The Republic is Plato’s magnum opus and has become essential to political philosophy. For the greater part of Plato’s Republic, it is goal of Plato, using Socrates as his mouthpiece, to analyze justice by looking at the complex aspects of the just city in reference to the aspects of an individual’s psuché or soul. This is commonly known as the city-soul analogy. The analogy is used in order to define the nature of justice but also serve as justification. The Republic claims are built on the concept that justice is the same regardless if you are looking at from the perspective of an individual or the city as a whole (Republic 435b). Socrates believes that the characteristics that lie within us are the same ones that make up the polis. The idea
…show more content…
According to the Republic, an individual who is just internally just will in turn be externally just in society (Republic 435b). The interchangeable use of internal justice and external justice is come that is conflicting because justice in an individual varies from the justice that makes up the polis. What is just to one individual could very well be unjust to another individual, based on the part of the soul that is guiding the individual. For example, an individual may internally believe that killing is just, but in the external society it is not seen as just. The concept of what is just is not one that is universal. The lack of universality of the concept does not make the argument of the analogy sound. As an example, at a soccer game the attendees are fans, but what varies is which team they are a fan of. They all fall under the category of fans, as would just citizens in a society. Further more, the attendees each vary in the team that they are fans of, just as what is just to an individual varies per individual. Therefore, because concepts of what is just vary in the individual, they cannot always align to what is just in a society. The lack of fluidity between the justice in the psuché and justice in the polis creates a questionable analysis from in the
According to the Republic, an individual who is just internally just will in turn be externally just in society (Republic 435b). The interchangeable use of internal justice and external justice is come that is conflicting because justice in an individual varies from the justice that makes up the polis. What is just to one individual could very well be unjust to another individual, based on the part of the soul that is guiding the individual. For example, an individual may internally believe that killing is just, but in the external society it is not seen as just. The concept of what is just is not one that is universal. The lack of universality of the concept does not make the argument of the analogy sound. As an example, at a soccer game the attendees are fans, but what varies is which team they are a fan of. They all fall under the category of fans, as would just citizens in a society. Further more, the attendees each vary in the team that they are fans of, just as what is just to an individual varies per individual. Therefore, because concepts of what is just vary in the individual, they cannot always align to what is just in a society. The lack of fluidity between the justice in the psuché and justice in the polis creates a questionable analysis from in the