Hey everyone, I hope you have been able to get a good start on Plato. You will need it to write good blog posts about his philosophical theories on religion, politics, and social issues of his time. Good luck and happy writing!
In book one of Plato’s republic there is much talk about what is just and what is unjust. Thrasymachus after listening to Socrates talking about justice interrupts his conversation in an outburst where he states that it is better to be unjust because they are seen as just while the just are seen as being terrible. Although I find what Thrasymachus was interesting and somewhat confusing, I think that he is right in the idea that being unjust has more “perks” than being just. It’s sort of like the saying “The good guy always finishes last,” even though there are those movies and story where the good guy wins, in real life it usually stands true. If one thinks about how an unjust person is able to be clever to deceive people into getting what they want, while still looking loveable and honorable. One would say that an unjust person has the “sweet life” where they can get away with “evils.” While the just person is helping others, giving up everything he has to make others happy, and is left with no thanks and no possessions. This idea of how people who are unjust have a better life leads me to question if the idea of making a city out of scratch to understand justice was a good idea. I think that Plato should have gone through the idea an unjust and just city. That to me would be able to see if Thrasymachus idea that being unjust has more “perks” by seeing which city has more of a luxurious life style. However, I do understand that Socrates was attempting to just define what justice was in itself. I just think that Thrasymachus idea of the unjust having an easier and more luxurious lifestyle isn’t truly answered, or at least not for a couple of books. Personally, I think that being unjust do have more perks, but being just will have more "perks" in the after life thinking in a Greek society because in mythology those whom are unjust are usually punished in an unusual way in the afterlife. For example Atlas had to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. So I think that that wasn't clearly answered either. I think that Plato's Republic leaves a lot of things unanswered.
I like the idea of going through both an unjust and just city. It would have given an explanation to how different both societies would have been, and the characters could have based their judgement on that rather than having Socrates persuade them one way. It bothers me that the characters seemingly just agree to whatever it is that Socrates says in fear of refuting him and getting shut down. However, I do worry that this approach may have created more confusion. The other men might have chosen the unjust society over the just city because of its "perks." Therefore, Socrates only going through a just city makes it clear that this is the better choice. Like you said, a just city with just people will serve for a better after life, as well as a lighter conscience.
I agree and disagree with you on various points. As you were saying injustice has it's "perks" which I am very skeptical to accept because if you think of all the criminals out there who are in jail, yes they reaped benefits… until they were caught, and now they must pay the price. As seen in countless examples both in books and in society today, "the truth will out" meaning that no one can hide acts of injustice forever, some how unjust acts are always brought to justice. But, I think that you are right in saying that Plato should have compared a just and an unjust society to each other and then draw conclusions from there. For, then it would be just like a real scientific experiment with real society being the control group to also compare both to. And maybe Plato would have come up with different answers if he had made both societies instead of just favoring one. Just as you stated I also believe that Plato does not address all issues and that his hypothesis cannot possible be proven because this is a theoretical experiment and in reality that is no proof at all. Overall, I think that Plato is using his skill of analyzing the situation to convince all those around him that he has to be right and speaking in such trivial language that no one would dare to say anything otherwise, causing him to win all arguments.
After reading all of the books of Plato's Republic, it seemed to me that the overarching theme is justice. Plato's teacher, Socrates, asks him what justice was, and why we should be just. It is very interesting that Cephalus, a very wealthy man, mentioned that he would have felt happier if he made all of the money himself that he had inherited from his ancestors. There was also a huge theme on hard work and how satisfying it feels when you work hard for something instead of taking something given for granted.
Cephalus noted that even though the burdens of old age are erased by wealth, that it is people's character and behavior that determine the difficulty of their lives, and not old age. This comes to show that even though wealth plays a significant role in easing the disadvantages of old age, old age should not let life become harder for someone. Any young person living today can make his or her life very hard just by thinking that life sucks or similar thoughts like that.
Not to digress any further, justice is noted as the middle area between suffering done unto others without dire consequences, and vice versa, with suffering being endured without any revenge. Without justice, even though it is a necessary evil, society would be worse off without it. There would be much more crime if the concept of justice did not exist since it would leave criminals to cause suffering, even if no consequences were to happen to them.
The debates between Socrates and the others in The Republic spark a lot of thought about different perspectives on why we should be just, and what justice is. It is thought-provoking to hear about Socrates' perspective on justice, as well as that of Cephalus' perspective, which is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debts. Nevertheless, as readers read more of the books inside Plato's Republic, there will be unanswered questions that will need discussion.
I thought it was very interesting in Book II when Glaucon described the perfectly just man and perfectly unjust man. These two lengthy portrayals reinforce the idea that if every man was left to his own devices, and there was no such thing as justice or law, every man would be unjust because it is more pleasant to be so. The unjust man is made to seem just, and is honored with “money and friends,” so his acts of injustice are reinforced. The just man does not seem good to others and therefore his acts of justice are not reinforced. This way he is acting justly for the sake of justice and not for the sake of rewards. After they have lived full lives, judgment will be given to the happier of the two. Glaucon, however, does not seem to realize the impact of environment on character.
After this description I could not help but think of Book I, in which Socrates highlights the subjectivity of justice. How could a single person judge how just or unjust a man’s actions are? There are so many contextual problems and environmental issues that come into play when evaluating each individual action. Glaucon’s description is very well illustrated but I think it is all nonsense when you take into account the problems that Socrates ran into when trying to delineate a specific definition for justice. What are these just actions that the perfect just man will engage in? And how will the environment react to him negatively as Glaucon describes? Socrates addressed this question when he tells Glaucon that oftentimes justice is rewarded for the sake of improving character and reputation, this is how children learn to be just. How will this perfectly just man learn to be just, if from a very young age he is discouraged from justice? Socrates brings into the equation the idea that environment plays a huge role in how virtuous a person grows to be. Although Glaucon’s definition of a perfect just man would be ideal in forming “real judgment,” he does not take into account how important a person’s environment is in the shaping of their charcter and virtue.
Glaucon's description of what both the "just" and "unjust" man would do with the ability to become invisible is perhaps one of the most subjectively significant statements made. It seems as though there is a lot of truth to his claims, that men would most certainly behave unjustly. However, it isn't long before one starts to critique those claims. How can Glaucon be so sure? Perhaps there are men who would remain steadfast in their just actions? This was the single biggest critique that kept reoccurring to me throughout the first 8 books of The Republic. It seems that the principles about justice apply to the vast majority of men, however, perhaps not all. There are always exceptions to the rule and The Republic's portrayal of just and just men are no different.
I found it interesting how, in Book IV when Socrates is saying that to have a perfect city, wisdom and courage should not be distributed. The guardians should have all the wisdom because if it were to be a democracy then the virtue would not translate to the virtue of the city. This would mean that everyone within the city would just be blind followers. They would not have the knowledge to question authority and wonder whether or not they are being ruled justly. And how would the guardian's wisdom and knowledge grow if they were not faced with challenges and conflicts to make them seek further answers?
Then all of the courage lies with the auxiliaries. In the text it says that having a courageous farmer or even ruler would do no good for the city. This makes sense if the city truly is perfect and the inhabitants did not have the need to be courageous. But even if that city is perfect, the cities around it would not necessarily be perfect and could come in and invade the perfect city. The people of the city would not be able to defend themselves if the auxiliaries were not enough to protect them.
Socrates also believes that the perfect city will have justice. However, justice is ambiguous so who is to say what is actually just and what is not? The debate for what justice truly is is still being debated today. I believe that the idea of having a perfect city is an idea that is highly unrealistic. There is no such thing as a perfect city; every city is flawed but it is the flaws that make the cities grow.
I agree, not only would the citizens simply be blind followers, but this system of a guardianship seems like it would too easily slip into a tyranny. Although Socrates outlines a system to make sure the guardians are just and educated, it seems like it would be inevitable, and that the city would not be able to run in an orderly manner. If every person is assigned a vocation and is prevented both from being too poor or too wealthy many people would lose motivation to do their jobs, as they will be protected from slipping into poverty yet will have little incentive to try to achieve more if they are unable to attain wealth and better themselves through it. Furthermore, if an elite group is running the city, even if they are educated and wise, the temptation power and of ruling as tyrants could be too much for them to resist, especially if there are no checks on them. In addition, if the citizens are not educated they may just blindly follow these tyrants and be unable to recognize and defend themselves against injustice. Although Socrates describes an ideal city and a system to govern it, it seems the nature of humankind would prevent it from succeeding.
I think that you make many good points in regards to the logistical problems Kallipolis would present as a functioning city. However I think that Plato was writing from a perspective in which many of the problems you bring up, such as blind following, are desirable. I believe that through the voice of Socrates, he made a point for the importance of censorship through education and specialization. This ideal city of his relies on the censorship of the masses and he wants the people of the city to be blind followers of the guardians in order to prevent discontent. Plato is using the arguments and analogies of Socrates to create a social commentary on the society of Athens he was so disappointed in. Not only this but the entire point of Kallipolis is that it is his idea of a perfect city and so is unable to be corrupted by outside forces. Therefore, while I think you bring up good issues, I think it misses the point of what Plato was trying to accomplish through the creation of Kallipolis.
Plato’s “Republic” exposes us to many narratives and ideals on a range of topics, from what is “justice,” what qualities a perfect warrior should portray and love between a teacher and his student. But the main focus early in the books is the true definition of justice. We hear multiple definitions from Thrasyamachos, Glaucon, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Socrates himself. All have different points of view, whether it be that a Just man is being an honest man and always paying your debts, to the notion that the strongest man is the most just man.
I would, however, like to discuss the “Famous” allegory of the cave which begins later in “The Republic” which starts in Book VII. Plato describes people being trapped in a dark cave from the beginning of their lives. Their legs and heads were held in the place and the heads were put in such a way that the people could only look forward, and not behind. The story goes on to tell that flames threw shadows of statues on the walls in front of the people. Because of this, people believed that these were real things and these shadows were what they considered true; they believed in the shadows. I agree with Plato in the sense that if people are not allowed to “look around” and believe what they believe, they are forced to believe in the things they are “allowed” to see.
As the story goes on, the shackles are broken and the cave dwellers now can see the fire and the statues that cast the shadows. The notion that the shadows were real is now dead; fire and statues are now the real thing, because their minds have been shown that these other things exist, not just the shadows. Finally, the cave people are opened to the real world, the sun shining down on them. They can now see the REAL things: trees, flowers, animals, the sun. The dwellers now know that the sun is what keeps everything going. I believe the same thing could be said in todays world. It can be seen in people that are held captive and kept out of the world for a long period of time cannot function the same way as people who have been exposed to the world. Most of the time they end up with psychological problems.
One of the most interesting ideas that I took from Plato’s "Republic" is his idea of what the perfect society would consist of. In book III, Socrates went into detail of what the ideal social order would be. He concluded that there should be three different classes of people; producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. These strict social classes are quite different than the social order my generation is use to, where freely moving up and down the social classes is normal. Another key point in Socrates’ theory for a perfectly just society is specialization, “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others.” Socrates stated that a strict class system, along with specialization, is necessary for a very successful and just society.
Another idea that is unlike today’s normal society, is Socrates’ idea that family should not exist. He stated that children should be raised by the whole community and then trained in areas that they have a natural inclination towards. They do not have the choice to choose what they want to do with their lives like most other societies have. Another idea Socrates has to further do away with the idea of family in society is not having committed relationships. His idea is to have a lottery type process that would randomly assign men and women to have sex. This doing away with the idea of family is very strange to me because I feel that family is a very important part of today’s society.
Throughout books III and VI, Socrates offers some ideas that seem a big outrageous and unrealistic to me. I think that a possible reason for such extreme social ideas is because Plato was disgusted with how the Athenian government was corrupted. Although the ideas for the perfectly just city seem good in theory, I think that flaws would still arise in the new society because a perfect society can never truly be attained. A perfect society in the eyes of one person may not reflect the perfect society in the eyes of another.
I agree with your opinions on Socrates's ideas. Some ideas he proposes, especially the idea that family should not exist, seem so absurd to me and I cannot imagine living in a world like that. I do not know where I would be without my family, their love, support, and guidance. If I did not have a family, like in the Socrates's ideal world, I would feel alone. Everyone would feel like a stranger, even if I knew them. I don't know if I would ever have the closeness or bond like I have with my family. I would not want to live in a world where I was to do one job for the rest of my life that I was good at. Things that I like change everyday and I like to be able to explore and learn about new things that I might like better. I would easily become bored with only working on my specific "specialization," even if I was good at whatever it was I was doing. It would close off a lot of opportunity for people who might like or even be better at something that is not their area of specialization.
This was interesting to me as well. I found it very intriguing to think about the idea of a "perfect" society, and how easily that could be attained. Plato's perfect society seems very simplistic in the Republic, but if you really think about it, it would be incredibly hard to attain. The sheer amount of control that this society would require would be almost impossible to enforce, especially in a day and age such as our own. Another thing I found interesting is the idea of specialization and the idea that this would create citizens that were perfectly happy in their work. I think the idea that anyone could possibly figure out the true passion of every citizen in a city is remarkably naive. The idea that you could somehow discern which children are suited to be producers, warriors, or rulers at such a young age is ridiculous to me, and I think that there would be many, many mistakes made. Plato sets out to create a perfectly just city in the Republic, but I think he underestimates the real-world effort it would take to create it.
Before reading Plato’s Republic, I did not really know what to expect. There were many times where I have heard my previous teachers talk about Republic in reference to what we were talking about in class, but I did not expect the extent of criticism that was used in trying to determine whether a man is just or unjust. The thing that stuck out to me the most was when Glaucon was explaining the right and wrong actions of a just and unjust man in Book II, in reference of the magical ring.
When I was reading the other books and the other explanations of what the philosophers perceived to be just, their logic was very odd to me but the theory that Glaucon used to make his point made a lot more sense. It made me think about how our morals really work and if we are as just as we think we are. In the Republic, they come to the conclusion that in order to have the perfect society, the one who holds the power must be a philosopher. That led me to think about the magical ring, once again.
How are we really able to tell whether the philosopher will also be just with the absolute power that they will receive?
.A just man with a magical ring can cause him to make unjust decisions, much like a just philosopher with immense power to rule all of the people. You never really know the outcome of ones decision, whether they are a just person making unjust decisions, or unjust person making just decisions.
I think being wary of unjust decisions made by philosopher-kings, as you say, is the main drawback to any real possibility of building an ideal kallipolis. No matter what, humans are generally fallible and that doesn't exclude those who are most well versed in ruling and the other domains of the guardian. I recall Socrates making the argument that a person with any natural aptitude for learning may be easily drawn into using those talents for unjust measures. But, he also argues that a philosopher in his truest form rules only for the benefit of the city; to be as a whole, at its happiest. I guess it all comes down to how much faith can be placed on a philosopher-king staying true to his or her principles.
In reading Plato’s Republic, one of his most interesting theories is what an ideal society should look like. He first composes this society early in Book II in his conversation with Glaucon, and it is initially very simplistic. It is only when, prompted by Glaucon, Socrates includes luxuries to the imaginary city, and then hypothesizes that this will lead to war. Additionally, this leads Socrates into the theory that people have “natures,” that dictate the role they should play in society, thereby creating a strictly divided social class system involving producers, guardians, and auxiliaries.
With this development, Plato’s vision of a “utopian” society becomes extremely problematic. In this society, people have no choice, no mobility, and are forced into the role “best suited to their nature,” with no exchange between classes, with Plato believing that “meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it.” Plato further strips the basic human right of choice away from citizens by proposing that the best way to raise children is communally within the society, with people being assigned sexual partners. Plato also rejected democracy at all levels, instead suggesting an aristocratic form of government.
Although such extreme social theories undoubtedly stemmed from his disgust at the corruption of the Athenian government and the execution of his mentor, from whose perspective he writes Republic, but such a society could never work in practice. He strips the common citizen of any choice in their life, and the forcing of people into rigid classes from which there is no mobility is ineffective.
I agree with you when you say that the society that Plato creates, would not be successful. As I read about this, I could not help but disagree with the decision to assign sexual partners and force people into rigid classes based on their profession. I do not feel this creates the "Utopian" society that Plato intends. I understand he is creating a society free of democracy, but I do not see how this is considered the best type of society. I was also surprised when I read about the fate of children and how they are dispersed, so to speak, after being born so others can't tell who they came from. This concept was very odd to me. It was very interesting reading about the lifestyles that Plato wants in his unique vision of a perfect society. It is vastly different then what we are used to today.
I agree with what you are saying about the image of what he says a city should be like. It has classes simply because people do tend to have different natures. I also agree when you discuss how the ideal image he creates becomes problematic because no one really has a say in anything at all. I think it is strange the idea of assigning people sexual partners and not allowing anyone to know who their child is or who their parents are. I agree that this theory would never work out in reality.
I found Plato's argument or theory about what an ideal society should consist of to be very interesting. I also found that the sophist argument regarding what justice really is to be very very applicable. Plato believed that the ideal society was a Republic, that was ruled by a Philosopher King. He believed that the ruler should be chosen for their intelligence, not by popular vote. I disagreed with the expulsion of artists and poets from society, due to the fact that they introduce new ideas to the society which in turn destabilizes the society itself. I don't believe it's possible for a society to exist or reach complete stability. In a static environment, a society cannot adapt to changes- whether they be social, economic, political or ecological changes there must be a source of inspiration or ideas that are created in order to adapt. I also found the discussion on familial upbringing and relationships to be very interesting and unrealistic. Why should children be brought up by the members of society?
Through the arguments or discussions between Glaucon, Polermarchus, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, Socrates, and Cephalus Plato examines a few concepts of justice. Is justice telling the truth and repaying your debts? Is it doing good to friends and harm to enemies, or is it the interest or benefit of the stronger? Eventually Plato rejects all of these ideas and states that justice is based on a society's natural division of labor. If everyone does their own designated role and doesn't interfere with others, than that is when justice occurs. The three classes are the producers, soldiers and rulers. All the classes work together in harmony to create a just state.
I think you touch on some very good point here especially in your first paragraph. I think it is crazy to believe that any one human has the ability to create a society that is completely and totally just no matter what is done. I also agree with you on the view of child upbringing to be very different and unrealistic. I don’t know if this is an example of exoticism where I don’t find anything similar about our culture’s upbringing of children to theirs or if I just cannot see the similarities. I find it to be so strange that someone could be so willing to give up a human being that they created just for the possible betterment of their society according to their philosophical leaders. I don’t even think adoption can relate to this, because in this Kallipolis society, every child is viewed as a golden child, silver, or bronze and iron. Everything is shared including the children of the society and I can’t wrap my fingers around it. I also agree with your point that artists and poets shouldn’t be expelled from society. In my opinion, societies need so much variation and different people to bring up different ideas and beliefs.
I have heard that Plato’s Republic is thought to be a very intellectual and philosophical text but also challenging. Philosophical in a way that Republic exhibits theories of knowledge, politics, ethics, and education but yet consider challenging in the way that the words are phrased. As a matter of fact, after reading part of the book I can agree that it can be quite challenging, especially if reading for the first time with no background knowledge on Plato.
My first impression of the text, when reading the introduction and analyzing the characters, was that Plato wanted to put a definition on justice. Many people come to debate the question but they were immediately refuted by Socrates. In my opinion though, no matter how it is phrase, justice is a component of fairness and laws put together. I do not think that one person can try to define justice because it depends where and when that situation is taking place. For example justice in Turkey may not be justice in the United States. In Plato’s Republic it is conveyed that Socrates was executed because he did not want to partake in the politicians “unholy deeds”. Plato sees this as unjust because he is a fair man and he believes that politics were corrupt. Other than that, the person that influenced him was killed, giving him more motivation to seek for justice.
I also find it interesting that Thrasymachus seems to bring in a new meaning to justice when he proclaims that it is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. When he says this, he is merely saying that being just is not something that should be striven for because in the end the powerful will thrive. For me this takes away from the book argument in trying to establish a coherent definition for justice. His argument just proves that there are many ways that people can interpret justice.
I agree that justice can be interpreted in many ways by many people, but I disagree that presenting different arguments takes away from the texts effectiveness in attempting to seek one true definition. The point of introducing Thracymachus's point of view in my opinion is to give Socrates a reason to better define justice. Thracymachus says justice is the advantage of the stronger, but as the text continues, Socrates refutes this interpretation of justice through several arguments which leads Thracymachus to then ask Socrates to provide his own definition. Plato is presenting counter arguments through the characters speaking to Socrates in order to rule out other possibilities for the true definition of justice so that his points are defensible.
Also, on the point of justice existing differently among different societies, I personally think that these societies' definition of justice is exactly what is being called into question by Plato. How other nations have decided to define justice does not rule out the fact that there may be one true definition, whether we agree or disagree with Socrates. Socrates begins a society from scratch in his argument to stop these types of cultural differences from diluting the argument. He then used rational thinking to decide the type of society that would be most just, if it existed, to better understand justice for individuals in that society.
I really like your point about the inability of one person to define justice, as justice could mean many different things to many different people around the world. I find it interesting that, even in Plato's Republic, we still clearly see that there are a variety of ways that people interpret the idea of justice. For example, Cephalus sees justice as living up to legal responsibilities, Polemarchus says that we should do good for our friends and harm our enemies, and Thrasymachus believes that it doesn't pay to be just. People have different values, different views on the world, and different ways of looking at things. It makes sense that the idea of justice would be so heavily contested. It does not necessarily mean that one person or group of people is wrong while another is right, the definition is all relative to one's own personal beliefs. We can read Plato's Republic and still see the idea of justice differently than Socrates, and we would not be wrong in that. We have the right to make our own judgments by taking in the arguments of others and formulating arguments for ourselves.
It was interesting to read the thought process behind the creation of a city starting from scratch. I didn't realize that philosophers used the method of Elanchus to thoroughly discuss each question regarding the meaning of justice in a utopian city. However, by the end of Book I, the six Philosophers were no closer to forming a definition of justice than they were at the beginning. However the more Socrates described a Utopian just society the more I disagreed about his ideas, two of them being: censorship and specialized occupations.
Socrates emphasized the meaning of literature and the importance of censorship. For example, Poets such as Homer, tells inappropriate stories about gods having immoral behavior, which could harm society and influence children. Therefore in order to have a just city, Socrates emphasis that people are to only use stories that depict good behavior and ban stories that can negatively impact society. In my perspective, censoring any material gives people a false sense of reality, which creates an unjust society.
In addition Socrates utopian society is based on specialized occupations. Each person has an area of expertise and is suited for a certain task. Therefore, the individual is happy since they are suited to do what they can do, but they also have no choice. Specialized jobs create no outlet for people to gain new experiences and chose their own paths. Yet again this is a false premise of society, in order for a society to be stable it must adapt to changes. By enforcing specialized occupations in Socrates utopian society, the just aspects of freewill and liberty are stripped from individuals and create a perversion of justice.
I agree with your point about censorship, we know from history that any society that enforces censorship to protect the political ideology is acting in a tyrannical way. In my opinion I see this as unjust because of the oppressive nature of censorship. I know Plato later on explains the five different types of societies and places his own at the top of that list. Just by creating a false sense of reality like you said I think this places Plato’s perfect society in danger of failure. An oppressed society is always destine for change. In his later books Plato himself explains how societies fall down the list of societies all the way to the final society Tranny. I feel his society from the start is set up oppressive and therefore will fail, in his own words it is unjust.
Beginning “Plato’s Republic” I only knew what we had briefly mentioned in class and what I have heard from other peoples opinions after they read it. I like how the text takes different positions on arguments so we are able to see how someone may have reacted in the situations. The topics are highly controversial and if we, the audience only received one philosopher’s ideas, it wouldn’t raise as many questions.
I thought it was interesting in Book 2 when Socrates mentions that the topic of justice and injustice is not an easy one to understand and since they are not “clever” people” he compares it to reading small letters from a distance away. “…method of investigation that we’d use if, lacking keen eyesight…” Being able to read larger letters up close would make reading the smaller letters at distance obviously much easier. He then compares it to that of a city. That it would be easier to understand the justice of a city first because it is much larger then trying to define what justice is for one man.
I may not have described it perfectly in my quote from the text, it is on page 43, paragraph d if you want to read it in more detail. I thought it was interesting how he made a case for looking at the larger group of people and defining justice that way instead of defining justice for one man first. Many people would say that justice would be easier to define for one person then it would be for an entire city. The way he presented the scenario, it made more sense for me, to examine the idea of a larger group instead.
I like that you mentioned Plato's analogy of the eye chart and the smaller letter versus the larger ones. I really liked his train of thought when using this. It would work with almost anything... If you step back and look at the bigger picture, the smaller details will all become much more clear in the end. It just works out that way. I've recognized this a lot in my recent years with various situations. It's helpful to take a step back once in a while and realize the greater idea and go from there.
In book one of Plato’s republic there is much talk about what is just and what is unjust. Thrasymachus after listening to Socrates talking about justice interrupts his conversation in an outburst where he states that it is better to be unjust because they are seen as just while the just are seen as being terrible. Although I find what Thrasymachus was interesting and somewhat confusing, I think that he is right in the idea that being unjust has more “perks” than being just. It’s sort of like the saying “The good guy always finishes last,” even though there are those movies and story where the good guy wins, in real life it usually stands true. If one thinks about how an unjust person is able to be clever to deceive people into getting what they want, while still looking loveable and honorable. One would say that an unjust person has the “sweet life” where they can get away with “evils.” While the just person is helping others, giving up everything he has to make others happy, and is left with no thanks and no possessions.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of how people who are unjust have a better life leads me to question if the idea of making a city out of scratch to understand justice was a good idea. I think that Plato should have gone through the idea an unjust and just city. That to me would be able to see if Thrasymachus idea that being unjust has more “perks” by seeing which city has more of a luxurious life style. However, I do understand that Socrates was attempting to just define what justice was in itself. I just think that Thrasymachus idea of the unjust having an easier and more luxurious lifestyle isn’t truly answered, or at least not for a couple of books.
Personally, I think that being unjust do have more perks, but being just will have more "perks" in the after life thinking in a Greek society because in mythology those whom are unjust are usually punished in an unusual way in the afterlife. For example Atlas had to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. So I think that that wasn't clearly answered either. I think that Plato's Republic leaves a lot of things unanswered.
I like the idea of going through both an unjust and just city. It would have given an explanation to how different both societies would have been, and the characters could have based their judgement on that rather than having Socrates persuade them one way. It bothers me that the characters seemingly just agree to whatever it is that Socrates says in fear of refuting him and getting shut down. However, I do worry that this approach may have created more confusion. The other men might have chosen the unjust society over the just city because of its "perks." Therefore, Socrates only going through a just city makes it clear that this is the better choice. Like you said, a just city with just people will serve for a better after life, as well as a lighter conscience.
DeleteI agree and disagree with you on various points. As you were saying injustice has it's "perks" which I am very skeptical to accept because if you think of all the criminals out there who are in jail, yes they reaped benefits… until they were caught, and now they must pay the price. As seen in countless examples both in books and in society today, "the truth will out" meaning that no one can hide acts of injustice forever, some how unjust acts are always brought to justice. But, I think that you are right in saying that Plato should have compared a just and an unjust society to each other and then draw conclusions from there. For, then it would be just like a real scientific experiment with real society being the control group to also compare both to. And maybe Plato would have come up with different answers if he had made both societies instead of just favoring one. Just as you stated I also believe that Plato does not address all issues and that his hypothesis cannot possible be proven because this is a theoretical experiment and in reality that is no proof at all. Overall, I think that Plato is using his skill of analyzing the situation to convince all those around him that he has to be right and speaking in such trivial language that no one would dare to say anything otherwise, causing him to win all arguments.
DeleteAfter reading all of the books of Plato's Republic, it seemed to me that the overarching theme is justice. Plato's teacher, Socrates, asks him what justice was, and why we should be just. It is very interesting that Cephalus, a very wealthy man, mentioned that he would have felt happier if he made all of the money himself that he had inherited from his ancestors. There was also a huge theme on hard work and how satisfying it feels when you work hard for something instead of taking something given for granted.
ReplyDeleteCephalus noted that even though the burdens of old age are erased by wealth, that it is people's character and behavior that determine the difficulty of their lives, and not old age. This comes to show that even though wealth plays a significant role in easing the disadvantages of old age, old age should not let life become harder for someone. Any young person living today can make his or her life very hard just by thinking that life sucks or similar thoughts like that.
Not to digress any further, justice is noted as the middle area between suffering done unto others without dire consequences, and vice versa, with suffering being endured without any revenge. Without justice, even though it is a necessary evil, society would be worse off without it. There would be much more crime if the concept of justice did not exist since it would leave criminals to cause suffering, even if no consequences were to happen to them.
The debates between Socrates and the others in The Republic spark a lot of thought about different perspectives on why we should be just, and what justice is. It is thought-provoking to hear about Socrates' perspective on justice, as well as that of Cephalus' perspective, which is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debts. Nevertheless, as readers read more of the books inside Plato's Republic, there will be unanswered questions that will need discussion.
I thought it was very interesting in Book II when Glaucon described the perfectly just man and perfectly unjust man. These two lengthy portrayals reinforce the idea that if every man was left to his own devices, and there was no such thing as justice or law, every man would be unjust because it is more pleasant to be so.
ReplyDeleteThe unjust man is made to seem just, and is honored with “money and friends,” so his acts of injustice are reinforced. The just man does not seem good to others and therefore his acts of justice are not reinforced. This way he is acting justly for the sake of justice and not for the sake of rewards. After they have lived full lives, judgment will be given to the happier of the two. Glaucon, however, does not seem to realize the impact of environment on character.
After this description I could not help but think of Book I, in which Socrates highlights the subjectivity of justice. How could a single person judge how just or unjust a man’s actions are? There are so many contextual problems and environmental issues that come into play when evaluating each individual action. Glaucon’s description is very well illustrated but I think it is all nonsense when you take into account the problems that Socrates ran into when trying to delineate a specific definition for justice. What are these just actions that the perfect just man will engage in? And how will the environment react to him negatively as Glaucon describes? Socrates addressed this question when he tells Glaucon that oftentimes justice is rewarded for the sake of improving character and reputation, this is how children learn to be just. How will this perfectly just man learn to be just, if from a very young age he is discouraged from justice? Socrates brings into the equation the idea that environment plays a huge role in how virtuous a person grows to be. Although Glaucon’s definition of a perfect just man would be ideal in forming “real judgment,” he does not take into account how important a person’s environment is in the shaping of their charcter and virtue.
Glaucon's description of what both the "just" and "unjust" man would do with the ability to become invisible is perhaps one of the most subjectively significant statements made. It seems as though there is a lot of truth to his claims, that men would most certainly behave unjustly. However, it isn't long before one starts to critique those claims. How can Glaucon be so sure? Perhaps there are men who would remain steadfast in their just actions? This was the single biggest critique that kept reoccurring to me throughout the first 8 books of The Republic. It seems that the principles about justice apply to the vast majority of men, however, perhaps not all. There are always exceptions to the rule and The Republic's portrayal of just and just men are no different.
DeleteI found it interesting how, in Book IV when Socrates is saying that to have a perfect city, wisdom and courage should not be distributed. The guardians should have all the wisdom because if it were to be a democracy then the virtue would not translate to the virtue of the city. This would mean that everyone within the city would just be blind followers. They would not have the knowledge to question authority and wonder whether or not they are being ruled justly. And how would the guardian's wisdom and knowledge grow if they were not faced with challenges and conflicts to make them seek further answers?
ReplyDeleteThen all of the courage lies with the auxiliaries. In the text it says that having a courageous farmer or even ruler would do no good for the city. This makes sense if the city truly is perfect and the inhabitants did not have the need to be courageous. But even if that city is perfect, the cities around it would not necessarily be perfect and could come in and invade the perfect city. The people of the city would not be able to defend themselves if the auxiliaries were not enough to protect them.
Socrates also believes that the perfect city will have justice. However, justice is ambiguous so who is to say what is actually just and what is not? The debate for what justice truly is is still being debated today. I believe that the idea of having a perfect city is an idea that is highly unrealistic. There is no such thing as a perfect city; every city is flawed but it is the flaws that make the cities grow.
I agree, not only would the citizens simply be blind followers, but this system of a guardianship seems like it would too easily slip into a tyranny. Although Socrates outlines a system to make sure the guardians are just and educated, it seems like it would be inevitable, and that the city would not be able to run in an orderly manner. If every person is assigned a vocation and is prevented both from being too poor or too wealthy many people would lose motivation to do their jobs, as they will be protected from slipping into poverty yet will have little incentive to try to achieve more if they are unable to attain wealth and better themselves through it. Furthermore, if an elite group is running the city, even if they are educated and wise, the temptation power and of ruling as tyrants could be too much for them to resist, especially if there are no checks on them. In addition, if the citizens are not educated they may just blindly follow these tyrants and be unable to recognize and defend themselves against injustice. Although Socrates describes an ideal city and a system to govern it, it seems the nature of humankind would prevent it from succeeding.
DeleteI think that you make many good points in regards to the logistical problems Kallipolis would present as a functioning city. However I think that Plato was writing from a perspective in which many of the problems you bring up, such as blind following, are desirable. I believe that through the voice of Socrates, he made a point for the importance of censorship through education and specialization. This ideal city of his relies on the censorship of the masses and he wants the people of the city to be blind followers of the guardians in order to prevent discontent. Plato is using the arguments and analogies of Socrates to create a social commentary on the society of Athens he was so disappointed in. Not only this but the entire point of Kallipolis is that it is his idea of a perfect city and so is unable to be corrupted by outside forces. Therefore, while I think you bring up good issues, I think it misses the point of what Plato was trying to accomplish through the creation of Kallipolis.
DeletePlato’s “Republic” exposes us to many narratives and ideals on a range of topics, from what is “justice,” what qualities a perfect warrior should portray and love between a teacher and his student. But the main focus early in the books is the true definition of justice. We hear multiple definitions from Thrasyamachos, Glaucon, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Socrates himself. All have different points of view, whether it be that a Just man is being an honest man and always paying your debts, to the notion that the strongest man is the most just man.
ReplyDeleteI would, however, like to discuss the “Famous” allegory of the cave which begins later in “The Republic” which starts in Book VII. Plato describes people being trapped in a dark cave from the beginning of their lives. Their legs and heads were held in the place and the heads were put in such a way that the people could only look forward, and not behind. The story goes on to tell that flames threw shadows of statues on the walls in front of the people. Because of this, people believed that these were real things and these shadows were what they considered true; they believed in the shadows. I agree with Plato in the sense that if people are not allowed to “look around” and believe what they believe, they are forced to believe in the things they are “allowed” to see.
As the story goes on, the shackles are broken and the cave dwellers now can see the fire and the statues that cast the shadows. The notion that the shadows were real is now dead; fire and statues are now the real thing, because their minds have been shown that these other things exist, not just the shadows. Finally, the cave people are opened to the real world, the sun shining down on them. They can now see the REAL things: trees, flowers, animals, the sun. The dwellers now know that the sun is what keeps everything going. I believe the same thing could be said in todays world. It can be seen in people that are held captive and kept out of the world for a long period of time cannot function the same way as people who have been exposed to the world. Most of the time they end up with psychological problems.
One of the most interesting ideas that I took from Plato’s "Republic" is his idea of what the perfect society would consist of. In book III, Socrates went into detail of what the ideal social order would be. He concluded that there should be three different classes of people; producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. These strict social classes are quite different than the social order my generation is use to, where freely moving up and down the social classes is normal. Another key point in Socrates’ theory for a perfectly just society is specialization, “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others.” Socrates stated that a strict class system, along with specialization, is necessary for a very successful and just society.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea that is unlike today’s normal society, is Socrates’ idea that family should not exist. He stated that children should be raised by the whole community and then trained in areas that they have a natural inclination towards. They do not have the choice to choose what they want to do with their lives like most other societies have. Another idea Socrates has to further do away with the idea of family in society is not having committed relationships. His idea is to have a lottery type process that would randomly assign men and women to have sex. This doing away with the idea of family is very strange to me because I feel that family is a very important part of today’s society.
Throughout books III and VI, Socrates offers some ideas that seem a big outrageous and unrealistic to me. I think that a possible reason for such extreme social ideas is because Plato was disgusted with how the Athenian government was corrupted. Although the ideas for the perfectly just city seem good in theory, I think that flaws would still arise in the new society because a perfect society can never truly be attained. A perfect society in the eyes of one person may not reflect the perfect society in the eyes of another.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with your opinions on Socrates's ideas. Some ideas he proposes, especially the idea that family should not exist, seem so absurd to me and I cannot imagine living in a world like that. I do not know where I would be without my family, their love, support, and guidance. If I did not have a family, like in the Socrates's ideal world, I would feel alone. Everyone would feel like a stranger, even if I knew them. I don't know if I would ever have the closeness or bond like I have with my family. I would not want to live in a world where I was to do one job for the rest of my life that I was good at. Things that I like change everyday and I like to be able to explore and learn about new things that I might like better. I would easily become bored with only working on my specific "specialization," even if I was good at whatever it was I was doing. It would close off a lot of opportunity for people who might like or even be better at something that is not their area of specialization.
Delete-Giovana Faiz
This was interesting to me as well. I found it very intriguing to think about the idea of a "perfect" society, and how easily that could be attained. Plato's perfect society seems very simplistic in the Republic, but if you really think about it, it would be incredibly hard to attain. The sheer amount of control that this society would require would be almost impossible to enforce, especially in a day and age such as our own. Another thing I found interesting is the idea of specialization and the idea that this would create citizens that were perfectly happy in their work. I think the idea that anyone could possibly figure out the true passion of every citizen in a city is remarkably naive. The idea that you could somehow discern which children are suited to be producers, warriors, or rulers at such a young age is ridiculous to me, and I think that there would be many, many mistakes made. Plato sets out to create a perfectly just city in the Republic, but I think he underestimates the real-world effort it would take to create it.
DeleteBefore reading Plato’s Republic, I did not really know what to expect. There were many times where I have heard my previous teachers talk about Republic in reference to what we were talking about in class, but I did not expect the extent of criticism that was used in trying to determine whether a man is just or unjust. The thing that stuck out to me the most was when Glaucon was explaining the right and wrong actions of a just and unjust man in Book II, in reference of the magical ring.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the other books and the other explanations of what the philosophers perceived to be just, their logic was very odd to me but the theory that Glaucon used to make his point made a lot more sense. It made me think about how our morals really work and if we are as just as we think we are. In the Republic, they come to the conclusion that in order to have the perfect society, the one who holds the power must be a philosopher. That led me to think about the magical ring, once again.
How are we really able to tell whether the philosopher will also be just with the absolute power that they will receive?
.A just man with a magical ring can cause him to make unjust decisions, much like a just philosopher with immense power to rule all of the people. You never really know the outcome of ones decision, whether they are a just person making unjust decisions, or unjust person making just decisions.
I think being wary of unjust decisions made by philosopher-kings, as you say, is the main drawback to any real possibility of building an ideal kallipolis. No matter what, humans are generally fallible and that doesn't exclude those who are most well versed in ruling and the other domains of the guardian. I recall Socrates making the argument that a person with any natural aptitude for learning may be easily drawn into using those talents for unjust measures. But, he also argues that a philosopher in his truest form rules only for the benefit of the city; to be as a whole, at its happiest. I guess it all comes down to how much faith can be placed on a philosopher-king staying true to his or her principles.
DeleteIn reading Plato’s Republic, one of his most interesting theories is what an ideal society should look like. He first composes this society early in Book II in his conversation with Glaucon, and it is initially very simplistic. It is only when, prompted by Glaucon, Socrates includes luxuries to the imaginary city, and then hypothesizes that this will lead to war. Additionally, this leads Socrates into the theory that people have “natures,” that dictate the role they should play in society, thereby creating a strictly divided social class system involving producers, guardians, and auxiliaries.
ReplyDeleteWith this development, Plato’s vision of a “utopian” society becomes extremely problematic. In this society, people have no choice, no mobility, and are forced into the role “best suited to their nature,” with no exchange between classes, with Plato believing that “meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it.” Plato further strips the basic human right of choice away from citizens by proposing that the best way to raise children is communally within the society, with people being assigned sexual partners. Plato also rejected democracy at all levels, instead suggesting an aristocratic form of government.
Although such extreme social theories undoubtedly stemmed from his disgust at the corruption of the Athenian government and the execution of his mentor, from whose perspective he writes Republic, but such a society could never work in practice. He strips the common citizen of any choice in their life, and the forcing of people into rigid classes from which there is no mobility is ineffective.
I agree with you when you say that the society that Plato creates, would not be successful. As I read about this, I could not help but disagree with the decision to assign sexual partners and force people into rigid classes based on their profession. I do not feel this creates the "Utopian" society that Plato intends. I understand he is creating a society free of democracy, but I do not see how this is considered the best type of society. I was also surprised when I read about the fate of children and how they are dispersed, so to speak, after being born so others can't tell who they came from. This concept was very odd to me. It was very interesting reading about the lifestyles that Plato wants in his unique vision of a perfect society. It is vastly different then what we are used to today.
DeleteI agree with what you are saying about the image of what he says a city should be like. It has classes simply because people do tend to have different natures. I also agree when you discuss how the ideal image he creates becomes problematic because no one really has a say in anything at all. I think it is strange the idea of assigning people sexual partners and not allowing anyone to know who their child is or who their parents are. I agree that this theory would never work out in reality.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Plato's argument or theory about what an ideal society should consist of to be very interesting. I also found that the sophist argument regarding what justice really is to be very very applicable. Plato believed that the ideal society was a Republic, that was ruled by a Philosopher King. He believed that the ruler should be chosen for their intelligence, not by popular vote. I disagreed with the expulsion of artists and poets from society, due to the fact that they introduce new ideas to the society which in turn destabilizes the society itself. I don't believe it's possible for a society to exist or reach complete stability. In a static environment, a society cannot adapt to changes- whether they be social, economic, political or ecological changes there must be a source of inspiration or ideas that are created in order to adapt. I also found the discussion on familial upbringing and relationships to be very interesting and unrealistic. Why should children be brought up by the members of society?
ReplyDeleteThrough the arguments or discussions between Glaucon, Polermarchus, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, Socrates, and Cephalus Plato examines a few concepts of justice. Is justice telling the truth and repaying your debts? Is it doing good to friends and harm to enemies, or is it the interest or benefit of the stronger? Eventually Plato rejects all of these ideas and states that justice is based on a society's natural division of labor. If everyone does their own designated role and doesn't interfere with others, than that is when justice occurs. The three classes are the producers, soldiers and rulers. All the classes work together in harmony to create a just state.
I think you touch on some very good point here especially in your first paragraph. I think it is crazy to believe that any one human has the ability to create a society that is completely and totally just no matter what is done. I also agree with you on the view of child upbringing to be very different and unrealistic. I don’t know if this is an example of exoticism where I don’t find anything similar about our culture’s upbringing of children to theirs or if I just cannot see the similarities. I find it to be so strange that someone could be so willing to give up a human being that they created just for the possible betterment of their society according to their philosophical leaders. I don’t even think adoption can relate to this, because in this Kallipolis society, every child is viewed as a golden child, silver, or bronze and iron. Everything is shared including the children of the society and I can’t wrap my fingers around it. I also agree with your point that artists and poets shouldn’t be expelled from society. In my opinion, societies need so much variation and different people to bring up different ideas and beliefs.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that Plato’s Republic is thought to be a very intellectual and philosophical text but also challenging. Philosophical in a way that Republic exhibits theories of knowledge, politics, ethics, and education but yet consider challenging in the way that the words are phrased. As a matter of fact, after reading part of the book I can agree that it can be quite challenging, especially if reading for the first time with no background knowledge on Plato.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of the text, when reading the introduction and analyzing the characters, was that Plato wanted to put a definition on justice. Many people come to debate the question but they were immediately refuted by Socrates. In my opinion though, no matter how it is phrase, justice is a component of fairness and laws put together. I do not think that one person can try to define justice because it depends where and when that situation is taking place. For example justice in Turkey may not be justice in the United States. In Plato’s Republic it is conveyed that Socrates was executed because he did not want to partake in the politicians “unholy deeds”. Plato sees this as unjust because he is a fair man and he believes that politics were corrupt. Other than that, the person that influenced him was killed, giving him more motivation to seek for justice.
I also find it interesting that Thrasymachus seems to bring in a new meaning to justice when he proclaims that it is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. When he says this, he is merely saying that being just is not something that should be striven for because in the end the powerful will thrive. For me this takes away from the book argument in trying to establish a coherent definition for justice. His argument just proves that there are many ways that people can interpret justice.
I agree that justice can be interpreted in many ways by many people, but I disagree that presenting different arguments takes away from the texts effectiveness in attempting to seek one true definition. The point of introducing Thracymachus's point of view in my opinion is to give Socrates a reason to better define justice. Thracymachus says justice is the advantage of the stronger, but as the text continues, Socrates refutes this interpretation of justice through several arguments which leads Thracymachus to then ask Socrates to provide his own definition. Plato is presenting counter arguments through the characters speaking to Socrates in order to rule out other possibilities for the true definition of justice so that his points are defensible.
DeleteAlso, on the point of justice existing differently among different societies, I personally think that these societies' definition of justice is exactly what is being called into question by Plato. How other nations have decided to define justice does not rule out the fact that there may be one true definition, whether we agree or disagree with Socrates. Socrates begins a society from scratch in his argument to stop these types of cultural differences from diluting the argument. He then used rational thinking to decide the type of society that would be most just, if it existed, to better understand justice for individuals in that society.
I really like your point about the inability of one person to define justice, as justice could mean many different things to many different people around the world. I find it interesting that, even in Plato's Republic, we still clearly see that there are a variety of ways that people interpret the idea of justice. For example, Cephalus sees justice as living up to legal responsibilities, Polemarchus says that we should do good for our friends and harm our enemies, and Thrasymachus believes that it doesn't pay to be just. People have different values, different views on the world, and different ways of looking at things. It makes sense that the idea of justice would be so heavily contested. It does not necessarily mean that one person or group of people is wrong while another is right, the definition is all relative to one's own personal beliefs. We can read Plato's Republic and still see the idea of justice differently than Socrates, and we would not be wrong in that. We have the right to make our own judgments by taking in the arguments of others and formulating arguments for ourselves.
DeleteIt was interesting to read the thought process behind the creation of a city starting from scratch. I didn't realize that philosophers used the method of Elanchus to thoroughly discuss each question regarding the meaning of justice in a utopian city. However, by the end of Book I, the six Philosophers were no closer to forming a definition of justice than they were at the beginning. However the more Socrates described a Utopian just society the more I disagreed about his ideas, two of them being: censorship and specialized occupations.
ReplyDeleteSocrates emphasized the meaning of literature and the importance of censorship. For example, Poets such as Homer, tells inappropriate stories about gods having immoral behavior, which could harm society and influence children. Therefore in order to have a just city, Socrates emphasis that people are to only use stories that depict good behavior and ban stories that can negatively impact society. In my perspective, censoring any material gives people a false sense of reality, which creates an unjust society.
In addition Socrates utopian society is based on specialized occupations. Each person has an area of expertise and is suited for a certain task. Therefore, the individual is happy since they are suited to do what they can do, but they also have no choice. Specialized jobs create no outlet for people to gain new experiences and chose their own paths. Yet again this is a false premise of society, in order for a society to be stable it must adapt to changes. By enforcing specialized occupations in Socrates utopian society, the just aspects of freewill and liberty are stripped from individuals and create a perversion of justice.
DeleteI agree with your point about censorship, we know from history that any society that enforces censorship to protect the political ideology is acting in a tyrannical way. In my opinion I see this as unjust because of the oppressive nature of censorship. I know Plato later on explains the five different types of societies and places his own at the top of that list. Just by creating a false sense of reality like you said I think this places Plato’s perfect society in danger of failure. An oppressed society is always destine for change. In his later books Plato himself explains how societies fall down the list of societies all the way to the final society Tranny. I feel his society from the start is set up oppressive and therefore will fail, in his own words it is unjust.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeginning “Plato’s Republic” I only knew what we had briefly mentioned in class and what I have heard from other peoples opinions after they read it. I like how the text takes different positions on arguments so we are able to see how someone may have reacted in the situations. The topics are highly controversial and if we, the audience only received one philosopher’s ideas, it wouldn’t raise as many questions.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting in Book 2 when Socrates mentions that the topic of justice and injustice is not an easy one to understand and since they are not “clever” people” he compares it to reading small letters from a distance away. “…method of investigation that we’d use if, lacking keen eyesight…” Being able to read larger letters up close would make reading the smaller letters at distance obviously much easier. He then compares it to that of a city. That it would be easier to understand the justice of a city first because it is much larger then trying to define what justice is for one man.
I may not have described it perfectly in my quote from the text, it is on page 43, paragraph d if you want to read it in more detail. I thought it was interesting how he made a case for looking at the larger group of people and defining justice that way instead of defining justice for one man first. Many people would say that justice would be easier to define for one person then it would be for an entire city. The way he presented the scenario, it made more sense for me, to examine the idea of a larger group instead.
I like that you mentioned Plato's analogy of the eye chart and the smaller letter versus the larger ones. I really liked his train of thought when using this. It would work with almost anything... If you step back and look at the bigger picture, the smaller details will all become much more clear in the end. It just works out that way. I've recognized this a lot in my recent years with various situations. It's helpful to take a step back once in a while and realize the greater idea and go from there.
Delete