Justice
Based on The Republic by Plato
Plato’s view on justice seems to fluctuate throughout the book. The first book is mainly on
Socrates, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus discussing the topic: justice. It seems that Thrasymachus has a more innocent, childlike view on justice, because he simply questions Socrates and Polemarchus, who seem to have a more acuminous and proficient view on justice, however close minded that may be. \
Socrates and Polemarchus, in the first book, discusses what exactly justice is. They never come to an exact conclusion to give a valid definition, but simply mark over what is what, and which is just or unjust. Thrasymachus, in his childlike manner, is quick to jump on Socrates for his sly refusal to answer a question fully. Socrates, in the only way I can figure, is in a state of mock shock, and slight amusement as he lazily tries to defend himself. However, it seems as though Thrasymachus is one step ahead of him, in that he calls him out again because in his defense of not giving an answer, he does not give an answer! He simply cannot answer Thrasymachus’ question, what is his definition of justice, because he does not know. Thrasymachus then goes on to make his opinion clear, stating that the just is the advantage of the stronger. He gives examples of three different types of government to make his point: tyranny, democracy, and aristocracy. Socrates makes his argument by saying that he agrees that just is the advantage, but does not know if it holds necessarily only to the stronger. As the point is argued, they come to a partial resolution, in that Thrasymachus agrees only slightly with Socrates. It seems the astute Socrates outwits the novice Thrasymachus. As Thrasymachus continues to argue his way out of agreement, or at least try, Socrates takes what he said to mean something different. Socrates comprehended, whether purposefully or not, that Thrasymachus meant that “the unjust life is stronger and superior to the just life,” when really that was Socrates’ play on words. Socrates then brings Glaucon into the conversation, seemingly to get everyone to convince Thrasymachus that he is wrong. But who is to say what is wrong or right? According to Socrates, justice is stronger than injustice, and to Thrasymachus the opposite. Not that justice is weaker then injustice, but that injustice is stronger than justice. Do not misquote or falsely accuse Thrasymachus.
Everyone is at an agreement that justice is wisdom and virtue, while injustice is vice and ignorance. Now on to decide which is stronger, justice or injustice, and why. Socrates goes on to say that if justice and injustice hold true to the afore mentioned definitions, then it is easily determined that justice is stronger than injustice. Socrates then asks Thrasymachus this: “…will the city which becomes stronger then another city have this power without justice, or does it necessarily have it with justice?” Thrasymachus answers, “With justice if justice is wisdom, as you were now claiming. With injustice, if as I claimed.”¹ Socrates mockingly, but not quite sarcastically, applauds him for his ability to give a methodical answer. Socrates concluded this book by saying that he is like the gluttons at a feast who grab at the newest dish of food before even tasting the previous one. However, he means in the manner of arguing, the he kept “going from this to that,” and that he now know nothing of justice and what he does not know of justice, he could not tell you if it happens to be a virtue or not, and if whoever has it is happy or not.
Thrasymachus said that ruling is an infallible art. All art is quite useless.²
Footnotes
1 – Quote from The Republic by Plato. Socrates and Thrasymachus, Book I, pg. 32
2 – Quote from The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, The Preface, pg. 2
Based on The Republic by Plato
Plato’s view on justice seems to fluctuate throughout the book. The first book is mainly on
Socrates, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus discussing the topic: justice. It seems that Thrasymachus has a more innocent, childlike view on justice, because he simply questions Socrates and Polemarchus, who seem to have a more acuminous and proficient view on justice, however close minded that may be. \
Socrates and Polemarchus, in the first book, discusses what exactly justice is. They never come to an exact conclusion to give a valid definition, but simply mark over what is what, and which is just or unjust. Thrasymachus, in his childlike manner, is quick to jump on Socrates for his sly refusal to answer a question fully. Socrates, in the only way I can figure, is in a state of mock shock, and slight amusement as he lazily tries to defend himself. However, it seems as though Thrasymachus is one step ahead of him, in that he calls him out again because in his defense of not giving an answer, he does not give an answer! He simply cannot answer Thrasymachus’ question, what is his definition of justice, because he does not know. Thrasymachus then goes on to make his opinion clear, stating that the just is the advantage of the stronger. He gives examples of three different types of government to make his point: tyranny, democracy, and aristocracy. Socrates makes his argument by saying that he agrees that just is the advantage, but does not know if it holds necessarily only to the stronger. As the point is argued, they come to a partial resolution, in that Thrasymachus agrees only slightly with Socrates. It seems the astute Socrates outwits the novice Thrasymachus. As Thrasymachus continues to argue his way out of agreement, or at least try, Socrates takes what he said to mean something different. Socrates comprehended, whether purposefully or not, that Thrasymachus meant that “the unjust life is stronger and superior to the just life,” when really that was Socrates’ play on words. Socrates then brings Glaucon into the conversation, seemingly to get everyone to convince Thrasymachus that he is wrong. But who is to say what is wrong or right? According to Socrates, justice is stronger than injustice, and to Thrasymachus the opposite. Not that justice is weaker then injustice, but that injustice is stronger than justice. Do not misquote or falsely accuse Thrasymachus.
Everyone is at an agreement that justice is wisdom and virtue, while injustice is vice and ignorance. Now on to decide which is stronger, justice or injustice, and why. Socrates goes on to say that if justice and injustice hold true to the afore mentioned definitions, then it is easily determined that justice is stronger than injustice. Socrates then asks Thrasymachus this: “…will the city which becomes stronger then another city have this power without justice, or does it necessarily have it with justice?” Thrasymachus answers, “With justice if justice is wisdom, as you were now claiming. With injustice, if as I claimed.”¹ Socrates mockingly, but not quite sarcastically, applauds him for his ability to give a methodical answer. Socrates concluded this book by saying that he is like the gluttons at a feast who grab at the newest dish of food before even tasting the previous one. However, he means in the manner of arguing, the he kept “going from this to that,” and that he now know nothing of justice and what he does not know of justice, he could not tell you if it happens to be a virtue or not, and if whoever has it is happy or not.
Thrasymachus said that ruling is an infallible art. All art is quite useless.²
Footnotes
1 – Quote from The Republic by Plato. Socrates and Thrasymachus, Book I, pg. 32
2 – Quote from The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, The Preface, pg. 2
No comments:
Post a Comment