Plato's Republic centers on a simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? The puzzles in Book One prepare for this question, and Glaucon and Adeimantus make it explicit at the beginning of Book Two. To answer the question, Socrates takes a long way around, sketching an account of a good city on the grounds that a good city would be just and that defining justice as a virtue of a city would help to define justice as a virtue of a human being. Socrates is finally close to answering the question after he characterizes justice as a personal virtue at the end of Book Four, but he is interrupted and challenged to defend some of the more controversial features of the good city he has sketched. In Books Five through Seven, he addresses this challenge, arguing (in effect) that the just city and the just human being as he has sketched them are in fact good and are in principle possible.
Philosohy Falling through the Center of the Earth: The balancing act of injustice and justice From the early pages of Plato’s Republic Socrates and his companions are striving to find what can be considered ‘justice’. Socrates companions seam to all feel that to do injustice with out consequence is good for oneself. One after another, explanations as to what constitutes justice are raised and soon extinguished. However, it is only when Socrates expresses his view of justice in the city and in man do we see an explanation of justice being willingly practiced and inherently good. In order to simplify justice and prove that it is indeed better than injustice, Socrates moves from describing justice in the individual to the city.
In “The Allegory of the Cave”, an excerpt from the Republic, Plato puts forth various ideas about the concept of conformity versus individuality. Referring specifically to paragraph 29 of the allegory, Plato points out that those quickest to follow are those most likely to be rewarded. Despite the pressure to conform to dominant ideas and styles of society, Plato concurs with Homer, eifhf, whom he quotes in the passage that creative and free thinking is the ideal to aim for. The most egregious example of conformity in thought and action occurs in countries without a free press where the government controlled media has complete power in presenting ideas deemed permissible. The ultimate type of conforming is the “thought police” in George Orwell’s 1984.
Testing of the citizens will determine what class a person belongs too and also what “metal” a citizen is can dictate what class a person may be in. The citizens are led into a lie that forces them to believe the origin of the three classes. I agree with certain parts of Plato’s ideal city because they have practical reasons behind it, but I do disagree with some of his ideas because I feel that they do not let the citizens have equal opportunities to look into the life they want, not the life that is only determined by their strengths (Plato 2,3,4,5,27). I will now explain the summary of Plato’s ideal city. Plato describes his society to be ruled by the guardians because they are the most knowledgeable and have the desire to run the society.
Therefore, it can be presumed that specific types of harm such as constructive criticism and disciplinary punishment are deemed unjust when they actually can be efficient instruments in the formation of a just human being. Book I of Plato’s Republic commences with the first account of justice which is proposed by Cephalus. Cephalus claims that the greatest good an elderly man can possess is a just consciousness(3).However, he offers an unclear understanding of justice, but through further clarification by Socrates, Cephalus’s outlook on justice becomes defined as being truthful and giving back what is owed (3). Before Cephalus can even ratify Socrates’s allegation of justice, he is interrupted by Polemarchus who claims he agrees with Cephalus’s assertion. Socrates dismisses this argument by offering an insightful refutation.
* The vice of excess is entirely too much of the virtue which leads to excess rather than moderation, e.g. the excess vice of modesty is shyness. Aristotle asks followers to choose the mean or middle ground between virtue and defect: rather than praising a golden unevenness, followers are expected to discover the middle ground for themselves – to avoid excess and lacking character in any particular kind of action. Aristotle said that virtue is a state of having increased the ‘right prescription’ of good behaviour or ‘orthos logos’. A virtuous person will be able to apply the virtues to practical ethics for example; they will know when to show courage etc.
Thucydides vs. Plato The meaning of a good life can be drastically different depending on your point of view and the way you look at the world in front of you. Greek philosophers Thucydides and Plato were no different in this matter as they saw the world in two completely different ways. Thucydides used empirical claims to describe what he believed a good life was based on what he observed amongst the men fighting in the Peloponnesian War. On the other hand, Plato used normative claims to describe his beliefs based on what he believed, not observed, a good life entails. First off, it is important to note what the differences between these two types of thinking are.
The concept of death is, needless to say, difficult for anyone to grasp. Arguing over whether death is a positive or negative thing is perhaps even more difficult. The philosophers Thomas Nagel and Socrates, who both wrote extensively on the topic, differed in their opinions. Socrates argued that death was a positive thing, either resulting in the relocation of one’s soul to heaven (given that they’ve been virtuous), or at the very least a “dreamless sleep,” which might not be great, but is at least not bad. Nagel, however, emphasized the value of life, even if the “bad elements” in life outweighed the good ones.
In simpler language, it means to aim for perfection. On the surface, it sounds nice, but all this ignores the basic human trait, the one shared across cultures, languages, and races: imperfection. To be human is to be errant. Thus, the dreams of idealists often get dashed and projects they attempt often end either in failure or at least "less than they could have been." On the other hand, realism means "the inclination towards literal truth and pragmatism" (ibid).
A number of definitions of virtue are offered by Meno but they all merely come together to form Greek cultural customs. An analysis is made by Socrates to show that they do not meet the necessities of a definition. Meno tended to name various examples of virtue rather than naming what is common to all the examples. Meno’s first definition of virtue is broken up into many parts; the virtue of a man, which consists of “being able to manage public affairs and in doing so to benefit his friends and harm his enemies and to be careful that no harm comes to himself” the virtue of a woman, “she must manage the home well, preserve its possessions, and be submissive to her husband.”(Meno, 71e). Meno also states that “There are very many other virtues, so that one is not at a loss to say what virtue is.