Socrates And Odysseus Analysis

Recalling Homer’s and various other poet’s literary accounts of the gods of the Greek pantheon, Socrates and Adeimantus encounter an apparent issue concerning the classical education of the citizens in the republic. Homer chronicles numerous accounts of treachery, dishonesty, and explicit immorality of the gods. If guardian class citizens are to be the most virtuous of the republic, they must not be tainted with such stories of deceit, especially in those relevant to the gods. Socrates states that a god must be described only as he is, which they have concluded, is a god most righteous and responsible for all things good and none bad (379 a-b). Once the tales of the gods’ fighting and sabotaging one another have been declared untrue, Socrates …show more content…
Socrates defines justice in multiple ways, one of which being “the having and being of one’s own and what belongs to oneself” (434 a). Citing the example of a shoemaker and a carpenter, while a shoemaker may know the art of carpentry, he would not attempt to become one, for it would be an injustice to himself to do so. While this would hardly cause harm to a city on such a small scale, consider if a money-maker attempted to infiltrate himself into the guardian class and vice-versa, this would surely, as Socrates claims, aid in the entire destruction of the city (434 b). Haphazardly switching professions and roles results in a number of mistakes. Those who are not conclusively informed on how to fulfill the role of someone else only serve to cause disorganization, confusion, and harm. Just as a shoemaker does not delve into the art of carpentry, and a money-maker does not attempt to become a guardian, a god would surely never attempt to become anything other than himself, lest he would be willing to commit voluntary injustice to both himself and his