Cephalus, like Euthyphro, gives an example to define a concept, rather than a unified definition. This is where Socrates feels inclined to dig deeper to find a more 'standard' meaning of justice. In a sense, I agree that justice means the repayment of debt. To me, justice means being fair, giving what is deserved, and responding appropriately to any situation. I disagree with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the strongest. For the most part, I do not understand or appreciate the hypothetical or metaphorical offerings of Socrates, but in a way I guess I do appreciate his need to understand things from every possible perspective.
Both readings were kind of difficult to understand seeing as though they were extremely long and tiresome. However, I think I understood what was happening. In both books Socrates tries to understand the relationship between justice and injustice, their meanings, definitions, and various examples. The following is a quote from book I: "...nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy." Well, through my understanding, I think that the just man is happy. If a person feels that his actions are righteous and that he follows the just path, then why wouldn't he be happy? I think that justice has many meanings but it is universally accepted to mean moral righteousness. At the same token, moral righteousness could mean almost anything. Thus, I am once again thrown into the dilemma of what is considered morally right and wrong.
Each reading was diffcult and long but in Book I the main idea was about justice. Each character had a different meaning of justice. Polemarchus believed that we owe friends help and enemies harm. Cephalus believed that justice meant to be honest, to do the right thing. Socrates tries to understand the meaning of justice and injustice, the definition and keeps going back to it with each character . In Book II, Glaucon speaks about people being just because they are afraid of punishment. There was dilemmas between each character especially with Socrates who kept disagreeing with the characters.
The argument of what justice meant started when Socrates asked Cephalus what it felt like being old and rich. Cephalus said that being wealthy saved him from being unjust and to have a pleasing afterlife. With the answer he gave, Socrates started to wonder what justice was.Cephalus and then Polemarchus fail to define justice but they agreed that it is an important part of a good human life. Thrasumachus believed that justice was established by the strong, so that the weak will serve the interests of the strong. In book two Glaucon and Adeimamtus wanted to be show that justice is worth choosing apart from the rewards or penalties given. So Socrates must persuade them that a just person who is very unlucky lives a better life than the unjust person who is so successful that he is unfairly rewarded like they were entirely just.It took a while for me to fully understand what book 1 and 2 were trying to establish but I tried my best to understand from my own perspective.
While reading Republic book I and II I noticed that Cephalus had many things in common with Euthyphro. In both of these books one can see that Socrates is trying to understand the difference between what it is to be justice and injustice. Cephalus gave Socrates an example to what justice but Socrates wanted a real definition which he did not get. Cephalus told Socrates that to be justice meant that an individual is honest with others and to also follow the right path to what one believes in. Socrates strongly disagreed with this explanation as to what justice is. In book II we are presented with a new character known as Glaucon. While reading book II I saw that I totally agreed with Glaucon and why he thought people are the way they are. Glaucon believes that people are just due to the fact that they know about the severe punishment that must be dealt with if they are injustice. If people didn’t have to face any consequences they would not always do the right things. Although Cephalus told Socrates what it meant to be just he still was not satisfied with his response.
The book of The Republic was a long and difficult reading, but I think that I got a hold of it. Part 1 was about justice, most of the characters in the book had their different views about it. Cephalus believe that it meant to be honest, follow the right path of your legal obligations, which Socrates disagrees with. Polemarchus ‘believe that it was about you owe your friends help and your enemies harm. Later in the book Sacrotes switch the conversation to the understanding of justice. In book two I finally found something that I agreed with, it was Glaucon’s point that I strongly agreed with. He said that people are only just because they are afraid of punishment for injustice. No one is just because justice is desirable in itself. Think about this world if we people weren’t afraid of going to jail or the death penalty? It would be a world of disarray that we would live in.
When I think about the concept of justice I don’t think it just about the laws. The laws are there for the purpose, so there will be rules to follow in this society. So through this we human being won’t be disorganize and uncivilized. However, the concept of justice I believe it what each individual think is fair or injustice using their rational thinking. therefore when I read the story in book 1 I agree those who are good and are our friends we are to do just for them, but I disagree in we should harm those who are our enemies and do evil to us. Since I believe just having a strong concept of justice, eventually those who are enemies and do evil to us will get punish, but not by our own punishment, but throughout their life, like their lifestyle this will reflect their evil doing to good people. Therefore I concluded that living a bad, poor, unhappy lifestyle is a strong punishment for those who have done evil to others .Moreover in book 2 justice can’t be done to do evil to someone. Even in the mind of the individual who has to chose a side of doing something justice or injustice, he or she never is 100 percent clear on where it done to harm, or do well to the life of someone else. But I do agree by doing an injustice decision by nature it a good decision for the personal experience of that person who made the choice, because he or she will understand the consequence of both side of committing a good or an evil decision.
This read was extremely boring and long to much at once I think. It was basically about justice and the characters ideas of what it means. Cephalus and Socrates had different ideas about justice. Socrates looked for a proper definition of justice and injustice as did Euthyphro for piety. Socrates looked for a concrete definition of injustice and justice rather than examples.
Both books I and II by plato were very difficult to understand. A lot of the words used in the text were complicated to pronounce and define unless i was to use a dictionary. These two texts are based on the concept of justice and injustice. Socrates throughout the texts was trying to understand what is the meaning of each word. According to my perspective the word justice can mean many different things depending on how each person believes. and how they apply it. To me the word justice means something positive in ones life. For example, justice can be refer as a law...lets say someone commits a crime the right thing to do will be for the person to get punished. On the other hand, injustice to me means when someone commits a second degree murder and the person does not recieve a type of punishments, either go to jail or recieve the death penalty. Even though i understood that Socrates was trying to figure out the deepest meaning of both justice and injustice, i am still confused about both books i will need a better break down of the books in order to really undertsand its purpose.
Book I opens, Socrates is returning home from a religious festival with his young friend Glaucon, one of Plato's brothers. On the road, the three travelers are waylaid by Adeimantus, another brother of Plato, and the young nobleman Polemarchus, who convinces them to take a detour to his house. There they join Polemarchus' aging father Cephalus, and others. Socrates and the elderly man begin a discussion on the merits of old age. This discussion quickly turns to the subject of justice. Cephalus, a rich, well-respected elder of the city, and host to the group, is the first to offer a definition of justice. Cephalus acts as spokesman for the Greek tradition. His definition of justice is an attempt to articulate the basic Hesiodic conception: that justice means living up to your legal obligations and being honest. Socrates defeats this formulation with a counterexample: 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 jeopardize the lives of others. So it cannot be the case that justice is nothing more than honoring legal obligations and being honest.
Socrates believes he has adequately responded to Thrasymachus and is through with the discussion of justice, but the others are not satisfied with the conclusion they have reached. Glaucon, one of Socrates' young companions, explains what they would like him to do. Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire only for their consequences, such as physical training and medical treatment; things that we desire only for their own sake, such as joy; and, the highest class, things we desire both for their own sake and for what we get from them, such as knowledge, sight, and health. What Glaucon and the rest would like Socrates to prove is that justice is not only desirable, but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their own sake and their consequences.
In my opinion, book I gives little insight regarding justice, and is generally an argument with little purpose. The end of book I came to no conclusion, because Thrasymachus would only agree with everything Socrates was saying, and Socrates chose to continue on with the discussion, even though he was aware that Thrasymachus was humoring him. In book II, it seems to me that Glaucon is saying that a person who is just only appears to be, while a person who is unjust truely is. I disagree with this; I believe that a person can appear to be just and truely be just, but I'm undecided of whether an unjust person can truely be a just person.I imagined that the dialogue was going to get more specific on the topic of just and unjust when Socrates and Adeimantus decided to talk of justice in the state, but unsurprisingly the conversation continued on and strayed far from the subject.
After reading the Rupublic book 1 and book 2 it can be concluded that Socrates discusses different topics.One was about friends and enemy,good and evil,and justice and unjustice. Different characters in the book all had different opinion about the meaning of justice and unjustice.One character named Thrasymachus said "Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger"I think this statement is somewhat true.For example if you lived in a place ruled by a dictator then justice to him would be in his best interest.If somebody got convicted stealing something the dictator would most likely give him less sentence if the the criminal is a good friend of his than somebody who is an enemy of his.So then justice wouldnt be served based of the evidence and whats right or wrong,but more so of whats the relationship of the convicted.Justice is something that should be based on right and wrong and evidence but that isnt always the case.Personal experience and beliefs come into play too.
The Republic by Plato in book I it was about defining justice. Socrates tried to find out what is mean to be justice. He started with Cephalus where he said telling the truth and paying one debt that is what justice. But Socrates disagreed with that by saying it not always just. Polemarchus and Thrasymachus both had two different views about justice which Socrates did not agree with. But I agree with Thrasymachus explanation of justice he said people who are powerful make the law and it run through them and the powerful people are always in control of our justice. In book II Glaucon and Adeimantus showed two views of different justices can work for people. I agree with Adeimantus where he tried to explain that for some people justice can be rewarding and for others it can be and punishment. In order to run a society we need law and order and justice and punishment, that how system of our society work.
these two books to me are linked together. in book on i get that justice has different meanings. i believe you are influenced by your surrounds, the way you are brought up etc in order for you to determine your own meaning of a word. Polemarchus believes that your friends, and people that are good you do just for them, and those who are evil are enemies we should harm them. Cephalus believes what it means to be honest. Socrates i think is just really trying to get there understand of what is justice? each person has there own belief. in book II Glaucon makes a really good point saying that people are only just because of the law, and what can happen if they do not follow the law. just as in book I every one has there own belief but when brought in attention to a higher offical they dont stick up for there belief and this is because what Glaucon is saying and i belive its so true.
Book 1 starts off with Cephalus, a rich elderly man trying to explain what justice was. Then as usual, Socrate disagrees with Thrasymachus just like with almost everyone else. Cephalus explains how repaying your debt and being good to your friends and being bad to your enemies, is justice. Honesty, I felt that there was a lot of unnecessary repetition. For example "And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping from a disease is best able to create one?" He wrote about five different things with the same idea. Thrasymachus tells us that justice is, what the law makers makes it. In book two, Glaucon quotes "those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust" I disagree with this, if everyone had a chance to commit a crime and get away with it, not everyone would commit a crime. But I am sure a lot of people would. I agree with Adeimantus some people do good because it makes you feel good about your self. I realized that there is never a absolute answer to anything, unless its math.
In this reading of the Republic it shows how Socrates goes around seeking what the real meaning to somethin gmeans that he can deem right. This time it is looking to find what justice is or the meaning of it. Though his dialogue with many on his walk to his city he gets different meanings of what their ideas of justice is. We see how Simonides defines justice as the repayment of a debt. The concept of believeing that justice is an art of theft baffles me. To me to do something just does not include anything false but right. I dont believe that justice is only doing good to ones friend and evil to the evil doer. Sometimes in some cases of higher authority or branches of power, justice can be nothing else than the interest of the stronger. Here we have branches of power setting laws as to good and bad and whats accepted and what is not. Above all Socrates is on a mission to finding the true meaning. As we discussed in class on Tuesday everyone has a different meaning and perception of an action or a word. This all ties in to what our morals are and religious view. as Socrates was trying to show in in the story of Euthyphro, everyone thinks differently and has different beliefs. so each individual will interpret a words meaning differently based on what they believe.
I agree with Tyleema the reading was too much and a very uninteresting readings. The two reading put me to sleep the first two times, but what i got from when i was awake reading them was socrates looking for the relationship between justice and injustice. There are many interpretations of what justice & injustice is. what is considered is just and injust depends on the society time has shown us this. will socrates ever find the true answer to his questions??
Hammad syed The Republic by Plato is different form then Euthyphro. Euthrphro was a dialogue between Socrates and Euthrpho but in Republic Plato was talking as if he was Socrates. In this text Socrates is again trying to find the definition of justice. I agree with Thrasymachus that doing unjustice is easier than doing justice. By the end of book 1 Socrates still doesn’t understand the definition of justice. In the book 2 their conversation switches to Gods. Socrates establishes two laws of telling stories. First, that in stories the gods will only be represented as good. Second, that they won’t be represented as liars.
I find this reading similar to that of Euthyphro. In both, Socrates had continuously interrogated his friends for a better understanding of their argument. In book one of The Republic, it dicussed mainly of Justice and what it's true meaning is. In one of the arguments, one had said that unjust can be profitable and just can be misery. I agree that in some situations, the unjust can seem enticing and rewarding. And in some cases, doing good (just) would only mean misery because it does not better the outcome of the what the unjust might receive. In book two, Glaucon makes a really good point. People do justice by force because they are not able to retaliate with laws that exist and limits their actions. The fear of punishment makes it hard for any to consider doing unjust. That still applys to modern day and probably would apply to the future too. In all, Socrates method to question anyone's beliefs helps readers get a better understanding because of all the different truths that lies within the concepts of just, unjust, or even piety (from previous reading).
In Book I, Socrates, seeks to find out the meaning of Justice. He poses the question "what is justice?" to Cephalus who defines justice as being able to pay your debts and live honestly. Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus tries to give his own definition to Socrates of what justice is but i don't quite understand what his definition is.Same with Thrasymachus, he says "that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger". But I'm not sure what he means by it. please lets discuss this.
In Book II, even though Socrate has ended the discussion Glaucon wanted a chance to discuss his definition of justice. He tells socrates, makes three points but in the end points out that the unjust live a better life than the just. I find that Glaucon point of view interesting because in todays society we see alot of unjust people being treated better than the just.
The book of republic was lengthy, and was rather difficult at first to draw a picture of the message it was trying to give. However, I believe this story expands on the question of morality, of whats right and wrong, by moving into the topic of justice and injustice.
In Book I, it is shown by Cephalus and Polemarchus that justice, much like morality, is rather hard to define. Thrasymachus tries to give his definition of justice, and claims that justice is what can only be enforced by the strong, and followed by the weak. He has a certain grasp of the concept, as indeed it is true that justice should be enforced, but the way he said it made it seem rater unjust in the sense that the weak is inferior to the strong when it comes to justice and injustice.
In book II, a rather interesting topic of quality of life is brought up by Glaucon. In his persistance to define justice to Socrates, he ends up giving the message that the life of the unjust, can ultimately be better than the life of the just. How can that be? Isn't injustice suppose to be wrong? How can a better life be derived from that? Giving it a second thought, and relating it to our society now, it's not a very hard concept to understand. Lying, cheating, scandals..they're a pretty common thing, and they're done to achieve a better quality of life, through unjust means.
I find the readings very long to captivate the full idea when you are reading it the first time. From the first book I understood them defining and looking for the definition of justice, in a manner that would make sense. Justice to me is the fair pay for something commited weather in a positive way or a negative way. Although justice isn't always fair it is very important in the everyday lessons we learn in life. When a person commits a crime and proper justice isn't serve that person will easily find themselves doing it again if a lesson isn't thought. Eventhough their are circumstances in which a person may act mistakenly or with their emotions, their is always a lesson to be learned when justice comes into play, so that next time that person can actually think things thru instead of acting out of impulse.
In my opinion, both of these books were much more dificult than the first reading we had to do which was the descusion between Socretes and Euthyphro. In meaning however they were very symilar. It was a never ending discusion between Socretes, Chapalus, Polemarchus and Glaucon. Socrtes as usuall was playing the role of finding the deeper definition of justice and unjustyce. Thracymachus however comes up with a better definiton that says justice is inforced by those who are stronger. This was a very different and in a way true definition of justice. Glaucon had a concept were even if you did unjust things you can still live a happy life and on some terms a better life then those who are just. At hes time that didnt make much sense but if we were to evaluate to todays world were "nice guys finish last" it is a genious idea.
Glaucon claims that people view justice as a necessary evil, which we allow ourselves to suffer in order to avoid the greater evil that would experience if we did away with it. According to Glaucon justice stems from human weakness and vulnerability. Since we can all suffer from each other's injustices, we make a social contract agreeing to be just to one another. We only suffer under the burden of justice because we know we would suffer worse without it. Justice is not something practiced for its own sake but something one engages in out of fear and weakness.
Is this true? Is justice just some other type of desire? Needed because of fear and weakness?
Testing
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCephalus, like Euthyphro, gives an example to define a concept, rather than a unified definition. This is where Socrates feels inclined to dig deeper to find a more 'standard' meaning of justice. In a sense, I agree that justice means the repayment of debt. To me, justice means being fair, giving what is deserved, and responding appropriately to any situation. I disagree with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the strongest. For the most part, I do not understand or appreciate the hypothetical or metaphorical offerings of Socrates, but in a way I guess I do appreciate his need to understand things from every possible perspective.
ReplyDeleteBoth readings were kind of difficult to understand seeing as though they were extremely long and tiresome. However, I think I understood what was happening. In both books Socrates tries to understand the relationship between justice and injustice, their meanings, definitions, and various examples. The following is a quote from book I: "...nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy." Well, through my understanding, I think that the just man is happy. If a person feels that his actions are righteous and that he follows the just path, then why wouldn't he be happy? I think that justice has many meanings but it is universally accepted to mean moral righteousness. At the same token, moral righteousness could mean almost anything. Thus, I am once again thrown into the dilemma of what is considered morally right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEach reading was diffcult and long but in Book I the main idea was about justice. Each character had a different meaning of justice. Polemarchus believed that we owe friends help and enemies harm. Cephalus believed that justice meant to be honest, to do the right thing. Socrates tries to understand the meaning of justice and injustice, the definition and keeps going back to it with each character . In Book II, Glaucon speaks about people being just because they are afraid of punishment. There was dilemmas between each character especially with Socrates who kept disagreeing with the characters.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of what justice meant started when Socrates asked Cephalus what it felt like being old and rich. Cephalus said that being wealthy saved him from being unjust and to have a pleasing afterlife. With the answer he gave, Socrates started to wonder what justice was.Cephalus and then Polemarchus fail to define justice but they agreed that it is an important part of a good human life. Thrasumachus believed that justice was established by the strong, so that the weak will serve the interests of the strong. In book two Glaucon and Adeimamtus wanted to be show that justice is worth choosing apart from the rewards or penalties given. So Socrates must persuade them that a just person who is very unlucky lives a better life than the unjust person who is so successful that he is unfairly rewarded like they were entirely just.It took a while for me to fully understand what book 1 and 2 were trying to establish but I tried my best to understand from my own perspective.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Republic book I and II I noticed that Cephalus had many things in common with Euthyphro. In both of these books one can see that Socrates is trying to understand the difference between what it is to be justice and injustice. Cephalus gave Socrates an example to what justice but Socrates wanted a real definition which he did not get. Cephalus told Socrates that to be justice meant that an individual is honest with others and to also follow the right path to what one believes in. Socrates strongly disagreed with this explanation as to what justice is. In book II we are presented with a new character known as Glaucon. While reading book II I saw that I totally agreed with Glaucon and why he thought people are the way they are. Glaucon believes that people are just due to the fact that they know about the severe punishment that must be dealt with if they are injustice. If people didn’t have to face any consequences they would not always do the right things. Although Cephalus told Socrates what it meant to be just he still was not satisfied with his response.
ReplyDeleteThe book of The Republic was a long and difficult reading, but I think that I got a hold of it. Part 1 was about justice, most of the characters in the book had their different views about it. Cephalus believe that it meant to be honest, follow the right path of your legal obligations, which Socrates disagrees with. Polemarchus ‘believe that it was about you owe your friends help and your enemies harm. Later in the book Sacrotes switch the conversation to the understanding of justice. In book two I finally found something that I agreed with, it was Glaucon’s point that I strongly agreed with. He said that people are only just because they are afraid of punishment for injustice. No one is just because justice is desirable in itself. Think about this world if we people weren’t afraid of going to jail or the death penalty? It would be a world of disarray that we would live in.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about the concept of justice I don’t think it just about the laws. The laws are there for the purpose, so there will be rules to follow in this society. So through this we human being won’t be disorganize and uncivilized. However, the concept of justice I believe it what each individual think is fair or injustice using their rational thinking. therefore when I read the story in book 1 I agree those who are good and are our friends we are to do just for them, but I disagree in we should harm those who are our enemies and do evil to us. Since I believe just having a strong concept of justice, eventually those who are enemies and do evil to us will get punish, but not by our own punishment, but throughout their life, like their lifestyle this will reflect their evil doing to good people. Therefore I concluded that living a bad, poor, unhappy lifestyle is a strong punishment for those who have done evil to others .Moreover in book 2 justice can’t be done to do evil to someone. Even in the mind of the individual who has to chose a side of doing something justice or injustice, he or she never is 100 percent clear on where it done to harm, or do well to the life of someone else. But I do agree by doing an injustice decision by nature it a good decision for the personal experience of that person who made the choice, because he or she will understand the consequence of both side of committing a good or an evil decision.
ReplyDeleteThis read was extremely boring and long to much at once I think. It was basically about justice and the characters ideas of what it means. Cephalus and Socrates had different ideas about justice. Socrates looked for a proper definition of justice and injustice as did Euthyphro for piety. Socrates looked for a concrete definition of injustice and justice rather than examples.
ReplyDeleteBoth books I and II by plato were very difficult to understand. A lot of the words used in the text were complicated to pronounce and define unless i was to use a dictionary. These two texts are based on the concept of justice and injustice. Socrates throughout the texts was trying to understand what is the meaning of each word. According to my perspective the word justice can mean many different things depending on how each person believes. and how they apply it. To me the word justice means something positive in ones life. For example, justice can be refer as a law...lets say someone commits a crime the right thing to do will be for the person to get punished. On the other hand, injustice to me means when someone commits a second degree murder and the person does not recieve a type of punishments, either go to jail or recieve the death penalty. Even though i understood that Socrates was trying to figure out the deepest meaning of both justice and injustice, i am still confused about both books i will need a better break down of the books in order to really undertsand its purpose.
ReplyDeleteBook I opens, Socrates is returning home from a religious festival with his young friend Glaucon, one of Plato's brothers. On the road, the three travelers are waylaid by Adeimantus, another brother of Plato, and the young nobleman Polemarchus, who convinces them to take a detour to his house. There they join Polemarchus' aging father Cephalus, and others. Socrates and the elderly man begin a discussion on the merits of old age. This discussion quickly turns to the subject of justice. Cephalus, a rich, well-respected elder of the city, and host to the group, is the first to offer a definition of justice. Cephalus acts as spokesman for the Greek tradition. His definition of justice is an attempt to articulate the basic Hesiodic conception: that justice means living up to your legal obligations and being honest. Socrates defeats this formulation with a counterexample: 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 jeopardize the lives of others. So it cannot be the case that justice is nothing more than honoring legal obligations and being honest.
ReplyDeleteSocrates believes he has adequately responded to Thrasymachus and is through with the discussion of justice, but the others are not satisfied with the conclusion they have reached. Glaucon, one of Socrates' young companions, explains what they would like him to do. Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire only for their consequences, such as physical training and medical treatment; things that we desire only for their own sake, such as joy; and, the highest class, things we desire both for their own sake and for what we get from them, such as knowledge, sight, and health. What Glaucon and the rest would like Socrates to prove is that justice is not only desirable, but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their own sake and their consequences.
In my opinion, book I gives little insight regarding justice, and is generally an argument with little purpose. The end of book I came to no conclusion, because Thrasymachus would only agree with everything Socrates was saying, and Socrates chose to continue on with the discussion, even though he was aware that Thrasymachus was humoring him. In book II, it seems to me that Glaucon is saying that a person who is just only appears to be, while a person who is unjust truely is. I disagree with this; I believe that a person can appear to be just and truely be just, but I'm undecided of whether an unjust person can truely be a just person.I imagined that the dialogue was going to get more specific on the topic of just and unjust when Socrates and Adeimantus decided to talk of justice in the state, but unsurprisingly the conversation continued on and strayed far from the subject.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Rupublic book 1 and book 2 it can be concluded that Socrates discusses different topics.One was about friends and enemy,good and evil,and justice and unjustice. Different characters in the book all had different opinion about the meaning of justice and unjustice.One character named Thrasymachus said "Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger"I think this statement is somewhat true.For example if you lived in a place ruled by a dictator then justice to him would be in his best interest.If somebody got convicted stealing something the dictator would most likely give him less sentence if the the criminal is a good friend of his than somebody who is an enemy of his.So then justice wouldnt be served based of the evidence and whats right or wrong,but more so of whats the relationship of the convicted.Justice is something that should be based on right and wrong and evidence but that isnt always the case.Personal experience and beliefs come into play too.
ReplyDeleteThe Republic by Plato in book I it was about defining justice. Socrates tried to find out what is mean to be justice. He started with Cephalus where he said telling the truth and paying one debt that is what justice. But Socrates disagreed with that by saying it not always just. Polemarchus and Thrasymachus both had two different views about justice which Socrates did not agree with. But I agree with Thrasymachus explanation of justice he said people who are powerful make the law and it run through them and the powerful people are always in control of our justice. In book II Glaucon and Adeimantus showed two views of different justices can work for people. I agree with Adeimantus where he tried to explain that for some people justice can be rewarding and for others it can be and punishment. In order to run a society we need law and order and justice and punishment, that how system of our society work.
ReplyDeletethese two books to me are linked together. in book on i get that justice has different meanings. i believe you are influenced by your surrounds, the way you are brought up etc in order for you to determine your own meaning of a word. Polemarchus believes that your friends, and people that are good you do just for them, and those who are evil are enemies we should harm them. Cephalus believes what it means to be honest. Socrates i think is just really trying to get there understand of what is justice? each person has there own belief. in book II Glaucon makes a really good point saying that people are only just because of the law, and what can happen if they do not follow the law. just as in book I every one has there own belief but when brought in attention to a higher offical they dont stick up for there belief and this is because what Glaucon is saying and i belive its so true.
ReplyDeleteBook 1 starts off with Cephalus, a rich elderly man trying to explain what justice was. Then as usual, Socrate disagrees with Thrasymachus just like with almost everyone else. Cephalus explains how repaying your debt and being good to your friends and being bad to your enemies, is justice. Honesty, I felt that there was a lot of unnecessary repetition. For example "And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping from a disease is best able to create one?" He wrote about five different things with the same idea. Thrasymachus tells us that justice is, what the law makers makes it. In book two, Glaucon quotes "those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust" I disagree with this, if everyone had a chance to commit a crime and get away with it, not everyone would commit a crime. But I am sure a lot of people would. I agree with Adeimantus some people do good because it makes you feel good about your self. I realized that there is never a absolute answer to anything, unless its math.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this reading of the Republic it shows how Socrates goes around seeking what the real meaning to somethin gmeans that he can deem right. This time it is looking to find what justice is or the meaning of it. Though his dialogue with many on his walk to his city he gets different meanings of what their ideas of justice is. We see how Simonides defines justice as the repayment of a debt.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of believeing that justice is an art of theft baffles me. To me to do something just does not include anything false but right. I dont believe that justice is only doing good to ones friend and evil to the evil doer. Sometimes in some cases of higher authority or branches of power, justice can be nothing else than the interest of the stronger. Here we have branches of power setting laws as to good and bad and whats accepted and what is not.
Above all Socrates is on a mission to finding the true meaning. As we discussed in class on Tuesday everyone has a different meaning and perception of an action or a word. This all ties in to what our morals are and religious view. as Socrates was trying to show in in the story of Euthyphro, everyone thinks differently and has different beliefs. so each individual will interpret a words meaning differently based on what they believe.
- Jennifer Bordes
I agree with Tyleema the reading was too much and a very uninteresting readings. The two reading put me to sleep the first two times, but what i got from when i was awake reading them was socrates looking for the relationship between justice and injustice. There are many interpretations of what justice & injustice is. what is considered is just and injust depends on the society time has shown us this. will socrates ever find the true answer to his questions??
ReplyDeleteHammad syed
ReplyDeleteThe Republic by Plato is different form then Euthyphro. Euthrphro was a dialogue between Socrates and Euthrpho but in Republic Plato was talking as if he was Socrates. In this text Socrates is again trying to find the definition of justice. I agree with Thrasymachus that doing unjustice is easier than doing justice. By the end of book 1 Socrates still doesn’t understand the definition of justice. In the book 2 their conversation switches to Gods. Socrates establishes two laws of telling stories. First, that in stories the gods will only be represented as good. Second, that they won’t be represented as liars.
I find this reading similar to that of Euthyphro. In both, Socrates had continuously interrogated his friends for a better understanding of their argument. In book one of The Republic, it dicussed mainly of Justice and what it's true meaning is. In one of the arguments, one had said that unjust can be profitable and just can be misery. I agree that in some situations, the unjust can seem enticing and rewarding. And in some cases, doing good (just) would only mean misery because it does not better the outcome of the what the unjust might receive. In book two, Glaucon makes a really good point. People do justice by force because they are not able to retaliate with laws that exist and limits their actions. The fear of punishment makes it hard for any to consider doing unjust. That still applys to modern day and probably would apply to the future too. In all, Socrates method to question anyone's beliefs helps readers get a better understanding because of all the different truths that lies within the concepts of just, unjust, or even piety (from previous reading).
ReplyDeleteIn Book I, Socrates, seeks to find out the meaning of Justice. He poses the question "what is justice?" to Cephalus who defines justice as being able to pay your debts and live honestly. Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus tries to give his own definition to Socrates of what justice is but i don't quite understand what his definition is.Same with Thrasymachus, he says "that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger". But I'm not sure what he means by it. please lets discuss this.
ReplyDeleteIn Book II, even though Socrate has ended the discussion Glaucon wanted a chance to discuss his definition of justice. He tells socrates, makes three points but in the end points out that the unjust live a better life than the just. I find that Glaucon point of view interesting because in todays society we see alot of unjust people being treated better than the just.
The book of republic was lengthy, and was rather difficult at first to draw a picture of the message it was trying to give. However, I believe this story expands on the question of morality, of whats right and wrong, by moving into the topic of justice and injustice.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I, it is shown by Cephalus and Polemarchus that justice, much like morality, is rather hard to define. Thrasymachus tries to give his definition of justice, and claims that justice is what can only be enforced by the strong, and followed by the weak. He has a certain grasp of the concept, as indeed it is true that justice should be enforced, but the way he said it made it seem rater unjust in the sense that the weak is inferior to the strong when it comes to justice and injustice.
In book II, a rather interesting topic of quality of life is brought up by Glaucon. In his persistance to define justice to Socrates, he ends up giving the message that the life of the unjust, can ultimately be better than the life of the just. How can that be? Isn't injustice suppose to be wrong? How can a better life be derived from that? Giving it a second thought, and relating it to our society now, it's not a very hard concept to understand. Lying, cheating, scandals..they're a pretty common thing, and they're done to achieve a better quality of life, through unjust means.
I find the readings very long to captivate the full idea when you are reading it the first time. From the first book I understood them defining and looking for the definition of justice, in a manner that would make sense. Justice to me is the fair pay for something commited weather in a positive way or a negative way. Although justice isn't always fair it is very important in the everyday lessons we learn in life. When a person commits a crime and proper justice isn't serve that person will easily find themselves doing it again if a lesson isn't thought. Eventhough their are circumstances in which a person may act mistakenly or with their emotions, their is always a lesson to be learned when justice comes into play, so that next time that person can actually think things thru instead of acting out of impulse.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, both of these books were much more dificult than the first reading we had to do which was the descusion between Socretes and Euthyphro. In meaning however they were very symilar. It was a never ending discusion between Socretes, Chapalus, Polemarchus and Glaucon. Socrtes as usuall was playing the role of finding the deeper definition of justice and unjustyce. Thracymachus however comes up with a better definiton that says justice is inforced by those who are stronger. This was a very different and in a way true definition of justice. Glaucon had a concept were even if you did unjust things you can still live a happy life and on some terms a better life then those who are just. At hes time that didnt make much sense but if we were to evaluate to todays world were "nice guys finish last" it is a genious idea.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon claims that people view justice as a necessary evil, which we allow ourselves to suffer in order to avoid the greater evil that would experience if we did away with it. According to Glaucon justice stems from human weakness and vulnerability. Since we can all suffer from each other's injustices, we make a social contract agreeing to be just to one another. We only suffer under the burden of justice because we know we would suffer worse without it. Justice is not something practiced for its own sake but something one engages in out of fear and weakness.
ReplyDeleteIs this true? Is justice just some other type of desire? Needed because of fear and weakness?