of Cephalus and furthers the discussion with the son of Cephalus, Polemarchus. Socrates is seemingly “toying” with or having fun at the disposal of Polemarchus by challenging his argument and every point and he identifies various inconsistencies in the stories of both men regarding justice. By now the story turns to Thrasymachus which is where this paper begins. I will attempt to dissect Thrasymachus’ s argument and demonstrate where Socrates finds his argument lacking. During the course of book we hear various meanings from various characters regarding the true meaning of justice; Thrasymachus seems to take the view of a pessimist regarding the topic. Both Cephalus and Polemarchus are rather defeated in their arguments with Socrates and are unable to adequately provide Socrates with a satisfactory answer regarding what justice is. Thrasymachus enters the conversation and is seemingly annoyed or upset about the discourse between Socrates and Polemarchus. Moreover, Thrasymachus reverses the question to Socrates by demanding to know what his version of justice is. Thrasymachus seems to be frustrated with the audacity of Socrates of questioning everyone without providing and real answers himself. Thrasymachus then asserts his view of justice and in so doing, questions...
Words: 1505 - Pages: 7
...Phil 100 Prof. Michael Rosenthal 22 April 2015 Paper 1 Topic 2 Socrates, accused of making the worse into the stronger argument, corrupting the young and not believing in the same Gods the city believes in (24b), was found guilty and sentenced to death. After being sentenced and awaiting his penalty, his friend, Crito, visited Socrates. While awaiting his death, Crito attempted to convince Socrates that he should flee from Athens and escape his death sentence. Why might Crito try to convince Socrates to break the law and escape from Athens? Crito explained to Socrates that if Socrates were to die, not only would Crito be deprived of a friend, but Crito’s reputation would be harmed as well. Crito believed that if he were to allow Socrates to die, people would think that Crito valued money more than his own friends (Socrates dying would indicate that Crito did not spend money in order to save him) (43d). Crito’s concern for his reputation and the thoughts of the majority prompted Socrates to raise a question, “why should we care so much for what the majority think?” (43d). Crito responded by saying it is important to show concern for the opinion of the majority, “…one must also pay attention to the opinion of the majority,” (44d). Crito believed that paying mind to the opinion of the majority is important because “…the majority can inflict not the least but pretty well the greatest evils if one is slandered among them,” (44d). In other words, the majority has the ability...
Words: 1549 - Pages: 7
...about the sublime aspects of being just. This assignment is an attempt to prove that pursuing a life of justice would make living more worthwhile than being unjust or a combination of just and unjust life. In order to reach this point, I am going to explain the concept of justice and its superior aspects from the perspective of both Plato and Aristotle by taking help from their famous works “The Republic” and “The Nicomachean Ethics”. I will also give place to counter arguments and their rebuttals. I will make my own comments at the final part of the assignment. Plato (427 BC-347 BC) was one of the earlier and most important philosophers of the world and is also known as the founder of “The Academy”. Plato’s most famous work is “The Republic” in which he tries to draw the qualities of a just individual and a just state by explaining the sublime nature of justice. In the first two books of The Republic, dialogues between different characters focus on different meanings of justice. During the conversation two conventional definitions of justice (“giving a man’s due” and “doing good to your friends, harm to your enemies”) are refuted brilliantly by Socrates and finally take the form of “doing good to your friends if they are good and doing harm to your enemies if they are bad” (Plato, p. 13). In the following parts of Book one, Thrasymachus appears with all his anger towards Socrates. Thrasymachus defines justice or what is right as “what is the interest of the stronger party” (Plato...
Words: 1724 - Pages: 7
...cultivate this idea of criminals as bad people, who have somehow broken the moral code that society has so easily instilled in us as youth. However, despite society's moral code, I believe that the notion of morality, justice, and what is right is something that is personal, as well as societal and permanent as well as circumstantial. I believe that true justice considers all of these aspects. "Integrity, institutions, and laws are the most precious possessions of man kind" Plato 49d G.M.A. Grube. Throughout history, laws have been put in place, to tell us what is right and wrong and to punish us when we commit an unjust act. Modern society acts as one large institution that creates the accepted idea of justice and morality. Socrates argues that these pillars put in place by society are of exceptional value. It seems that Socrates has more than just a respect for justice as defined by the law, but he so reveres it that he is willing to give up his life for a law because he believes it to be just. Why? Like Socrates, I too believe in the higher institutions who write the laws and govern over what they believe is just. However, it is clear that societal norms dictate what laws and rules are put in place. Thus, someone living as an outcast of society is still boxed in by what society believes to be right or wrong, and what society...
Words: 1444 - Pages: 6
...Yunn Wong PHI 100-013 11/12/13 Met Museum Essay for Socrates I told my friends the most important thing to know about Socrates is that he is a man who never stops asking questions. It’s very annoying but we can learn a lot by focus on his style of thinking. He keeps asking question because he will never accept a fact at face value and holding it as truth. It’s actually good that he attempts to ask questions to get different perspectives and considers all approaches. Then I provided them with the examples from “The Republic Book I”. In the book, Socrates wants to find the definition for justice and the just life. He first test the definition with Cephalus to see if that’s a satisfy definition, if not, he will have to keep question until he gets the right definition. Cephalus’s definition of just is that as long as we always tell the truth and always pay back what is owed, we are doing the right thing. Socrates then asks if your definition is right, what if a friend of yours asks you to hold on to a weapon for him and then comes back one day in a state of rage asks for it back, will you give him the weapon back? Cephalus then realizes that can’t be the right definition. Then he continues on testing the definition with Polemarchus but Socrates, in his way of thinking, always questions against Polemarchus. Meanwhile, Thrasymachus can’t stand Socrates and accuses that Socrates never gives his own definition of justice but keep questioning others. Thrasymachus’s definition...
Words: 821 - Pages: 4
...war we are engaged in to me is unjust but it’s my civic duty to my country to go and fight. After learning about Socrates I begin to think what would he tell me? Socrates being a man of principles would tell me to go and serve my country on the front lines. He would let me know that this country has given me all that I have earned; all that I have gotten why now would I turn my back to them if I agreed to live in this country all this time. Today I believe even though there is no “draft” there is still a big dilemma when we go to fight in wars that many people may have. It s funny to hear people complain about all the wrong or unjust things we as a country are doing in the wars we are actively involved in today but they do not complain about the society they live in with freedoms, equality and the pursuit to happiness. I would go and put my reservations aside to serve my country if drafted. To me it would be what I owe to the place that allowed me to prosper, educated me and groomed me. After reading the Crito it’s so many things we take for granted that is provided to us. No one is held against their will in most of today’s society to stay in the country they live. They may not have the means to leave but they are not forced. When your country come calling whether it’s to be a productive citizen or to become a solider I believe it’s your duty and what is owed to them to answer. In the case of Socrates I believe it would have been unjust for him to escape. He said it himself...
Words: 1090 - Pages: 5
...Punishment In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates has many conversations with people in order to further understand concepts such as justice and the way things are ideally supposed to be done. When I think about justice the definition that comes to mind is: the administration of a just action because of an unjust or immoral act being done by a human or group of humans. The issue of proper punishment has also been discussed in those conversations with Socrates and his peers. There must be a punishment for immoral or unjust actions committed by any human otherwise everything in our world would turn into complete chaos. In Socrates’s time people believed heavily in the afterlife and that his or her actions on Earth determined the quality of that life. The gods played a huge role in deciding the fates of everyone depending on how one lived while one was alive. If one lived an unjust and reckless life then it will show because the gods in one’s afterlife will punish him or her. Socrates states, “…bad people are wretched because they are in need of punishment, and that in paying the penalty they are benefited by that god.” There is a problem with waiting until the afterlife for people to be punished because then there would be no order in society. Bad people who are actually bad can get away with living well in the afterlife because during their Earthly life they gained enough wealth to pay the gods to give them a good afterlife. Meanwhile the good people of the world who did a bad...
Words: 1240 - Pages: 5
...that, Socrates shows, are inadequate in exceptional situations, and thus lack the rigidity demanded of a definition. Yet he does not completely reject them for each expresses a common sense notion of justice which Socrates will incorporate into his discussion of the just regime in books II through V. At the end of Book I, Socrates agrees with Polemarchus that justice includes helping friends, but says the just man would never do harm to anybody. Thrasymachus believes that Socrates has done the men present an injustice by saying this and attacks his character and reputation in front of the group, partly because he suspects that Socrates himself does not even believe harming enemies is unjust. Thrasymachus gives his understanding of justice and injustice as "justice is what is advantageous to the stronger, while injustice is to one's own profit and advantage".[8] Socrates finds this definition unclear and begins to question Thrasymachus. Socrates then asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake by making a law that lessens their well-being, is still a ruler according to that definition. Thrasymachus agrees that no true ruler would make such an error. This agreement allows Socrates to undermine Thrasymachus' strict definition of justice by comparing rulers to people of various professions. Thrasymachus consents to Socrates' assertion that an artist is someone who does his job well, and is a knower of some art, which allows him to complete the job well. In so doing Socrates gets Thrasymachus...
Words: 1839 - Pages: 8
...prison is in question. At the beginning of the dialogue, Crito offers Socrates an escape though Socrates has already made up his mind and quickly refuses this opportunity. For Socrates believes that though he may have been convicted for the wrong reasons, the laws are just. In this essay, I will examine both arguments given by Crito and Socrates. Crito does not start with very strong arguments to persuade Socrates. His first argument is that if he does not escape, he will not only lose a close friend, but people will be left to believe that instead of using his money to save Socrates, he selfishly did not help him. For this Crito would lose his reputation and be looked upon in bad light. His second argument is telling Socrates that he would be able to live happily somewhere outside of Athens. He makes it known that he has friends in places such as Thessaly, and that they would ensure his safety and wellbeing. Crito's final argument seems to be his strongest. He calls Socrates a coward and fool. "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to preserve to the end in their nurture and education" (PUT MARK). Here Crito is feeling as though Socrates is taking the easy way out in not escaping. Betraying not only his own life, but betraying his children's lives. Though all three of these arguments seem valid, none of them seem relevant to whether escaping prison is right or wrong. Socrates dismisses Critos arguments, for the opinions of many do not matter in...
Words: 1243 - Pages: 5
...Socrates’s attempted explanation in Plato’s The Republic. Within the first book, Socrates finds himself exposing the flaws behind three definitions of justice proposed by the traditionalists of Athens. Through Socrates’s ridicule of physical attributions equating to justice, he disproves these perceived virtues and conveys the necessity for a lack of physicality. Due to Celphalus’s patrician status within the ancient Athenian society, he derives his definition of justice through his high financial position. After speaking...
Words: 1330 - Pages: 6
...In book 2 of Plato's Republic, Glaucon challenges Socrates to explain why he believes it is better to be just than unjust. Using the analogy of Ring of Gyges, Glaucon Socrates to explain why anyone should still desire justice even if there are no further ends to be pursued such as good reputation and honour. Socrates then offers a conception of justice which goes beyond the definitions offered by his previous interlocuters earlier on in the Republic. This essay will first aim to discuss in detail the challenge set forth by Glaucon followed by an analysis of Socrates' conception of justice with reference to his city-soul analogy. Glaucon claims, on behalf of the average Athenian, that justice is purely a social construction, valued by the masses in view of obtaining a good reputation for justice and virtue(358a). He claims that goods are of three kinds: (1)Goods valued only for what they are and not for their consequences, (2)goods valued for what they are and for their consequences, and (3) goods valued only for their consequences(357b-d). After the two agree on justice belonging to the goods of type-2, Glaucon proceeds to give an explanation of the majority's conception of justice by giving an account of its origins: Before any laws came to be...
Words: 1948 - Pages: 8
...Reasons for Socrates to Resist the Death Penalty: Name: Course: Date: Introduction: Socrates was a well renowned Athenian philosopher many years before his trial. He is actually considered a great founder in western philosophy. He was a very distinctive and typical individual with extraordinary teachings. It is believed that his teachings were very different from those of other philosophers in Greece since his ideas differed with the rightful societal beliefs. This resulted to hatred from the people. According to him, a useless life is one that is not examined. He put a lot of emphasis on the obedience of the state likening it to the obedience a son would have for his father. He was common for taking children through lectures of coming up with arguments to justify the reason for beating his father. Socrates was later accused of corrupting youth groups and godlessness. He was then convicted to death by taking poison which he obeyed as a way of following his teaching on obedience to the law. If Confucius would have believed in a life after death, he would probably have agreed with Socrates to have the law obeyed and kill himself. Socrates, in his day of execution explains that soul is the main form of an individual. Soul does not die and is eternal and does not change. Just the same way it brings life, so must it not die despite the death of the body. Soul is therefore termed as immortal. He feels that dying does not destroy who he really is since in real sense, he will not be dead...
Words: 1962 - Pages: 8
...which are Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. However, Socrates is the one who is given a challenge: to prove that justice is good and desirable. The book starts off with Cephalus giving his own conception of justice, which he believes to be “justice is nothing more than honoring legal obligations and being honest”. However, Socrate’s counterexample is “returning a weapon to a madman”. You owe the madman a weapon therefor you are being just and giving him back what he owns, yet this would also be considered an unjust act because you are landing back a weapon to a crazy man that might lead to him taking one’s life away. Polymarchus , Cephalus’ son then takes over with another idea of justice “justice means you owe a friend’s help and your enemies harm”. Polymarchus and his father share a similarity on their suggestions. Socrates, on the other hand reveals another counterexample and points out that sometimes we often are mistaken about who we call friends and who we call enemies because “we are not always friends with the most virtous individuals , nor are our enemies the scum of our society.” This all leads to Thrasymachus getting angry and jumping into this conversation with his own idea of justice. According to this man “justice is the advantage of the weak”. He believes that it does not pay to be just and that just behavior is only in the favor of the people who receive it. If you behave unjust you gain power, those are known as the strong people of our society...
Words: 733 - Pages: 3
