In “The Republic”, Plato tries to tackle topics that are important to him and present to the reader characters that appears one after the other in a well-studied way. One by one he lets them go into a deep argumentation in order to get into their heads. First he started with Cephalus then Polymarchus ending with Thrasymachus: three distinct characters who represent three ways of living and thinking. In this paper, I will be analyzing one of the characters (Polymarchus), focusing on the argumentation between him and Socrates with what implies concerning ethics and then I will be emphasizing on the theme of money along the text.
In the form of dialogues, Plato began his philosophy. He puts into the mouths of his characters the thoughts and reflections for which he needed answers to. He knows that he can’t convince in any way someone who doesn’t listen.
Socrates therefore attacks the citizens of his city who hear voices without listening to what really is happening in order to improve and change. When we listen we act accordingly and change for the better. At the beginning of book I, a dialogue between Polymarchus and Glaucon proves this:
“Could you really persuade,” he said, “if we don’t listen?” …show more content…
His personality, his goals, his attitude are all related to wealth. He inherited from his father almost everything at first: money, his definition of justice, the way he controls his life…“Am I not the heir of what belongs to you?” (331d). He related justice in peacetime to contracts and partnership which are indirectly controlled by money (333 a-b). By defining justice as “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (332d), he refers to friends as people who have money, who can easily pay what they owe without any conflict, and by enemies as people who have nothing to offer. For him, for someone to be just he had to benefit in some way: he cannot be totally just without having something in return, and this benefit is mainly
In the form of dialogues, Plato began his philosophy. He puts into the mouths of his characters the thoughts and reflections for which he needed answers to. He knows that he can’t convince in any way someone who doesn’t listen.
Socrates therefore attacks the citizens of his city who hear voices without listening to what really is happening in order to improve and change. When we listen we act accordingly and change for the better. At the beginning of book I, a dialogue between Polymarchus and Glaucon proves this:
“Could you really persuade,” he said, “if we don’t listen?” …show more content…
His personality, his goals, his attitude are all related to wealth. He inherited from his father almost everything at first: money, his definition of justice, the way he controls his life…“Am I not the heir of what belongs to you?” (331d). He related justice in peacetime to contracts and partnership which are indirectly controlled by money (333 a-b). By defining justice as “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (332d), he refers to friends as people who have money, who can easily pay what they owe without any conflict, and by enemies as people who have nothing to offer. For him, for someone to be just he had to benefit in some way: he cannot be totally just without having something in return, and this benefit is mainly