Read book I,
text available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Journals due on Feb. 8
Guidance questions:
1. Can justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies?
2. Does justice mean the advantage of stronger?
3. Is injustice more useful than justice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Book 1 of The Republic, Plato's brother Glaucon describes the just man as being penniless for his toiling, having "the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong... [he sticks] to his chosen course until death." Is this not how Socrates lived out his life, climaxing with his bitter end in Apology? Accepting no honor of wisdom or payment of goods, wrongly reputed as a god hating monster, a corrupter of youths, yet following the path of what we now see was righteousness; an enlightened and just man, suffering for his cause and his peers. Socrates may not believe himself to be just, for just as wisdom he could never believe there to be an attainable state of absolute justice in our human lifespan; however, one can't help but draw this immediate connection between Socrates and the just man the symposium in Republic has so much trouble defining.
ReplyDeleteIs the unjust man stronger than the just man? If we are to believe the consensus presented by Glaucon, in these terms, then yes: the unjust man will have more tangible power in this life, for, having acted in his own self interest, he inevitably richer in wealth, and his ruthless demeanor will bring him an endless power and strength so long as he is breathing. However, I feel this is a petty way to define human strength. The unjust man is only strong in materialistic terms, having gained his power through a cowardly pursuit of his own needs and interests. Mentally, willfully, he is weak (the fact that the unjust men of this time believed a simple sacrifice near the end of their lives would save their earthly powers in any sort of afterlife is a testament to this. The just man gains his strength through peace of mind, suffering for his cause, working genuinely hard to earn his honest own, looking out for not only his friends but his enemies alike, harming no one to get his own. Whatever he lacks in the ill-gotten riches and power of his opposite, he makes up for it tenfold with an enlightened sense of being, a satisfaction of having earned his success and righteousness, himself having been the only casualty in the end; like Socrates, no matter how much he is beaten by the courts, misunderstood by the people, he will follow his cause until his death, a peaceful passing in which he will accept solemnly their spiteful, unjust behavior, having entered a mindset in which passing judgment seems as petty and useless as it actually is. In the end, the just man doesn't care for the power of the unjust man, for he does not think in materialistic terms of power or wealth, but in terms of righteousness and mind.
JohnVeranes
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesocrates and glaucon where in Piraeus for the festival and prayers.after they where done with their objective they were heading back home when Polemarchus forcefully invited him to his house and to witness some later part of the festival.on arriving at the house of Polemarchus there was a large group of people there including Polemarchus's father Cephalus an old freind of socrates. Cephalus was an old man and was considered wise,socrates wanted to learn some facts from him so he ask him how he felt about aging after giving socrates some lectures about how people felt of aging,socrates also wanted to know his impression on wealth.Cephalus gave socrates some lectures on wealth and told him what really matters was to be a just man.socrates wanted to know about being just so he ask Cephalus weather being just means to speak the truth and to pay your debts.cephalus agreed.then socrates ask him a question which seems to find flaw with his definition.Cephalus who must have know socrates reputation for arguing made an excuse to go look after the sacrifice and handed the conversation over to his heir Polemarchus.polemarchus agreed with Cephalus definition with a little touches to it stating that being just means to help your friends and do harm to the enemies.socrates also finds this definition inconsistent.Thrasymachus who was also present suggested a definition as the interest of the stronger.which would favor the rulers of the city.socrates then compares the rulers to men of various profession stating that they do not work to basically serve their own interest but the interest of their customers.which means the makers of the law do not make laws to serve themselves.,making the definition inaccurate.a third definition was suggested that injustice is virtue,socrates then points out that virtue has to do with wisdom,therefore injustice does not comply with injustice.in the end it was agreed that justice is virtue has to do with good health and wisdom.in the end socrates agrees with Polemarchus that being just include helping friends but states that a just man would not do evil
ReplyDeleteSocrates learned from Polemarchus that justice is doing good to your friends and evil to your enemies. But is doing evil to your enemies just? Socrates and Polemarchus had come to the conclusion that it is unjust to act evil towards your enemies. Socrates proved in the end that injustice is not beneficial over justice. But still Socrates ended know nothing more than when he began, he still didn't know what justice was or ateast what being a just person composed of.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look up justice in the dictionary, it gives you the defintion: righteousness, moral principle, or determining just conduct.
But justice is is something that needs much more consideration than the definition alone. Being a just person or moral has no value because everyone has their own opinion and views towards justice. Justice can be determined by the government but that doesnt mean that everyone considers it right or fair. One might remember the saying, "An eye for an eye," which was an old principle of justice by Hammurabi. This may seem greatly unjust in the present days, yet in had served as justice in the past.
3.Is injustice more useful than justice?
ReplyDeleteYes,it is but it depends on the situations.
Injustice is not a good thing though it exists all over the world.
In "The Republic (Book I)",Socrates asked Thrasymachus that he said he said that perfect injustice is more gainful than perfect justice.I like this confirmation.I think that perfect injustice is more gainful than perfect justice too because there are bad people and good people and middle people.As long as bad people and middle people who have a lot of possibilities to be a bad person exist.If there is no bad people on the planet earth,we could not learn what is good and bad and what we shouldn't do and should do.As a result,we wouldn't use our brain much.
Yumiko
I wish I could write journals like my American classmates...
ReplyDeleteI think that justice do good to friends and harm to enimies. Though seeing that justice can be seen in acts of harm and good It would depend on whom is carring out the act makes all the difference for friend to one may not be to another. So friends when enacting justice on one another would do good for them and not for said persons toward enimies. Socrates seems to think that justice acts through things of its own accord rather than our acts bring justice to fruition in one form or another. I agree with the later that the form of justice that is brought into consequense depends solely on the doer.
ReplyDeleteThrasymachus's arguement holds some weight in the fact that some of the laws made by said powers are to keep peace among the people, which is in thier interest. Peace is in everyones interest (shall we assume). So to inflict these practices, which have this goal in mind, upon the people would be good for them. So better said some of the interests of the powers are, indirectly, just. And the act of the powers to enforce them is justice.
Injustice, as by Thrasymachus's arguement, will get you all the worldly possesions which one would want. Yet to carry out the acts require much power and numbers. In this circle there must be some from of justice to remain cohesive (Socrate's arguement) . Justice need no part of Injustice to function properly already making it the stronger force.
Also injustice can give you momentary states of pleasure but at the end of it leave you empthy, causing one to keep going around in the circle of filling that void and not moving foward. Where as acting justly, tho it may take longer to materialize into possesions, does let one move foward with a certain type of internal stability. Which I believe gives more use to one than the later.
In the Republic Thrasymachus stated that justice can do good to friends and harm to enemies but socrates made many points to show contradiction within this statement. Justice cannot do harm to enemies and at the same time aid friends due to the fact the a friend in a respect can be a secret an enemy and an "enemy" can in all respect be a friend cause not all friends are looking out for your best interest and not all enemies are out to destroy you.it seems that justice is a relative term and is only justice when it is in the favor of the pursuer. as far as justice in the sense of what Glaucon stated goes back to the old laws of an eye for an eye state by a fellow classmate. but an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind
ReplyDeleteJustice cannot mean the advantage of the stronger as socrates argued a ruler creates laws not in the interest of himself but in the interest of the people. this is why many people wish to stay clear from such positions due to there selfish nature.
Some may say that injustice is more useful than than just. but their argument for saying this seems as if only to acquire worldly possessions. when dealing with injustice within a government, john locke stated that it is better to overthrow this government an establish a new one which will meet the peoples needs. the unjust deals with themselves to a certain extent while the just deals with the majority, so i would say no it is not better to be unjust than just
1.Can justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies?
ReplyDeleteYes, because the enemy have done harm to a friend or a loved one, that person will want justice on the enemy. But, justice also cause harm to the enemy because in the end that person is still a human being. Depending on the situation the enemy have caused. Justice will be handle in a courtroom. Even thought, justice is the quality of being fair. It does not always go as the person that been harm wants it to. Justice is want separate us of animals.
ReplyDeleteSocrates is returning home from a religious festival with Plato and his brother Glaucon. They stumble upon Adeimantus, Plato’s other brother, and the nobleman Polemarchus, who persuades them to go to his house instead. There they meet Polemarchus’s father Cephalus. Socrates and the aged man begin a discussion on old age. This discussion rapidly turns to the subject of justice. Cephalus gives his definition of justice and says that justice means living up to your legal obligations and being honest. Socrates criticizes his definition by giving an example: returning a weapon to a madman. You owe the madman his weapon in some sense if it belongs to him legally, and yet this would be an unjust act, since it would put at risk the lives of others. This makes Cephalus excuse himself, and after Cephalus leaves, Polemarchus, his son, tries to conjure up an explanation of his own for the definition of justice. He says that justice is owing friends help and owing enemies harm. But this of course does not make any sense as Socrates explains. Many people’s views on friends and enemies is fallible, and because of this we can end up harming those whom are good and helping the evil. Socrates says that we are sometimes not friends with the best people, and we are perhaps not enemies with the worst. It differs between people.
ReplyDeleteThrasymachus then gets into the discussion saying that justice is merely the advantage of the stronger. He goes on to say that it does not pay to be just, that just behavior only works towards the advantage of other people, not to the people who behave justly. The problem with that is that Thrasymachus is declaring injustice as a virtue, which cannot be. Socrates explains that injustice cannot be a virtue because it is contrary to wisdom which is a virtue.
Is injustice ever useful more than justice? I believe the answer to that is an absolutely not, but it does depend on the certain circumstances. Not every situation is the same and should be handled differently. Through injustices, we learn to value justice when we do receive it, and it allows us to distinguish injustices when they are committed against us.
Samantha Jones
ReplyDeleteJustice, an act of rebel or to defend another could do good to friends and do harm to enemies, or could to good to the enemies and do bad for a friend.
It also can do both in both parts, it can do bad to both party's, speaking the truth and paying your debts is not a correct way to describe justice.
It is said a good friend is always to do both. And no one on both sides would play out there tokens to see who wins or looses for they both loose. Either or to play this game you must have your reasons. For justice can do harm to yourself for the truth can do more then set you free but can follow up and un-justice. even the truth can chain the best of people.
Friends don't always follow your pint and or your intrests, and not all enemies are to be against you.
justice mean the advantage of stronger for the ones more in power are the ones who carry justice for they are followed the wise of the meaning justice. But justice is just a word it could be a status as well. It itself can do good to others or bad, depending on why they deserve the justice. A wrong doing is done in punishment in justice and a good is to do to others or to be in a form of karma. Punishment for your wrong doings. Some abuse and use the idea of divine justice. To accuse another and say it is in there power to rain justice upon you
by death? old age? . could you grow a sight of justice during you times of a wiser age? To strike at the wrong to have a type of wrong done to evil.
Injustice of justice and the ways that it could be better for the ways of unjustice is that at a point the power of a higher rank.
Power can corrupt one of justice to do something of un justice. Un justice is taken and placed on the lower bunch of humans and separates us from others such as animals. Laws are not required in a life of a monkey neither can the animal have justice. unjustice is the doing of evil and blinds one to act out of temper and hunger to object you doings of your doings as a work of stealing and corrupting the youth. And even the good can do both and all humans can do the same though even so the evil and the good aren't either or we do all that is in human nature witch is awer flaw as organisms that walk the earth. Justice or and injustice can work to advantage though it may work against the one who uses it
Can justice do harm to friends and do harm to enemies? It may definitly do so,because the just's duty is to preserve peace and harmony where it is due and help make it where it lacks.Where to the unjust, is to stand out above all at all cause.what I mean is that the just treat both just and unjust with like manner,as the unjust has no consideration to either unless its for their own benefit.So the art of the just is to reward the just and improve the unjust,as the art of the unjust is to attain with no regard for their actions.The unjust will always be thirsty as the just will be quenched when they thirst.avarice,lust,gluttony,envy,these are the the foundation of unjust.Patience,grace and understanding are the fruits of the just.in closing,injustice is the advantage of the stronger,because the unjust let insecurities drive them while the just are confident in what they do making the just the stronger.injustice is more usefull for the instant of the moment,here is a scenario, 2 people stuck in a hole,one unjust and the other just, they have limited water and food.the unjust kills the just and takes his food and water,but now he has nobody to help him out of the hole and in turn has done unjust not only to the other but has deprived himself of the only person that could have helped him,so although it seemed usefull in the moment in future his actions betrayed him of life,for fear of running out of resources. somethings are not in different shades gray but simply black and white.
ReplyDeleteplease feel free to post questions about this opinion,or bring them up in class.thank you
The goal of the discussion was to discover the genuine nature of the subject at hand, but the process involves the proposal, criticism, and rejection of several inadequate attempts at defining what justice really is. In The Republic, Plato attempts to demonstrate through the character and discourse of Socrates that justice is better than justice is the good which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. Polemarchus offers a refinement of the definition by proposing that justice means "giving to each what is owed." The new definition codifies formally our deeply-entrenched practice of seeking always to help our friends and harm our enemies. Socrates points out that harsh treatment of our enemies is only likely to render them even more unjust than they already are. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions which led the hearer from one point to another, supposedly with irrefutable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, and so building an argument. One of his main points, however, is that goodness is doing what is best for the common, greater good rather than for individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own reward. His first major point is that justice is an excellence of character. He then seeks agreement that no excellence is achieved through destructive means. The function of justice is to improve human nature, which is inherently constructive. Therefore, at a minimum, justice is a form of goodness that cannot be involved in injuring someone's character. Justice, in short, is a virtue, a human excellence. His next point is that acting in accordance with excellence brings happiness. Then he ties excellence to one's function. His examples are those of the senses -- each sensory organ is excellent if it performs its function, as the eye sees, the ear hears. Therefore, the just person is a happy person is a person who performs his function. Since these are tied together, injustice can never exceed these virtues and so justice is stronger and is the good. He goes on to say that just is happy, and the unjust miserable and that happiness and not misery is profitable. Injustice can never be more profitable than justice. At the end of the book he admits that the result of the whole discussion has been that he knew nothing at all. For he knew not what justice was, and therefore he didn’t know whether it is or is not a virtue or whether the just man is happy or unhappy.
ReplyDeletePlato is the father of the idealism in pilosophy, in politics, in literature.His conceptions: The unity of the knowledge, the reign of law set the tone in the Republic bookI.Plato point out that we must seek justice as he said in the<>.
ReplyDeleteJustice will do good to friends if it is used to serve people's common interest without distinction of strong and weak individuals. It will harm enemies if it is used by a group of people seen to be stronger or superoir than others to impose their laws.
In this case justice means the advantage of the stronger using it through their laws to get things done in their favor.
In the same manner injustice becomes useful than justice because it profits the stronger against the weak. Plato reveals to us the genious demarche of Socrates during his conversation with the other characters in bookI. Socrates defines justice in several levels. for instance he said that<>;also that <>.This means that if justice is well used it would be beneficial to everyone without distinction of stronger and weak. And in another hand if it is used to serve only the interest of stronger it will be injust and powerful.
AS I read all comments the notion of justice and injustice appears to be an essential part of the stability and instability of our society.This is why, one can see that Plato's idealism and Socrates constant search for justice were useful in ancient time and even nowdays.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I, Socrates questioned, “what is justice?” and ‘why should we be just?’ In This conversation Socrates Found him self with many contradictions. According to Cephalous he believes that justice is what’s right for society. He once said that justice is speaking the truth and paying all debts. Socrates says its not saying the truth all the time or paying back your debts.
ReplyDeletePolemarchus and Cephalus were both criticized by Plato because they both said statements that did not lead to the definition it self but rather opinions that in the long run will be consider to corrupt the human rights.
Weapons can’t harm Weapons. Instead Socrates explains how it is not right to lend a madman weapons after he has gone mad.
Thrasymachus definition to justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus believed that is one’s personal advantage. Justice is the law implemented by the governments and other rules. My question is the commandments justice? Divine Justice?
Thrasymachus definition to injustice is not the rules that harm the people. Injustice is the outcome of justice it self.
I believe injustice is not more useful than justice because how can you defined that someone's is unjust when you need justice to explained the moral principal determined by the conduct. Plato once said that ‘Justice is not mere strength, but it is a harmonious strength. Justice is not the right of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole.
Courtney Brown
ReplyDeletethis exerpt is extremley intrestiong because socrates is able to question peoples thouts on various topics by just asking questions about how they feel. Socrates starts by talking about how people value money and wealth. I deffintely agree with socrates when talkin about how people who are born with wealth are not oging to value money as much as the person who has to work hard to aquire this status of wealth. On the down side of that, the people who have to aquire money the hard way are going to appreciate and value money so much that it becomes all they think and talk about and the drive for money somewhat alters there thinking and outlook on life. in this passsage socrates also touches on hope and value of life. He states that by having a positive and happy outlook on life its easier to accept the fact that aging and death are inevitable. he states that hope drives the soul of men, which to me is a semi acurate statment. Hopes and dreams are great because it gives us something to strive for but at the same time hopes and dreams without soome sort of action will just reamin hopes and dreams. When talking about justice its important to rememeberthe what might be justice to one person could be completly differnt for anohter. i believe that justice can be both good and evil depending on the person.
In Republic:Book I, Socrates is questioning whether or not the idea of "justice" is always a good idea. He says that the idea of justice depends on the case in discussion. Like in every other case he ask different people [ his friends] how the idea of justice applies to them. " justice is the art who gives good to friends and evil to enemies" Polecharmus says, but Socrates asked " in what sort of actions or with a view to what result is the just man most able to do harm to his enemy and good to his friends?" Because after all, a man cant be a just man if he harms people even if they are their enemies. Socrates contradicts Polecharmus because that is how he teaches the others they are wrong. Justice can be applied to people according to their situation, i think that the main point that Socrates wanted to make, that what be just to one person, can be or it may always be injustice to another person, and that in different cases justice can be applied differently.
ReplyDeleteIn the discussion held by Socrates and Polemarchus, few important ideas get to be examined and analyzed by them. One of these is whether justice benefits enemies and if justice harms the enemies. Justice being a virtue and fairness would mean always to be implied upon all beings at equal instances. But let us then, examine whether justice in times in war can be equally implied upon all beings, and yet have equal results as when there is no war. Well as in their conversation they say that; is important to make alliances with the stronger to defeat the enemy. Justice benefits the ones that act consciously and harms the ones who are thrived by inhuman impulses.
ReplyDeleteJustice is the allied of the wise and of the good citizen, whether they are strong or weak, we must not measure their strength, but how well they benefit their societies. We must be conscious that justice its not a weapon but an instrument of measurement. If we think that people can get advantage from justice, then we would all live ruled by savage tyrants and without any civil body that imparts help and protection.
Justice and injustice both have a sense of justice, no matter if we live in the state of nature, or a utopia. Justice converts into this immortal resource that represents wisdom. If we want to live in a calm state of mind, then we must incline our selves to be fair and believe in out judges. We might not se an instant impact of the beneficial arts of justice, with our eyes. But as our society advances through time, our minds would be loosing all savages feelings or anarchy.
Starting out this excerpt Socrates has conversations about Wealth and Riches. He makes the inference that people that earn money have a different outlook then people that inherit it. I have to agree. Inheriting money does not teach the inheritor the value of money, while the person who worked for his fortune has a sense of value.
ReplyDeleteJustice is always a tricky subject in any case. For man himself sets the rules to govern justice and no man is without fault. Socrates, I think, tries to bring this to the conversations with the group. He contradicts all with his questions and tries to show them that they are wrong. Justice is a case to case scenario. That when justice is served equally to all men whether be enemy or just it serves the purpose it was created for but, when it serves one side it becomes the unjust and acts as a foothold for power and evil.
I think justice can do well to friends and harm to certain enemies, because if you want to make a friend learn from a mistake for the better cause he will learn from that in justice. Justice will harm enemies because it will keep them away from you. Justice does not mean the advantage is stronger because there are always loopholes in the way justice works. I don’t agree that injustice is better than justice because you would have many evildoers roaming. In addition, what advantage would injustice to the society and what better or worse can it do for a man.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Recio
I found this exceprt difficult because i struggled figuring many of the analogies but i feel i have a general grasp on the just and unjust acts of humans.
ReplyDeleteAt the start of the conversation of the just and unjust it was infered that justice is doing good to who we consider friend and harm to our enemies, but later this idea was corrected that our only just acts can be granted as such when we are good to our good friends and destroy our enemies who are unjust to us. Thrasymachus gave a more direct example by using the government and their laws. For laws are set on the ideas of justice which the good uphold and which punishes evildoers which makes them unjust. I am unclear on whether or not if advantages of justice falls on the weak. Socrates makes a point to say that a servent who is just follows the commands of the ruler and in turn if the rulers command causes harm to himself a just servant will still obey. This will only lead to the downfall of the ruler. Wont the just actions of a servent be to try to prevent the harm of the ruler because the ruler only seeks to be just? i feel of the two, justice and injustice, that justice is more useful because we view justice as good and though it can be more complex it makes our reactions to injustice shown to us just acts. So let justice prevail for the unjust shall be judged by its standards.
One of the lines in this reading that stood out to me was when Socrates asked "who is best able to do good to his friends and evil to his enemies in time of sickness?" I looked deeper into the question and it presented some interesting thoughts to me. In a time of sickness an enemy is already expected to not care, which is already evil, but a friend is capable of doing even more evil. A friend is percived to be a person you depend on, but if they dont come through in a time of need, for example when you're sick, it can be far more damaging than when an enemy who already doesnt care does nothing about you're sickness. It begs the question does the saying "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer," suggest that some of your closests friends in fact your enemies?
ReplyDeleteCan justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sacrotes in Plato's Republic book 1, No. While Polemarchus argued "...that justice is the repayment of debt" as stated by Simonides.
Socrates quickly disproved his statement by using a moral dilemma as an example;
he said, "should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man, but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clear to me. For he certainly does not mean, as we were now saying that I ought to return a return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt."
He claimed that Justice can not be exclusive to doing just by our friends and harm by our enemies. Since sometimes by doing "just", would in turn do harm to our friends. Especially in instances where our friends are in the wrong. Do they then for that moment stop being friends and turn into enemies? No.
At this point in the conversation,
claimed that Justice was constituted by what is in the best interest of "the strong". "The Strong" being who ever is in charge. In this case he used the state as an example. Where the citizens do what is just in the best interest of the state.
Again, using the logic of contradiction, socrates disproved Thrasymachus.
Sacrotes argued that at times in the name of "justice", government enacted and carried out laws that in fact weren't in their best interest, but in fact in the best interest of the "weak". Their citizens.
So how could justice be called an advantage to the strong?
As the discussion progressed, Socrotes asked Thrasymachus;
"suppose that you would call justice virtue and injustice vice?
What a charming notion! So likely too, seeing that I affirm injustice to be profitable and justice not."
After debating whether one does justice for profitable gain and not in the name of virtue.
Again, more an argument of definitions then semantics. What Socrates believed was that at times, injustice is in the best interest of the individual. In those rare instances where justice is not as clear as black and white (which it really is.)
Through out the conversation, it seams that Sacrotes argues more on the definition of the claims, rather then notions.
His fellow debaters arguments, all claimed virtue and morality as their main focal point. But never considered that, at times justice must be applied on a case by case basis. Rarely are to instances alike. So how could be justice be as defined as writing in stone?
Can it not be flexible to fit the facts of a particular situation.
Whether it's a question of morality or cause and effect?
.
ReplyDeleteJustice is yet another concept which Socrates exposed to his peers to be of an infinitive nature. In its ideal form, I am rather sure that all of humanity would like to think that it is incapable of profiting someone at the expense of another, or that it should cause injury either. However, there is no one to regulate the dealings of man with the exception of man hisself. Therefore, I would argue that not only the position taken by Socrates in the dialogue has truth. True, ideally you do not want to have people that seek advantage over others in a given society, but it is also true that not all are born equally able. Therefore, there must be reason to suppose that justice would have to be relative to the goodwill of the commoner, and what is understood by him or her since he or she is the life breadth of any given society.
ReplyDelete