Plato 's Republic : The Nature Of A Just Individual And The Just City

Plato’s idea of civic justice displays a criteria for specialization that holds each individual responsible for producing their own rendition of excellence that leads to a just life, which produces a just city, and ultimately civic justice. Plato describes civic justice as “…doing one’s own work provided that it comes to be in a certain way” (433b-pg.108).

What is the purpose of the city-soul analogy and does it help us understand the nature of justice?

At the beginning of Book I, we are introduced to the narrator, Socrates, and his audience of peers. We are made aware, however, of Socrates' special charm and intellectual gifts through the insistence of Polemarchus and the other men for the pleasure of his company. The tone is casual and language and modes of expression rather simple, as is commonly the case in Plato's dialogues. However, Plato's unaffected style serves at least two purposes. For one it belies the complexity and elevation of the ideas, thus it is in accord with Socrates' characteristic irony itself, which draws the "fool" in by feigned ignorance, only so that the master can show that he does not know what he thinks he knows. And second,

Beginning in Book I Socrates states clearly that injustice causes war and justice causes the opposite, but by Book V he seems to have a completely different perspective on whether war is just or not. His mind apparently begins to change in Book II when he introduces the second class of people, namely the guardians, with the purpose of defending the city. Throughout Books II, IV and V Socrates discusses the topic of war in light of justice and finally concludes that war is the outworking of the perfectly just city.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

A person’s courage is contained within his spirited element, as a city’s courage was contained within its auxiliaries. A person’s wisdom is contained within the reason that rules over him, as the philosopher king’s ruled over Plato’s city. Temperance was found in the agreement to allow the rationally calculating element to rule over the soul, as the craftsmen and auxiliaries allowed the philosopher kings to rule over them (Plato 145, 442c-d). Justice is each element working in harmony with the rest, never overstepping their bounds, as within the city it was doing one’s own work and not meddling with others. Plato has now shown that each element from the city is also found within the individual in the same context, proving he has found the form of justice.

Since the proper order of the city has now been established, it is time to turn inward to one’s soul to determine where justice and injustice might lie, and what the difference is between the two. Plato believes, “if an individual has these same three parts in his soul, we will expect him to be correctly called by the same names as the city if he has the same conditions in them” (Cahn 148). Now that Plato has found the four virtues within the larger environment of the city, he now wants to investigate their relationship to the smaller environment of the soul.

“the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to

The idealistic views of Socrates cannot be clearer than what they are on the most famous of Plato’s books, the Republic. The Republic is said to be the most influential book in western history after the Bible and has four themes to it: Justice

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.

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

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid