Plato’s “Republic” is centered around the notion of justice and how it is beneficial to individuals. The main purpose of the book is to bring forth the conception of what is referred to as “just state.” The book is written in a dialogue form where Plato writes about the different arguments Socrates makes in regards to justice. As humans, we have strong intuitions when we are dealing with matters relating to justice and moral uprightness. Intuitions are influential in what we consider to be justice or unjust as also influences how we judge the actions of others. Plato makes the argument that without justice, then it is virtually impossible for any individual to have a good life. This argument is reinforced in the book in three steps with the
…show more content…
This definition may sound out of touch and even confusing to the modern reader. However, the main idea behind this definition was based on the fact that Plato wanted to extend the concept of justice to include individual actions. That is, according to Plato, justice included the act of fulfilling ones wrong and ensuring that you do not overstep your provisions in the act. This concept applies to both just state and the just individuals. According to tp Plate, in a just state, each class and individuals have specific sets of duties and obligations in the community in which if they all fulfill well results to a harmonious whole. This then means that is an individual does what he is supposed to he is credited and compensated, and any failure results in punishments. This is the concept of a just state that Plato explains. With the application of this interpretation to individuals and society, it can, therefore, be seen that justice would have an impact on the kind of life an individual does. That is, being just would translate to no punishments and right remuneration hence a good …show more content…
I agree with some part, but not the whole of the argument made. One aspect that I agree with is the argument that the individual should play a key should in the justice cycle. This is because, of the way that he explained the different states of the soul and how harmonious existence results to a virtuous person who in this case performs their duties in the society and listens to reason. However, at the same time, the definition of justice does not seem t fully apply to the modern world that we fit in hence the doubt on its applicability now. Additionally, Plato’s theory of hierocracy seems to not take into consideration the issue of self-determination. That is, despite the various role set in the society, individuals still do not have to perform on the hierarchy ladder. This then means that attaining a virtuous or rather well-ordered should do not necessarily mean that the person is virtuous. In the same way, I disagree with the argument that only philosophers would be best to rule a state. This is because apart from philosophers, other individuals may also take part in making judgement in critical
This definition may sound out of touch and even confusing to the modern reader. However, the main idea behind this definition was based on the fact that Plato wanted to extend the concept of justice to include individual actions. That is, according to Plato, justice included the act of fulfilling ones wrong and ensuring that you do not overstep your provisions in the act. This concept applies to both just state and the just individuals. According to tp Plate, in a just state, each class and individuals have specific sets of duties and obligations in the community in which if they all fulfill well results to a harmonious whole. This then means that is an individual does what he is supposed to he is credited and compensated, and any failure results in punishments. This is the concept of a just state that Plato explains. With the application of this interpretation to individuals and society, it can, therefore, be seen that justice would have an impact on the kind of life an individual does. That is, being just would translate to no punishments and right remuneration hence a good …show more content…
I agree with some part, but not the whole of the argument made. One aspect that I agree with is the argument that the individual should play a key should in the justice cycle. This is because, of the way that he explained the different states of the soul and how harmonious existence results to a virtuous person who in this case performs their duties in the society and listens to reason. However, at the same time, the definition of justice does not seem t fully apply to the modern world that we fit in hence the doubt on its applicability now. Additionally, Plato’s theory of hierocracy seems to not take into consideration the issue of self-determination. That is, despite the various role set in the society, individuals still do not have to perform on the hierarchy ladder. This then means that attaining a virtuous or rather well-ordered should do not necessarily mean that the person is virtuous. In the same way, I disagree with the argument that only philosophers would be best to rule a state. This is because apart from philosophers, other individuals may also take part in making judgement in critical