Glaucon

definition for justice. He has many deputes with the people that is listening to him and it seems as if justice does not have a clear definition. However, Socrates seems to finally have a concrete definition of justice in book IV with the help of Glaucon who servers as a liaison for this argument. Socrates has to deconstruct the way our minds work in order to find a definition his listeners could agree on. He first divided the city into three parts producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. He later compares

are focused on the topic of justice. Socrates begins a long discussion, where he argues that justice is profitable regardless of its benefits and the reputation that comes with being just. His interlocutors, however, are initially not convinced. Glaucon begins by explaining that there are three classes of good things: things that people want simply for their own sake, such as joy (357b), things that people want both for their own sake and for the accompanying benefits, such as health (357c), and

After Socrates finishes his argument with Thrasymacus, a man named Glaucon refuses to accept Thrasymacus’ abandonment of the argument. Glaucon gives a great argument that involves the origins of justice and discusses why, according to most people, it is better to be unjust and give off the appearance of being just. Glaucon supports his argument of being unjust with the story of Gyges’ ring. At the beginning of the argument Glaucon classifies 3 different goods. He states, “there is a kind of good

Plato's Republic In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is

the arrogant Thrasymachus’s argument, which is that justice is enforced by the governing power because they have the power over the weaker parties, so much as he storms off in embarrassment, Adeimantus and Glaucon take the point of view in favor of being unjust with various arguments. Glaucon argues being just is a contract between people and without the monitoring of society, it would be idiotic for a man to act in a rightful manner, instead of reaping the rewards from being unjust. Adeimantus adds

beginning of book II, Glaucon does not agree with Socrates and almost taunts him saying “do you want to seem to have persuaded us or truly persuade us that in every way it’s better to be just than unjust” (p. 66). Of course, Socrates says truly. Because of his response, Glaucon basically challenges him and states that he is not going to accomplish that. Socrates tries to explain justice within the city then

Glaucon seems to need more convincing on how being just is better than being unjust. Glaucon goes into a longwinded argument about how laws were influenced by fear and motivated by selfish ends. I thought it got really interesting when Glaucon used the argument about two men given rings. One of the men is just, and the other is unjust. He believed that both men would act

Republic, through 449a. Then consider whether Plato 's Socrates in The Apology would answer in a way that was any different, in substance or in tone. Your own opinion is worth a page of so, but focus on the argument of Plato 's Socrates. When Glaucon attempts to argue that no difference exists between the just and unjust man, he tells the tale of the Ring of Gyges. In this paper, I will analyze the implications possessing a magic ring like the Ring of Gyges and will outline Socrates’ response

1. A. Question one asks to identify the different interlocutors’ arguments involved in Book One of Plato’s Republic. The interlocutors, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus all attempt to answer the question regarding what is just. Cephalus and Socrates first discuss old age, and wealth. The conversation soon switches to a discussion about what is just. Cephalus is the first to offer his definition of what is just. His definition can be summarized as being: justice is and means to live up to your

interest is always wanting to attempt to be just instead of unjust. These stories “The Allegory of The Cave,” The Ring of Gyges,” and “The Divided Line” will allow us to see if Socrates is able to defend justice successfully or not. Throughout book II Glaucon attempts to prove to Socrates that people are only