In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.
The way in which Socrates defended himself was by calling Meletus to be questioned about the people that were considered good influences on the youth. The strength of Socrates argument comes from the method in which he asks the questions so in the end he forces Meletus to prove his point for him. After a series of questions regarding the specifics of whom might be considered a good influence on the youth, Socrates says, “So every person in Athens, it would appear, has an excellent influence on them except for me, whereas I alone am corrupting them.” (25a) This is a very valid argument because he compares this to taming a horse and through logical reasoning attempts to show that its nearly impossible for everyone to have the skill to tame a horse while only one person can be blamed of ruining it. This example illustrates that in reality Meletus doesn’t desire to help the children like Socrates
Validity in the Charges of Impiety against Socrates Impiety is commonly defined as a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to public religious observation. Plato’s Apology consists of a speech made by Socrates, a well-known philosopher, in defense of his life and conduct at his trail. Socrates was accused of being impious through accusations such as corrupting the youth of Athens, not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, as well as inventing new deities. The question then becomes, with these accusations in mind, are the charges of impiety against Socrates valid? This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex.
Kumar Bhattacharyya The Paradox of the Philosopher-King In this paper I shall delve into Plato’s The Republic and analyze his Just state, with particular interest in his assertion that the most ideal ruler would be a ‘Philosopher-King’. Plato hints at the impossibility of this Philosopher-King, yet sets strong arguments as to why a Philosopher King is the most appropriate ruler. He does this through his definitions of what it means to be a ‘Just’ state, and how a philosopher best embodies those qualities that would maintain the Justice, and prevent any Injustice from seeping in. Plato also supports his assertion through his epistemology and metaphysics, which serve to further strengthen his argument. I will begin by recounting the demographic structures that are present in Plato’s “Just” state, and by exploring his epistemological and metaphysical claims, highlight the impossibility of such a ruler.
The first way is the realization of justice. The ancient Greeks generally regarded the justice as the highest goal which is all the countries' pursuit. what is 'justice' ? Aristole thought that justice should be in the public interest and its real meaning mainly lies in 'equality'. We summarized Aristole's view of the justice as that 'Give the right people the appropriate treatment.'
The passage, 2c-3, explains in detail, what Socrates is charged for. It simply comes down to the competition of what the government wants younger men to know and what old wise men want the younger men to know. As Socrates and Euthyphro continue discussing, page 4 – d, I find that it’s OK to be laughed at as long as you do not teach your own ways to make people like yourself. Socrates feels that he is accused for making others like him because he wants to teach.
There are three distinct routes one can elect to take in the reading of Thrasymachus’ definition of the nature of justice and injustice in Book I of The Republic: Thrasymachus the realist; Thrasymachus the pseudo-Marxist; and Thrasymachus the nihilist. (To be certain, each contains its own unique set of inconsistencies and contradictory elements, but the extent to which this may be a deliberate technique on the part of Plato to depict his master’s opponent as flustered and misled is a topic deserving of an entirely separate analysis). In keeping with each of the various accounts of justice offered in Book I of The Republic – from Cephalus, who proposes that justice consists of telling the truth and returning material debt, and from Polemarchus, who envisions justice as helping one’s friends and destroying one’s enemies – Thrasymachus’ own account is one that is founded on the matter of just actions. According to Thrasymachus, the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger (338c). It follows, then, that the ruled would be acting justly if they were to act in the interest of the stronger.
Assignment One Rhetoric is the idea of new education that brings about the conception of argumentation, discourse, and persuasion. The central argument between Socrates and Gorgias, in the article “Plato on Rhetoric”, is defining the concern of rhetoric. They provide several concepts and deductions to its educational concerns by using different metaphors – such as medicine, weaving, garments, music, and other various models. However, another scholar, Aristotle, has a differing opinion to the notion of rhetoric. Socrates argues about the nature of rhetoric as: the truth and false idea of flattery, the loss of meaning to rhetoric, and rhetoric’s concerns with discourse.
Roosevelt says that he has “called for personal sacrifice” but that it will lead to a greater tomorrow (Roosevelt 154). He knows that success, freedom for the people, can only be achieved through the cooperation of the country. A country relies on a foundation of agreement, which creates a platform for the success of the country as a whole; a justice system is the base which a country is built on allowing freedom to be achieved for