Sydney Barton
Philosophy 1102
Midterm Exam
In The Republic, Plato uses the main character Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas and beliefs, just as he did during the entire middle period of his writings. In book I of The Republic, Socrates seeks to discover what justice is and why it is necessary for one to be just. Socrates asks Cephalus and his son Polemarchus their thoughts on his inquiry, finding error and contradiction in each of their responses. However, their responses to Socrates’ question on justice only acts as a preface to the sophist, Thrasymachus’ view on what justice is and why it is imperative for the human person to be just. Thrasymachus tells Socrates that justice benefits the stronger, or someone with a significant …show more content…
He also says that we do not approve of justice because as humans, it makes us uncomfortable and we fear justice because we do not want to become victims of it. However, Socrates does not quite agree with Thrasymachus, and says that a man who is just also has wisdom and virtue. A man who is unjust does not have these qualities. In addition, a man who is just does not want to have or know more than a man who is unjust, but the man who is unjust wants to have or know more than both the just man and the unjust man. For example, a teacher does not necessarily want more knowledge than another teacher. However, the teacher does want to have more knowledge than someone who is not a teacher. In addition, someone who is not a teacher wants more knowledge than someone who is a teacher and someone who is not a teacher. Thus, justice is more favorable because the just man is knowledgeable and has virtue and the unjust man is ignorant and does not have virtue (Orwell1627 …show more content…
For example, a lamp’s end is to produce light. This means that each thing’s end is not the same as another thing’s end. Additionally, everything possesses what Socrates calls an “excellence,” which allows something to fulfill its specific end or purpose. If a lamp loses its ability to create light, it will not be able to reach its ultimate end of producing light. Therefore, according to Socrates, since justice is the excellence of the soul, if this excellence becomes unjust, then the soul is not able to attain happiness (its end). Thus, the just are happy and the unjust are unhappy (Orwell1627 2013).
I believe that Socrates’ argument on the definition of justice is much stronger than Thrasymachus’ definition. As book 1 closes, Thrasymachus has finally stepped down from his position and even admits that he agrees with Socrates’ side of the argument. This alone proves that Socrates has completely disproved Thrasymachus’ argument. Even though Socrates may have had the better argument, he still leaves book 1 with no complete answer to what the definition of justice is. His refutations on Thrasymachus’ argument was very strong, but he leaves the audience to make their own conclusions about what justice
Philosophy 1102
Midterm Exam
In The Republic, Plato uses the main character Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas and beliefs, just as he did during the entire middle period of his writings. In book I of The Republic, Socrates seeks to discover what justice is and why it is necessary for one to be just. Socrates asks Cephalus and his son Polemarchus their thoughts on his inquiry, finding error and contradiction in each of their responses. However, their responses to Socrates’ question on justice only acts as a preface to the sophist, Thrasymachus’ view on what justice is and why it is imperative for the human person to be just. Thrasymachus tells Socrates that justice benefits the stronger, or someone with a significant …show more content…
He also says that we do not approve of justice because as humans, it makes us uncomfortable and we fear justice because we do not want to become victims of it. However, Socrates does not quite agree with Thrasymachus, and says that a man who is just also has wisdom and virtue. A man who is unjust does not have these qualities. In addition, a man who is just does not want to have or know more than a man who is unjust, but the man who is unjust wants to have or know more than both the just man and the unjust man. For example, a teacher does not necessarily want more knowledge than another teacher. However, the teacher does want to have more knowledge than someone who is not a teacher. In addition, someone who is not a teacher wants more knowledge than someone who is a teacher and someone who is not a teacher. Thus, justice is more favorable because the just man is knowledgeable and has virtue and the unjust man is ignorant and does not have virtue (Orwell1627 …show more content…
For example, a lamp’s end is to produce light. This means that each thing’s end is not the same as another thing’s end. Additionally, everything possesses what Socrates calls an “excellence,” which allows something to fulfill its specific end or purpose. If a lamp loses its ability to create light, it will not be able to reach its ultimate end of producing light. Therefore, according to Socrates, since justice is the excellence of the soul, if this excellence becomes unjust, then the soul is not able to attain happiness (its end). Thus, the just are happy and the unjust are unhappy (Orwell1627 2013).
I believe that Socrates’ argument on the definition of justice is much stronger than Thrasymachus’ definition. As book 1 closes, Thrasymachus has finally stepped down from his position and even admits that he agrees with Socrates’ side of the argument. This alone proves that Socrates has completely disproved Thrasymachus’ argument. Even though Socrates may have had the better argument, he still leaves book 1 with no complete answer to what the definition of justice is. His refutations on Thrasymachus’ argument was very strong, but he leaves the audience to make their own conclusions about what justice