The Virtues of the Populace: Cicero Marcus Tullius Essay

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

After justifying Caelius’ morally dubious behavior, Cicero highlights the more favourable traits of Caelius particularly his gift in oratory bringing up the times that Cicero himself was bested by him. He explicitly showcases the devotion and hard work that Caelius has done to achieve his steadily growing career as an orator in the courts and also as a politician (47). It should be noted that in the preoration Cicero does acknowledge Caelius flaws and faults saying that he “did briefly become a cropper” despite all the years devoted to training (75). By admitting these faults – the association with Catiline and the fairly extravagant life he lived - Cicero is bringing in an impression of frankness and responsibility on Caelius’ part. Ultimately

Cicero thinks that the happiest condition for a wise man to be in is when he or she makes a decision and sticks by it no matter the circumstance (Discussions at Tusculum 95). Cicero also says that an “insignificant, obscur[e], or unpopular” lifestyle will not prevent the wise man from being happy and pursuing the good life (Discussions at Tusculum 106). In Cicero’s version of the good life, men and women stick to their beliefs no matter what trials or torture they occur, and he believes that being morally good is the path to follow in order to live the good life.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

When Cicero writes about the reasons for why people have duties towards the public sphere he believes that the individual is part of the community. He contributes it all the to belief of Stoicism. Aristotelian is another close source in which we can speak about duties, but Cicero’s true belief was that virtues is key to duty. Stoicism is the school of thought that holds the belief that the only way we can make sense of our own existence is by devoting ourselves to virtues. People who follow this pathway believe that the majority things of daily life are stuff we can’t control, but yet we can contribute our life to society in a better way. Honor is another reason why individuals choose certain choices that lead you to be seen as a noble person in your society. The wide picture is seen towards how the community sees the individuals actions according to the standards in which have been placed. It doesn't seem like an individual would ever perform a duty if honor wasn't the reward. An individual who doesn’t care for much pleasure would mostly likely seek out honor in the public sphere. In conclusion Cicero comes up with the belief that the main stance on duty should always be honor, because honor is the only

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 Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

Knowledge and understanding of the very most basic human values is of basic importance to any human in the world, to make truly responsible decisions, and to give a responsible direction to one's life; and also to give a truly responsible direction to the development of one's children. Anybody in politics who is not aware of the most basic human values is unable to make responsible decisions, justice and to give direction to economic, social, or environmental development of his or her country. This Assignment will focus on the concept of justice as a moral value belonging to category of “goodness” by using one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice and also distinguish between

He tells us why we must not live only for our own advantage; because it is against our nature as humans to do so, because without the basis of this human characteristics, the whole human society would fall apart. The qualities we value most in our fellow human beings are the most natural to us because they were endowed to us from the gods so that the race of human beings and the human society could go on existing. We can know this from his words; "People who argue like this subvert the whole basis of humans community itself - and when that is gone, kind actions, generosity, goodness, and justice are annihilated. And their annihilation is a sin against the immortal gods. For it was they who established the society which such men are undermining." Cicero's belief in the natural goodness of the human race was stead-fast because he believed that it was endowed to us from the gods.