Just City Socrates

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who stood for knowledge and virtue. He believed that in order for people to live their best lives, it is necessary for them to do what is right. “It is wicked and shameful to do wrong, to disobey ones superior, be he god or man (Cooper, 29b).” Socrates represents self-knowledge which is evident through his quest for finding someone who was wiser than he was. After his run ins with the likes of the local politicians, craftsmen and poets, Socrates comes to the realization that although these individuals had mastered their craft and were knowledgeable in their field of work, they were clueless in many other important aspects of life. Through this awareness, he accepts the fact that

Socrates believes that he is an individual who had the potential to accomplish extraordinary feats due to his unique set of traits. He claims, “If they were of any use, Crito, the many would be able to do the greatest evils, and so they would also be able to do the greatest goods, and that would be fine. But as it is they can do neither, since they cannot make a man either wise or foolish” (Crito, 44d). Only certain people have the capacity to complete enormous feats, and those people are not average citizens of the state. Instead, they must have qualities that set them apart from the rest of the population. Furthermore, “it is reputed at least that Socrates is distinguished from the many human beings in some way” (The Apology, 34e).

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

To be begin with, an individual cannot be good until they have attained the virtue of wisdom, and the same can be said for the city. For the individual, the person must not only be wise himself, but his soul must have wisdom. The only way to achieve this according to Socrates, is through for philosophy. In this way it is the same for the city, for in the city, wisdom lies with the guardians as they are the philosophers. The guardians are put in charge of the city because of their knowledge of how the city should be run. Because of this, the Guardians wisdom becomes the City’s. (Book IV)

Although Socrates encourages questioning authority, he focuses on achieving morality and justice. He believes that

In Book II-IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates* creates an ideal polis, and in doing so, will find justice in the soul. The two foundational principles of the city that Socrates creates, The City of Pigs** as Glaucon calls it, that eventually grows into the ideal city are self-sufficiency and one person-one art, referred to today as specialization. Due to the fact that individual people are not self-sufficient*, that is they are not able to survive on their own without the help of other people, the citizens of the city must take up a profession and utilize trade. Socrates believes in one person-one art*, the idea that each individual should only practice the craft that they are most naturally suited to do. Socrates considers war to be its own

In the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

In the discussion between Socrates and Glaucon that involved how to create an ideal city, they divided the people into three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen. In this city each class has a certain role. The rulers are the highest of rank in the city. They are older, wise men who govern the state and make decisions in the best interest of the

In Plato’s Republic a person duty is determined by their natural ability. Unlike Thomas Mores Utopia, Socrates believes that a person should focus on achieving the most for themselves rather than the community being primary purpose. Plato’s Republic greatly supports the idea of inequality, and shows that social stratification is essential for the movement of the economy. For a country to function, there must be some sort of hierarchy and inequality. In page 118 of the republic Socrates states that he “leaves it to each class to achieve the kind of happiness that nature confers it”(pg. 18). Citizens in each class must work hard to prosper in theirs own class. People in the Republic must have the mentality of working hard for themselves. What they don’t realize is the domino effect that is triggered. As they work more, the classes above them are also greatly impacted because they are able to benefit. Social Stratification is valued in Socrates to a certain extend. Socrates mentions the importance of each member in each class to be apart of neither wealth nor poverty. In Plato’s republic, the importance of not being rich and not being poor is greatly expressed. Socrates gives Adeimantus the example of the craftsman.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates reasons that the embodied human soul is a tripartite plurality consisting of a rational part, an appetitive part, and a spirited part. An individual, or a society, thrives when these three parts strike a balance. In a just and perfect society, people from each of the three groups must maintain a delicate position compromised of control and influence relative to the other groups. An important feature of Socrates’ ideal city is its lack of intersectionality. Each person in the various classes must complete their specific job requirements, without meddling in outside affairs, in order to maximize the city’s efficiency. The ideal city is made up of the craftsperson, the auxiliary and the guardian ruler classes. The three classes directly parallel the three parts of the soul. The craftsperson represents the appetitive part of the soul, while the auxiliaries parallel the spirited soul and lastly, the guardian rulers embody the rational soul.

In book VI of The Republic, Plato uses Socrates as his mouthpiece to reveal the ideal city. Plato points out that the idea city is based on the foundations of three basic forms. Consequently, these three forms are manifested in the individuals that make up the city. The functioning of the city will thus depend on the analogy of the structures within the city and within the souls of the people. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the argument by Socrates with respect to the three forms in the city and in the soul. Additionally, the paper seeks to analyze the rationale behind Socrates’ comparison and subsequent establishment of analogy between the forms in the city and the forms in the city in the context of justice. The paper also

Plato and Aristotle’s views on the nature of a human being and the city are fundamental blocks of forming the best political regime. The ideal city of Plato stands upon the four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The concept of justice embodies the understanding that only when citizens are fulfilling their obligated roles while not interfering with others can a city achieve harmony. For this purpose, farmers, artisans, and shepherds will do what’s expected of them per their expertise while the Guardians, a special class, is fit to rule the state. So his view that since every individual has a different yet pertinent role in the city and as most men are only