Friday, October 4, 2019
The Republic of Plato Case Essay Example for Free
The Republic of Plato Case Essay According to Thrasymachus, justice is interest of the rulers and the superior. His view of justice considered the whole state with someone being superior. The person superior is the ruler. Being superior, he is the one that would make the law. The rulers would make laws that would benefit them. If his servants would refuse to obey, then they would be punished and called unjust while those who would obey would be called the just. Socrates started to refute this argument by doubting the ability of the ruler to see something as beneficial to him or not. Every man makes a mistake, even rulers. In making laws, they may not be able to recognize that what they are doing can result to their harm and to the benefit of his servants. Following this argument, justice is not always for the interest of the rulers. But Thrasymachus insist that it is, and pointed out that a ruler cannot be subjected to mistakes at the times that he is called a ruler. A ruler is perfect. At the times that he makes mistakes, the title ruler is not rightfully his and will not be consider to be a ruler. The ruler, in the stick sense, would never commit a mistake of perceiving something that would injure him as something beneficial. All the laws that he will make would be for his benefit. Justice is really for the interest of the superiors (Cornford, 1945, 14).            Socrates’ argument was based on the analogy that an art is the master and that the subject of the art the servants. He viewed almost everything as a form of art, a perfect art to be exact. A perfect art is an art that does not require any art, not even itself, to fix its defect and would never have a defect. Art will always be done for the interest of the subject. The performer of a particular art will always make something, which is in line with his art, to please the subject. It is never for his benefit that art is done, but for the benefit of his subjects. Socrates made this point clear by taking healing by physicians as an art. By treating the sick, which is the subject of his art, he obtains nothing for himself. The one benefited was the sick since he will be healed. And like the art, the master would also do something that is for the benefit of his servants. Therefore, the master will always do something that is for the interest of his servants.            Socrates also added that the benefits that were acquired through ruling as not part of the art of ruling. It is a consequence of his art but not really a part of it. He states that every art has a distinct characteristic. If after performing the art, say the art of healing, he obtains something through payments, the art that he performed cannot be mistaken to be the art of paying. He may obtain something through the art of paying but still it is the art of healing that he performed. Nothing can be gained through one art only. It is also true to the art of ruling. Obtaining something that is for the interest of the ruler is not part of the art of ruling. He did not really benefit form the art of ruling but by the art of paying.            Socrates pointed out that power is not the reason that a person wants to rule, but because of the fear of punishment that awaits him upon rejecting the opportunity to rule. He claimed that there are three modes of payment that would be given to the ruler, money, honor and punishment of not ruling. For a just man, the first two modes are not of great importance but the rather the third mode. The third mode can be made clear by thinking that when an unjust man became the ruler, he would expand his power. The result would be chaos and disorder in the society. This fear of being ruled by someone that is unjust or worst that him is the reason that a just man wants to rule.            Thrasymachus, aside of his claim that of justice, also said that the life of an unjust man is happier and better than the life of a just man. A just man will do something for the interest of the rulers but an unjust man for himself. A just man will always consider his ruler’s will but the unjust will just do what he please. His view of which the just and unjust man are became more specific in the sense that he classified some groups or individuals as just or unjust. The criminals, robber and swindlers were example of an unjust person and honest persons as just. The robbers, taking the properties of others, leave their victim’s life miserable. On the large scale, criminals would not only take small part of properties, but would try to take all of them. The criminals, having taken the properties of others by force, would live a better life and than the person who was left with almost nothing. The unjust will always have more than the just man. This is the reason that he classified unjust as wise and good, and the just ignorant. This is because the just would not consider the ruler us unjust. The rulers would also take the properties of others and enslave other people and other state but never will the just consider him a criminal. He also claimed that justice is a vice while injustice a virtue. It is a vice since he believed that a person would gain nothing for being just. His view of happiness is based on the desire of the human body and is very dependent on physical wealth.            On the other hand, Socrates thought that the opposite is true. A just man has characteristics that are stronger, live a life that is freer and happier than the unjust. In his argument to prove this, he used the analogy of the artisan. In this analogy, he classified men to be either artisan or non-artisan. One of this two would be considered as wise or ignorant. Surely, the person that is capable of performing the art is the wise one. By looking at the characteristics of a just man and the unjust man, it would be clear who is the real wise and the real ignorant. A just man, being simple, would want to exceed the talents that the unjust man has, but never the talents of another just man while the unjust man will try to do better than the just man and to all other unjust men. The artisan will never claim that adjusting something in performing his art can make him superior to another person performing the same art but he would claim to be better than those who do not practice his art. On he contrary, the person ignorant of the art would try to be better than the actual artisan and those that are non-artisan. Because this person, who is the artisan, will try to be better than those who are non-artisan and the just person will try to exceed the ability of an unjust person, it is logical to say that the just person is the same as the artisan while the unjust is the same as the non-artisan. Being wise, which is a characteristic of an artisan, is good, and so therefore the artisan is wise and good. The just man, having the same characteristics of an artisan, is wise and good. This directly contradicts Thrasymachus’ view of a just man as someone that is ignorant (Jowett, 1946, 12).  An intriguing flaw on Socrates can be noticed. This flaw is when Socrates did not consider ambition as a driving force that could lead to the artisan to do better than his fellow artisan. It is quite excusable since both Socrates and Thrasymachus considered the artisan in a strict view. The artisan is perfect and is not capable of doing error. In this case, the artisan can no longer be better that his fellow artisan (Retrieved December 9,2007 from http://sesquipadalianmusings.blogspot.com/).            Injustice, as being agreed by Socrates and Thrasymachus, can cause hatred and disorderliness wherever it is found. But Socrates claimed that there is still a form of justice existing in a group of unjust men. There can never be a perfect injustice. In a group of unjust men, the injustice that they possess would cause each one of them to injure one another. But in doing so, they would be less capable. Having this in mind, they would work together. Since unity in a group can only be acquired through justice, justice still exists in this group of unjust men. But not only in a large group can injustice creates hatred, but also to the persons own self. The injustice existing in him would disorganize the cooperation of his body parts, and that it can cause hatred towards one’s own self. And this form of injustice existing in the person is equally fatal as the injustice present at a larger group. The strongest part of Socrates argument is when he linked the soul to the happiness of a person. Unlike Thrasymachus’ view of happiness as something brought about by physical things, Socrates view happenings as something that can be obtained through peaceful interaction between of a person to his society and to his own self, and something that can only be experienced when the soul is at its proper use and excellence. He claimed that injustice is a defect in the soul that deteriorates its excellence. Everything in the world has its own function. The function of one thing can never be done better than any other thing. The ability or characteristic that allow it to do its function is its excellence. Once its excellence has been damaged or deteriorated, it cannot perform its function. Socrates believes that the function of the soul is to command and its excellence is justice. He recognized injustice as a form of defect of the soul. Because of this defect, the soul lost its ability to command. The injustice that the soul possesses would destroy the harmony of the soul and the body. A just man will live happy and free and will be an excellent ruler while the unjust man will live ill and will be an evil ruler. He added that being happy is profitable and so the life of a just man is more profitable than the life of an unjust man. This argument of Socrates refuted Thrasymachus view that injustice is more profitable and unjust the stronger and that justice is truly the sum of all virtues (Cornford, 1945, 1). References Cornford, F. M. (1945). The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved December 9, 2007 from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=od= 12288563#. Inkling. (October 23, 2007). Socrates vs. Thrasymachus. Retrieved December 9,2007 from http://sesquipadalianmusings.blogspot.com. Jowett,B. (1946). The Republic of Plato. Cleveland: Fine Edition Press. Retrieved December 9, 2007 from Electronic Text Center database.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.