The Republic Essay, Research Paper

Most normal persons in the modern universe would presume that all books written, non published, by adult male are based on either a part of the writer? s imaginativeness, an event ( biased or non-biased ) in either history or during the life of the writer, a outright autobiography, or a generalised life of another individual they one time knew. However, this philosophical novel fits none of the descriptions above. The book is really an in-depth recording of a doctrine competition between Plato? s instructor Socrates and several other great philosophers. What is important about this competition is that, in it, Socrates describes his personal position of a? perfect universe, ? and why justness is so of import in the procedure of making a civilised world.The novel was completed in 370 B.C. , and it describes a strong argument between Socrates and five other talkers. The two chief statements that he illustrates in this novel are that a swayer can non obtain more power than the province, and that a philosopher is best suited to govern a state since he has the ability to keep this balance. Besides, Socrates claims that merely the philosopher has traveled beyond the? undermine? of secular desires and enticements to detect what justness truly is. Socrates? foremost major statement is with Thrasymachus in Book I. The current argument prevarications on the pure definition of justness. Thrasymachus claims that there is merely one rule of justness: the involvement of the more dominant force. Socrates counters this statement by utilizing the phrase? the stronger. ? He claims that the swayer of a state will non be aided, but harmed, by an unwilled bid, in the long tally. Socrates so builds his statement bit by bit by saying that the good and merely adult male looks out for the involvement of the weaker, and non for himself. Thrasymachus tries to counter Socrates? s statement by mistily proclaiming that unfairness is more paid than justice.However, Socrates courageously explains that the merely adult male will populate merrily because he has a merely psyche, and the adult male with the unfair psyche lives in poorness ; hence, unfairness can ne’er be greater than justness. At this point in the novel I saw Thrasymachus? s defect and besides the ground why Socrates has silenced Thrasymachus. Injustice, in my sentiment, may be better as a short-run program for pleasance, but in the long tally the unfair adult male will be condemned by merely work forces of his evil workss, therefore taking to his ruin. This is a point Thrasymachus failed to see, and therefore his statement was excessively one-sided. This is the ground I believe he lost, and his failure led me to believe that Thrasymachus is a knowing adult male without wisdom ( whereas Socrates had both ) .After Thrasymachus? s licking, Glaucon steps up to dispute Socrates. Glaucon? s foremost statement is that making unfairness and non being punished for it is much more enjoyable than enduring unfairness at the custodies of unfair swayers and practising justness. Glaucon? s brother, Adeimantus, backs up his brother? s address by saying that an unfair adult male with a deceivably merely repute ( which is about ever the trait of the absolutely unfair adult male ) is besides better than the merely adult male. But Socrates counters these two strong addresss by proclaiming that, in an mean metropolis, justness is needed for the Senate to construct the metropolis, for citizens to merchandise and barter with aliens, and for preparation and educating soldiers for conflict. Socrates besides states that justness comes from God and those who follow his illustration become merely. Although these two statements are striking contrasted content-wise, there is a connexion between them. If a adult male is unfair, he will non merely be condemned by work forces, but by God every bit good. And even though there may be no Supreme Being that controls the Earth and its adjacent planets, unfairness will still do injury, taking to more unfairness and eventually the devastation of the universe. I am rather positive that Glaucon and Adeimantus are believing in the same mode as Thrasymachus ; they are believing short-termed and are explicating their statements in footings of the present. Of class, three unfair work forces in a universe where merely people regulation could acquire away with about any unfair act. But injustice leads to more injustice, every bit good as justness leads to more justness. Therefore, if the followers is considered true, so unfair work forces leads to more unfair work forces, and so what would go on if unfair work forces ruled the universe. There would be many intense struggles, which would take to force and hatred, and eventually, the devastation of world. So hence in the terminal, unfair work forces would lose.Socrates continues with his statement by stating that individuals of worth should be given the greatest regard and authorization, which includes the Grecian Gods every bit good. Socrates besides claims, utilizing the humanistic disciplines of medical specialty, music, and gymnastic exercises ; that one who patterns these humanistic disciplines invariably and repeatedly with neglect to his milieus will shortly go one with the art, and bury about what is truly of import in a adult male? s life. This act will most decidedly lead to injustice. Socrates glosss off the balance of his statement by saying that the manner of life of a adult male should be a defender of the State ; for they have bravery and are ne’er excessively lazy to protect the metropolis from an enemy. The work forces who have plentifulness of ownerships, nevertheless, become greedy and turn against their fellow citizens. During Socrates? s statement, in my sentiment, Adeimantus looks to be stupefied by Socrates? s great wisdom and cognition, and how Socrates takes simple points and develops them to support his statement. However, Adeimantus ( unlike the cowardly Thrasymachus ) continued to take part in the argument, although stating little much than phrases holding with Socrates? s arguments.In Book IV, Adeimantus proposes a inquiry to Socrate

s, asking what Socrates would do if someone blamed him for the economic condition of the man. Socrates responds, first of all, that if a man lives by education, courage, and self-mastery, he should have no trouble making a decent living in the modern world. Justice finds its place in these three principles because they are the common traits of the State, which all mankinds should respect and follow. Socrates continues his argument by generally stating throughout a long river of metaphors, symbols, and great understanding, that just men appreciate other just men, but not men opposite of what he is. Unjust men, on the other hand, appreciate neither just men nor other unjust men. The only interest they care about is that of himself. At this point Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, and Glaucon believe that Socrates has gone overboard with his arguments. Socrates replies by saying that it takes great depth inside wisdom and understanding and many comparisons relating to everyday life to understand what truth really is; the three speakers then resume their positions. Socrates goes on by saying that men who make the best rulers possess not only political understanding and military leadership, but also great wisdom and understanding; therefore these people are the ones who have a complete understanding of what justice is. These rulers could also be philosophers with military experience, or military leaders with a great sense of philosophy. It seemed to me in this point in the novel that Glaucon and the other two were tired of Socrates?s arguments because they were too long and besides the point. However, as Socrates had said earlier, justice is not merely explained in minutes. It is a subject that must be looked into very closely and with the greatest respect and gravity.Socrates then explains that not all who claim to be philosophers are actually philosophers. At this point in the novel, Socrates explains the difference between those that claim to be philosophers, and those that actually are philosophers. Men who only claim to be philosophers are only thinking of building a reputation. At first they seem to be wiser and more knowledgeable than others, but after they have gained the respect of the citizens, they become corrupt and rule the city unjustly. Real philosophers, however, find that it is in their best interest to govern wisely and make laws fair enough for the good of the people, not for the benefit of the ruler. Real philosophers also have wisdom and understanding, which gives them a better understanding of justice than corrupted rulers. In any case, I am beginning to agree with Glaucon and the others about how Socrates builds his arguments; now it?s a good thing for a philosopher to start with a simple idea, and then use it to form the basis of the philosopher?s opinion. However, in my opinion, Socrates is overdoing the formations of his opinions. For example, in Book VI, Socrates goes on and on about good and evil philosophers; much of what he says is pretty much beside the point, in my opinion.Socrates, after the previous argument, goes on to say that there is a difference between what the eyes see and what the mind sees. According to Socrates, the eyes ?see both small and great, but in a confused manner.?(Book VII, section 524) What this means is that the eyes alone cannot distinguish what is right from what is wrong since they contribute to many sins, such as lust, coveting, and several others. After this statement, Socrates claims that the mind ?was compelled to reverse the process, and look at small and great as separate and not confused.? (Book VII, section 524). What this means is that the mind, with the aid of wisdom and knowledge, can sense right from wrong easily. After all of Socrates?s arguments about justice, Socrates concludes his entire debate by describing what he calls ?a perfect State.? This perfect land was The type of government in this State is democracy(where people rule the land) because then the people can obtain plenty of freedom to achieve their own pleasures without being pushed around by a superior force. In democracy also is equality, since people rule the government, and there is no reason for a man to be treated as an inferior by a fellow citizen. What the State does not have is a tyrant, which Socrates goes into great detail about in Book IX. The tyrant, as Socrates describes, is unable to satisfy anyone but himself. Therefore he has few, if any, friends. The tyrant is also a ruthless ruler; he is hard-hearted and will not forgive anyone of doing wrong to him. Finally, Socrates points out that, in his perfect State, philosophers will always have the advantage over other types of rulers because they have wisdom and knowledge, which gives them the ability to govern justly and wisely. In my opinion, Socrates?s perfect State sounded plenty like the scenario progressing in the debate. Socrates, since he is a great philosopher, had the advantage over everyone because he was wise and intelligent in his arguments; therefore he obviously knew more about justice than anyone else. So, in conclusion, Socrates won the debate on the definition of justice. The reason for this is because Socrates, as stated before, had the wisdom and knowledge to analyze, in the most descriptive way, what justice really is. Glaucon and the others lacked what Socrates had, and so they could not support their arguments as well as Socrates could. I really liked this novel a lot because I am a lover of philosophy and understanding. However, I must admit that some of Socrates?s arguments were redundant and besides the point. But other than this crucial flaw, the book showed great insight, and Socrates created a vivid description about what justice means to the modern world.