In “Plato’s Republic: Justice and the Good Life”, Socrates explores the subject of morality and justice within the soul. His quest to find the answer first involves analyzing justice in a city, and then in the soul and lastly by answering the question why be moral? He accomplishes this by analyzing different levels of justice in the soul from different individuals. First, I will reconstruct Plato’s account of justice as three parts of the soul, those being the rational, spirited and appetite components. Next, I’ll investigate Plato’s comparison between the lives of a tyrannical person and a philosopher. Finally, I’ll end by arguing that Plato’s claim of why one should be moral is not persuasive enough to convince a moral skeptic because it
…show more content…
He began his research by stating, “Same thing cannot do two opposite things, or be in two opposite states, in the same part of it” (Plato 436 b [89]). WHat this quote establishes is that there must more than one part of the soul, since the soul can contradict itself. He then establishes that there is a rational and an appetite part through the example of a thirsty man. Socrates states, “Therefore, whenever anything pulls back a soul that is under the influence of thirst, it will be something in the soul distinct from the principle which thirsts” (439b [91]). Therefore, since the man can desire a drink but decide not to drink one, it means that there must be two different parts of the soul, one that desires and one that makes the rational decisions. The example of the spirited part that Socrates provided was that of a man who angers at himself for desiring to look at dead bodies. Since Socrates previously stated that the same part cannot desire opposite things, this example points out that there must be a spirited part of the soul. The next issue that arises is whether the spirited part of the soul is just another aspect of the rational part of the soul, since it seems to work hand in hand with rationality. Socrates argues that with little children “...from their very birth they have plenty of spirit, whereas reason is a principle to which most men only attain after many years…” (Plato 441 a-b [92]). Therefore, Socrates determines that the spirited aspect is a part within itself. This careful analysis of the human soul demonstrated that there are three parts to the
He began his research by stating, “Same thing cannot do two opposite things, or be in two opposite states, in the same part of it” (Plato 436 b [89]). WHat this quote establishes is that there must more than one part of the soul, since the soul can contradict itself. He then establishes that there is a rational and an appetite part through the example of a thirsty man. Socrates states, “Therefore, whenever anything pulls back a soul that is under the influence of thirst, it will be something in the soul distinct from the principle which thirsts” (439b [91]). Therefore, since the man can desire a drink but decide not to drink one, it means that there must be two different parts of the soul, one that desires and one that makes the rational decisions. The example of the spirited part that Socrates provided was that of a man who angers at himself for desiring to look at dead bodies. Since Socrates previously stated that the same part cannot desire opposite things, this example points out that there must be a spirited part of the soul. The next issue that arises is whether the spirited part of the soul is just another aspect of the rational part of the soul, since it seems to work hand in hand with rationality. Socrates argues that with little children “...from their very birth they have plenty of spirit, whereas reason is a principle to which most men only attain after many years…” (Plato 441 a-b [92]). Therefore, Socrates determines that the spirited aspect is a part within itself. This careful analysis of the human soul demonstrated that there are three parts to the