Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 10, 2005 22:23:02 GMT -5
Plato's Republic - Book I - Summary (Focus: Justice)!
Question(1): Plato rejects various ideas of justice in Book I of the Republic. Describe them. Why does Socrates think that they are each so pernicious? How does he respond to them?
Book I of the Republic does contain various views of justice. I will attempt to describe them and answer other questions as well. I will answer in a manner that it will reflect the order in which the various and involved personas have been presented in the aforementioned text.
The first view of justice to be found in Book I of the Republic is that of Cephalus. In his response to Socrates on what is the greatest good he has received from being very wealthy Cephalus touches the subject of death. He states that when people are on a death bed that this is usually the time when they become concerned with whether they have been unjust to others or not. The reason for this concern is because they are scared they might be judged in Hades (underworld) as a result of being unjust here on earth. Cephalus states that if one has wealth that this sheer fact of having wealth would likely decrease chances of having one from being or becoming unjust as in playing trickery on others for example for ones own benefit. Cephalus thus states that wealth is most useful as benefit for benefit. Therefore so far Chephalus practically equates injustice to being unfair (unfair being related to being bad can be compared to the conslusion Socrates comes at the end of Book I about whether justice is bad or not) thus justice would consist of being fair as this is the only state that is in direct opposition to being unfair as justice would surely be understood as opposite of injustice.
In his response to Cephalus Socrates states that he understand from what Cephalus states that Justice would consist of being truthful and fair as in paying debts one might have. He states his opposition to this view in a sense that, for example, if one have borrowed a weapon from a sane person and now that this same person appears insane in comparison and wants the weapon back that returning the weapon to a person in such condition would be a mistake. In the same case, Socrates states, such insane person should not told a complete truth (especially if saying such complete truth would endanger them or another person). In conclusion to Cephalus Socrates states that as a result of the examples presented by Socrates that justice can not consist of being truthful and returning what was borrowed.
The second view (second meaning not including comments and conclusions made by Socrates on each one of these views) of justice to be found in Book I of the Republic is that of Polemarchus. As Socrates is finished stating his conclusion Polemarchus interrupts to state that Socrates is wrong and that justice does consist of being truthful and returning what was borrowed. Socrates manages to modify Polemarchus stand using the same reasoning he displayed with examples previously with Chephalus that poet Simonides (whom Polemarchus mentions in a attempt to back up his argument) surely didn't mean that returning what is owed is just even when 'insane person' example is presented. At this point Polemarchus states that Simonides meant that justice can be described as friends owing to their friends not to do harm but always to do good. After more Socrates reasoning Polemarchus states that justice harms enemies while it benefits friends.
In his response to Polemarchus Socrates states that people often are not exactly capable of identifying what is friend and what is an enemy. In fact at occasion it happens that an enemy will not turn out to be an enemy and that a friend will not always turn out to be a friend. As a result defining justice as something that harms enemies while it benefits friends doesn't go a long way in clarifying what exactly justice is since it remains unclear what is a friends and what is an enemy. Justice in such understanding would consist of harming bad (unjust) people and helping good (just) people rather then harming a enemy and helping a friend (for a one might consider a friend is not necessarily a good person). Socrates manages (through his reasoning) to modify even further Polemarchus stand that justice consists of harming an enemy that is bad and helping a friend that is good. After this last and final modification of Polemarchus stand of what is justice Socrates concentrates on connecting harming someone with justice. Socrates connects just act to a good act and harming another can not be considered as a good act (for it doesn't improve the person that is being harmed) thus in conclusion harming another can not be considered as an act of a just person but an act of an unjust person. During the course of this conversation a third person involved in this conversation is attempting to join, third person is Thrasymachus (who has been until now restrained from participation, restrained by others that is who wanted to hear fully finished argument).
The third view of justice to be found in Book I of the Republic is that of Thrasymachus. This new participant approaches the subject by first trying to openly downplay Socrates as one who sticks to asking questions without commenting independently on his own. Thus he is clearly antagonistic towards Socrates if not even jealous of perhaps the attention and respect he is getting from other people involved in this conversation insofar. Socrates states that one can not give an answer to something he doesn't know or doesn't claim to know. Thrasymachus, on the other hand claimed to know what justice is and as a result Socrates states that it would be more logical to expect Thrasymachus to answer the question of what is justice for he knows the answer. Thrasymachus states that justice is only an advantage of the stronger.
In his response to Thrasymachus Socrates states although it is just to obey the rulers it is reasonable to expect that rulers can not rule without possibility of making an error. Thrasymachus agrees that it is reasonable to believe this. After this Socrates argues that by agreeing Thrasymachus is in effect stating that it is not only just to be advantageous to the ruler but even to do opposite as rulers do make errors on occasion (and in the case of ruler making an error one being advantageous would in effect or rather could in effect constitute one being harmful to that same ruler). At this point Thrasymachus protests to Socrates in disagreement by stating that ruler never makes mistakes and that Socrates is a false witness in arguments. Socrates responds by saying that the ruler doesn't seek or orders what is advantageous to that ruler but what is for his subjects in a similar manner that the Doctor seeks what is best for his patents or in a similar manner that ship captain seek what is best for his ship crew.
The third view of justice to be found in Book I of the Republic is that of Thrasymachus and here he is extending his definition of what he believes constitutes justice. Thrasymachus disagrees with what was previously stated by Socrates by stating that shepherds and cowherds do not seek what is best for their animals but what is best for their master. He continues by stating that the city rulers also view their subjects as members of a herd that is there for their own advantage. He states that Socrates has no clue as far as what is justice and that justice is advantage of the stronger and the ruler while it harms the ones who obey them. He also states that injustice is opposite of what he defined as justice and that unjust man always benefits more in comparison to a just man. he states that one who is all around unjust (example rule of tyranny) benefits the most to his own benefit while the one who is only partially unjust (example temple robber) still such person is still punished in comparison. Thrasymachus repeats that justice is to the advantage of the stronger, while injustice is for ones own benefit. After stating this Thrasymachus was about to leave but questions of Socrates kept his presence there.
In his response to Thrasymachus Socrates states or rather repeats that every kind of rule primarily seeks what its best for the things or subjects it rules over. He additionally states that each craft benefits us in its own unique way. He states that it is reasonable that wages (whether in the form of money, honor , penalty) be provided to the ruler just like to any other craftsman. By penalty Socrates means that one would not allow a worse man or even his equal to be the ruler if one was given choice. Such could be considered as a punishment or penalty. He states that in a city of just man citizens would fight not to rule (for no one wants such burden upon them willingly). After stating this Socrates focuses his attention on what is Thrasymachus stating - that the life of an unjust person is better then a life of a just one. He is trying to understand what exactly is Thrasymachus stating and concludes that he is stating that he includes injustice with virtue and wisdom, and justice with their opposites. After reasoning Socrates is leading that a just person doesn't outdo another just person but a unjust person, while unjust person will try to outdo all. He further states that the knowledgeable person doesn't try to outdo another such person but a person that is not such while an ignorant person sill try to outdo all. He connects a just person to a good and a clever one and an unjust person to a ignorant and bad one. Thus in conclusion he states that just person is a good and clever person while an unjust person is a ignorant and bad person. Thus conclusion is that justice is virtue and wisdom and injustice is ignorance and vice. After stating this he says that it was said previously that injustice is powerful. Since virtue and wisdom are more powerful then ignorance and vice then stating that injustice is more powerful would not hold true but that justice is stronger then injustice. Socrates also states that even among the people who resort to injustice there has to be a presence of some dose of justice (such as among a band of thieves) for without it there would be disorder and thus such band of thieves would be deemed as ineffective to act as a unit. Thus injustice also brings disorder and chaos while justice brings harmony and order. Therefore justice creates and maintains something while injustice destroys it or attempt to destroy it through disorder. Thus conclusion is that justice brings good life while injustice brings bad life.