Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.
Plato’s Apology is in the words of Socrates. The apology explains what Socrates though of death as he awaited his death after being condemned for not believing in God. He believed after death, one would either go to another world or be in a state of nothingness. He had the theory of death being a place where one would learn about life and talk to people that no longer walk the Earth. He supports his argument that death is a gain by explaining that he, Socrates, will get to speak to famous poets and past heroes.
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
I would argue that Socrates is influencing the audience and the people who will read his case to become more philosophical. He has a purpose
Plato’s The Apology is a unique work that looks at the speech that Socrates made in a trial in his defense for not recognizing the gods. The paradoxical thing in this speech is that it is anything but an apology, but rather a clear defense that is present and steadfast in his position. The manner in which he was sentenced, seemed very harsh and is something that I would have not done. I would not convict Socrates of the crime because as he stated in the work, attempting to silence him causes more harm to those that engaged in the conviction rather than the harm it caused to himself. This quote by Socrates suggested that one must deal with processes in a logical manner, rather than just convicting someone to a death sentence.
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)
During Book 4 of Plato’s Republic, the focus of the discussion taking place revolves around Socrates’ hypothetical perfect city and its contents. The use of the hypothetical city aids the discussion in allowing for application of virtue, ideas, and their definitions to society before extending the argument to the individual. After having debated justice, defined the good, and outlined the education of the guardian class, it is time to circle back to Justice. Upon laying the foundation of this hypothetical city, it was time to look for the virtue within it. However, Socrates and his argumentative opposition still lacked an agreed upon definition of justice, and the ones utilized previously in discussion stemmed mostly from the ideas of what
“Plato Apology” relates the trial of Socrates (469-399) B.C.E known as the father of Western Philosophy. Socrates, a son of sculpture and the midwife had a queer with most Athenians due to his point of view on values and beliefs. Charged with impiety and corrupting the Youth, Socrates’ defends himself by persuading the jury of his innocence with tangible reasons which made his arguments effective.
Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
In “Plato’s Gorgias” Socrates debates with fellow philosophers, Polus, Callicles, Chaerephon and Gorgias, of ancient Greece over rhetoric, justice, and power. During these debates, Socrates makes a claim to Polus that it is better to suffer injustices rather than to commit injustice because the positive and negative consequences that come along with committing and suffering injustices. This claim by Socrates that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice is pretty easy to comprehend once all the parts are analyzed. At first, this idea seems crazy that it is actually beneficial to suffer injustice and wrong-doing.