More handpicked essays just for you.
Socrates contribution to western civilization
Socrates contribution to western civilization
Socrates contribution to western civilization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Socrates contribution to western civilization
We should then catch the just man in the act of following the same path as the unjust man on account of the advantage that every nature is led by its very nature to pursue as good, being diverted only by force of law toward the esteem of the equal. The license I am talking about would be supremely such if they were given the very same power as is said to have been given in the past to the ancestor of Gyges the Lydian. (http://plato-dialogues.org/tetra_4/republic/gyges.htm) Basically, we must do injustice to know what justice is, doing as you wish finding out which will lead to what. The just does not always appear “good” or “fair” and “just”, whatever brought you to justice could be “bad” or “unfair” and “unjust”, depending what was led before.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
Plato gives humanity the benefit of the doubt. He portrays that if you actually do good instead of seeming to do good, then you will be successful. Sadly, this idea of human nature is that of a utopian society. If everyone always did good deeds, nobody would get ‘screwed over.’ This would put everyone at the same level which just can’t be done if you want a ‘well ordered State.’
To be just or not to be: a question of civility In Plato’s Republic, all concepts and ideas proposed by the great philosopher come in the manner of a dialogue. Effectively putting great minds at odds, to flesh out the intricacies of human life by speech. It is thus only natural that scholars should attempt and pit Plato’s Socrates to some of his more modern contemporaries. Consider Socrates’ debate with Glaucon on the origins of justice.
There are a multitude of opinions on human morality including where it derives and the necessity behind why one should be just. In the excerpt from Readings in Moral Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff, the dialogue between the Greek philosopher Plato and a man named Glaucon is described. In this excerpt, Glaucon provides a vast amount of supporting ideas on how man will choose to be unjust because morality is tiresome. These arguments include stating justice and morality are only used as a middle point, an example of a traditional story about a ring of Gyges, and lastly an argument of how a man who appears as just but is truly unjust reaps all the benefits. Thus from the analysis of this excerpt, morality is unnatural for human beings but brings about desirable social goods.
Plato’s Republic is a book with many important themes, but the nature of justice stands out the most. The Republic’s idea of the perfect city revolves around justice and applies this idea of how people should work, and the parts of the soul. Also, how these two things are helpful or a hindrance. To find a better understanding of justice, Socrates wants to know what makes a person just and what effects just people would have on society.
Within Plato’s Republic the ideal of Justice is greatly Debated, Socrates main conversationalist being Thrasymachus. In simplest terms Thrasymachus view on “justice” is that it is a “tool” for the most powerful. The powerful use “justice” in a way that allows them to keep power or gain power. Within Thrasymachus’ first argument he uses “justice” in the same regard as “laws”. Thrasymachus argues that a ruling group in all circumstances create laws that work with how they are operating as “a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws” (Plato 338e).
Throughout my academic journey, I strived to excel academically and through extracurriculars. Throughout high school, I consistently strived for and achieved top academic performance, getting all A’s in each one of my classes. As a result, I maintained a 4.3 GPA and due to that, I ranked in the top 5 percent of my graduating class of 328 students. Not only was I able to uphold topmost academic achievements and successes, I also participated in many clubs in high school. During my sophomore year of high school, I was a part of Key Club, an organization specifically designed for high school students that operates under the guidance of student leaders.
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.
Socrates is quoted as stating, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living” (38 a). Socrates was a founding figure of western philosophy, and a stable for many ideas. He lived in Athens, Greece teaching his students, like Plato, questioning politics, ethical choices, and many other things in Greek society. In the Trial and death of Socrates: Four Dialogues by Plato, it explores the abstract questioning Socrates had towards many of the normal social properties, which led to his trial, resulting in his death. The most important aspects discussed in the dialogues is the questioning of what is pious and impious, what it means to be wise, and good life.
In Book 1 of Plato 's Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus engage in a passionate, and often acrimonious, conversation regarding the relationship between a ruler and those he or she rules. Their conversation raises substantive questions about both the nature and purpose of government and the motivations and roles of those who govern. The following will address these questions by 1) explaining both Socrates ' and Thrasymachus ' understandings of the ruler-ruled relationship and 2) addressing the merits of each argument and offering my own philosophical position on the matter. First, with respect to Thrasymachus ' position, he believes that rulers craft laws for their "own advantage," and he considers justice to be the "advantage of the stronger"
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
Justice is characteristically thought of being good for society and virtuous to be just. In Plato’s Republic, he deliberates through Socrates and Glaucon whether justice is good for the soul. In the beginning, Glaucon believes that justice is not a natural function of the soul. However, Socrates is able to convince Glaucon that justice is a part of the soul that is good for humans using the function argument and examples. Socrates describes function as something an object can perform, while virtue allows the object to perform its function well.
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
