Socrates Vs. Caste System: A Comparative Analysis

788 Words 4 Pages
Starting off with book two, I had a lot of internal conflict and confusion. They first had trouble deciding if being just was better than being unjust. I being a Christian find this horrifying. Then they came to the conclusion that being unjust was better, but looking just was necessary. I understood how they came to their conclusion, but I could grasp how they were morally okay with it. However, they only agreed that being just was better because their gods reward good, not because they wanted to be good. I was amused when they decided to make a city to see where they could find just and unjust acts being carried out. They had unconventional ideas and wanted people to work for nothing and provide for everyone, according to what their job …show more content…
They had low jobs like shoemaking to higher jobs, like guarding and keeping the city in order. The idea that certain jobs were more important than others, was the unsurprising thing. This belief would run the city into the ground eventually because it would slowly turn into a caste system. A caste system is divided classes where people are placed in by birth. For example, if you are born a shoemaker, then you will be a shoemaker, and don’t have a chance of getting out of it. However, the difference between Socrates system and a caste system, is that they will pick children and put them in their “classes” by looking at the characteristics they show. After this, they put the children in their classes and they will be specified a function, and continue to do that single function till they …show more content…
The perfectly city had wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. They determined that the guards had the wisdom and courage of the city because they fought for the city and had the best education. When they tried to find the moderation of the city, they concluded that only the men who could refuse the desires of the world, had moderation, and that was the elite men of the city. I had a problem with this because looking at their conclusion, I interpreted it as men who don’t sin or never fall into temptation are the moderateness of the city. The problem I have with this is that no man can do that. Man can resist temptation, but not every time it is presented to them in life. They just assumed that they could do this with no problem, and this is where I see that they lift themselves higher than their gods and my God. In their conclusion they said since their city had wisdom, courage, and moderateness, then it had

Related Documents