Plato\s Republic Essays - Socratic Dialogues, Dialogues Of Plato

Plato?s Republic is a profound philosophical treatment of the meaning, nature, and application of justice by way of describing the perfect city-state and the use of comprehensive allegory. As Ancient Athens was the prototype for the modern ideas of Democracy, Republic is still incredibly relevant. The discussion of justice is not only explored from a political standpoint, but it also informs Epistemological views on nature, beauty, and truth, adding even more weight and importance to the term. During the time of Republic (circa 380 B.C.E.) Two prominent philosophical groups were splitting Athens apart, a rivalry from which the beginning of Republic is spawned. Plato belonged to epistemology, a branch of philosophy dedicated to the nature of knowledge. Plato and his colleagues believed in logic and reason as a means of reaching the truth while criticizing emotions and sensory perceptions. The Sophists, the archenemy of Plato?s ideas, were merely concerned with rhetoric and applying la nguage in any means necessary to gain a desirable outcome. The effect that these differences rendered on the topic of justice is brilliantly displayed in ?Book 1? through dialogue by Plato?s analogue, Socrates, and a temperamental Sophist called Thrasymachus. The argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus sets the tone for the remainder of the book and gives Plato a place from which to start explaining justice, and specifically what justice is not. ?Book 1? of Republic is distinctively different than the remainder of the book, both stylistically and in intent. Plato established the logistics of his argumentative tactics and engages in a heated discussion about justice that will necessitate the explanations and proofs provided in ?Books II ? X.? The so-called meat of ?Book I? begins with a confrontation between the hotheaded Sophist, Thrasymachus, and Socrates as they enter into a disagreement about the worth of justice; a diversion from Socrates? original task to define justice itself. Thrasymachus? assertion can be encapsulated in the phrase, ?Justice is the advantage of the stronger.? He believes that justice is unnaturally imposed upon humans and is contrary to their desires, as well as entirely unprofitable. In terms of external gain, Thrasymachus points out that the perfectly unjust will necessarily profit where the just will not because they will be unfettered by a notion of morality. Perfect injustice will allow one to a cquire more money, power, status, etc. at the expense of the unjust. This follows the basic Sophist idea that no such thing as morality really existed, but only what was advantageous or disadvantageous to a person. It stands to reason, then, that if a man were to be faced with cheating his way into greater profit or honestly gaining less, the unjust path would make more logic sense. The intrinsic value of injustice, Thrasymachus thinks, is also far greater than that of justice. A person who is able to gain money and power, even through disreputable means, will be happier as a result having the spoils of his injustice to enjoy. Though Thrasymachus? confidence is deceiving, there are considerable flaws in his ad hominem argument, specifically the wording and his fluctuating and interchangeable definitions of ?justice? and ?injustice.? Socrates wastes no time cleverly evaluating the statements of Thrasymachus and then using them for his own benefit to prove that justice has significant worth and necessity. One of the most important things to note about the argument posed by Thrasymachus is his attempt to use rhetoric instead of logic. It is even noted in ?Book I? that Thrasymachus is equating justice with injustice. Likening opposites to make a point is clearly the weaker strategy as it doesn?t actually make sense, and this is something Socrates must work around, as he is objecting to the idea the justice is the advantage of the stronger. Rhetoric aside, the first objection by Socrates lies in human fallibility. Because all humans are fallible (and this can not be disputed by even Thrasymachus) an unjust person would eventually make a mistake that may undermine his own success. For instance, an unjust man might kill someone he suspected to be an enemy and that man actually could have been an ally; this would be a mistake that could ultimately reduce the unjust man?s power. Socrates second objection is