read the whole Book II and the allegory of cave in Book VII
text available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Journals due on February 23
guidance questions:
1. Glaukon mentioned three kinds of good, to which does justice belong?
2. Which problem did Adeimantos find in poems and religion? What does he want Socrates to prove?
3. What's the requirement of guardians in the proposed city?
Ruby Rios
ReplyDelete2-19-11
1. According to Glaukon, there are three classes of good. In the first class there are the goods that are harmless, they're simply enjoyments without outcomes. In the second class, there are the goods of: knowledge, sight and health. Those are desired for their aftereffects. In the third class there's gymnastics, care of the sick, physicians' art and the multiple ways of money making. Those are said to do good but are disagreeable; they're chosen for reward.
Socrates places justice in the highest class where those who are content choose them for their own well being and it's results. Glaukon proceeds with saying that the masses claim that justice belongs to a troublesome class. Along with goods that are pursued for the sake of prize and aftereffects that derive from them.
Glaukon now presents the roots of justice. He says that justice is, by nature, claimed to be good. While, suffering injustice is evil and evil is much more dominant than good. Since man has endured both and find they cannot obtain one without undergoing the other they much rather avoid it all. That's where laws derive from. Justice is stuck between doing injustice and going unpunished and to suffer injustice without the strength of retribution, no man would give in to such a thing if they were capable or resistance.
Giving both thought, you can see how Socrates would believe so and you can also side with the masses. Justice is a tricky virtue. Some may attempt to bring justice just because they're seeking a prize, while others may attempt to do justice just for the well being of others as well as them. I don't really think justice can be placed into a class unless it's a class of its own. Justice isn't a black and white area, it's grey, just like science, religion, spirituality and etc. There's more than one way justice and injustice can be used, with that being said I believe it can't be placed into any of the three classes that were stated.
Preston Charles
ReplyDeleteFebruary 19th, 2011
Adeimantos, Glaukon Brother, presents the idea that justice is only praised for its benefits justice reiterate for this life and the next by religion and by poets. For example, “honesty is the best policy” or Celaphus’s definition of justice such as repaying ones debts to please the gods. Adeimantos believe that a real man shouldn’t fear the consequences of injustice but rather prefers people should figure out how to obtain self-guardianship; each should be their own guard. This is the challenge Adeimantos present to Socrates how should he develop the qualities of self-guardianship and self control? In response to both the brothers request Socrates created a city in speech. Throughout the story I once again disagree with Socrates method to answer the questions presented to him. The retelling of the story of Gyges by Glaukon particularly made it complicated for Socrates to answer In which he went on to creating his own city to persuade them.
Bianca Gayle
ReplyDeleteGlaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: first, Things that we desire only for their consequences, such as harmless pleasures and enjoyments. Secondly, things we desire both for their own sake and for what we get from them, such as knowledge, sight, and health. Thirdly, a class, such as gymnastic, and the care of the sick, and the physician's art; also the various ways of money-making --these do us good but we regard them as disagreeable; and no one would choose them for their own sakes, but only for the sake of some reward or result which flows from them. Justice is not only desirable, but it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their own sake and their consequences.
Glaucon points out that most people class justice among the first group. They view justice as a necessary evil, which we allow ourselves to suffer in order to avoid the greater evil. Justice stems from human weakness and vulnerability. “Justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice.”
Glaucon brother Adeimantus claims that, no one praises justice for its own sake, but only for the rewards it allows you to reap in both this life and the afterlife. Socrates in a sense, has to prove justice’s worth.
Glaucon continues in the argument that Thrasymachus left off because he feel that Socrates has not "persuaded" him into believing that it is better to be just than unjust.The three classes which he offers only make Socrates regard justice in the highest class "among goods which he who would be happy desires both for their own sake and the sake of their results." Glaucons believes that the behavior of men argues otherwise because all men who practice justice are doing it out of neccesity and against their own will. He agrees with Thrasymachus that the "life of the unjust is far better than that of the just." There seems to be an agreement with those who argue with Socrates about whether it is better to be just or unjust that it has to do with personal gain. In order to have the so-called good things in life one must either wholeheartedley be unjust or fake being just in order to attain a fruitful and honored life. Socrates argues that it is human nature in which we attempt to go in with just actions. He believes that people begin with sound minds but through laws and learning of our elders we seem to taint what originally was our true goals. Therefore Socrates believed that justice would be readily acheived if we took a societal approach and not an individual one because the latter would definitely gain from the former. I hoped that Socrates would have convinced me more as he had done in our other readings. I was left a little apprehensive about his approach in arguing with justice. I think that God is the most valid way to go about expressing "justice" but what of those that are atheist, and those that don't believe in an after life?
ReplyDeleteERIK ROBLES
ReplyDeleteGlaukon states that there are three kinds of good.
First one being, something we desire for its own sake without wanting its consequences. Second kind is something we desire both for its own sake and its consequences. Lastly there is the type of good which isn't done for its own sake but rather for its consequences. He give an example of gymnastics or exercise which is something we don't enjoy doing or going through but we do it for its consequence or its outcome, to be more fit and healthy. He then asks Socrates which is the correct type of good. Socrates answers that the highest class is good the one that is both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaukon answers that this isn't the normal view of justice but that justice is seemed for only its consequences and not for its own sake. In other word we don't really want to be just we just want to have a reputation of being just because being just is hard. Glaukon finds that in poems and in religion people pretend to be just for the consequences not because its for its own sake. that a person can do unjust yet pray and not be punished for it. That if a person had the ability to do unjust with out having the threat of being punished it is in ones nature to do it for this he gives the example of the ring that can turn someone invisible. So the challenge towards Socrates is to show why justice should be something we would want for its own sake and not just for its consequences. That can justice be right for its own self? is justice something humans should follow and live by? Socrates answers that to see this a much larger picture should be viewed before seeing the smaller. The larger one being justice in a state then justice in an individual. Socrates aims to build a city as just as possible then try to distinguish the just form the unjust then trace back to the beginning and see who has a happier life the just or the unjust. In building this city Socrates shows that a guardian of the city should have philosopher traits. Which is loving and hating not because someone does something towards him but by the nature and loving of who determines what he likes or dislikes by test of knowledge or ignorance. Because philosophy is the love of learning wisdom rather then being a guardian who has a fearless spirit that can turn him into a savage.
Glaukon states that there are three classes of good. The first being harmless;simply enjoying the goodness of good without thinking of the consequences(positive or negative). The second is of knowledge, sight, and health. Unlike the first the second looks for the aftereffects. Lastly the third good is that which makes money. That good is chosen mainly for the reward.
ReplyDeleteGlaukon feels justice is with first good since no one praises justice for itself but rather its outcomes, its rewards. It is desired not for itself but for its reward.
Sheena Lambert
ReplyDeleteGlaukon and Socrates discussed the three classes of good and in which one justice should be placed. The third class which is the highest class consisted of goods such as Gymnastics, care of the sick e.g doctor or nurse, physicians art, and various ways of making money. One does these things not just for doing good or the "right" thing but to receive the reward which follows them. The second class in which Knowledge, Sight, Health and things that are desirable not only for themselves but by what one can obtain from them. Knowledge is desired by individuals because one doesnot want to be ignorant and also because one can use this knowledge into be independent in their daily lives. In this class justice can be placed because like knowledge, justice is desired not only because one wants to be a just person but because this can help them determine right fro wrong and good or bad in other's actions or their own actions. The first class is the class of harmless pleasure or enjoyments which have no consequence. The outcome of these actions does not affect the "good".
Glaukon points out that justice is only praised for its rewards and not the actual act of doing good. Therefore most people have no choice to be just because of the reward they can receive. If it was up to most people they would choose to be unjust. The concept of "justice" is biased and one-sided because a person should be just not for a reward but simply for self-satisfaction.
Glaucon talks about the good things that could go their way. There are 3 main kinds of goods that he stated. The first good is the emotion of joy which he explained that it is when the good comes along itself which is harmless. The second kind of good is related to knowledge and health, looking healthy and being healthy, this type of good can be for the long run because of the effect it may bring. The third good goes towards beneficial results such as gymnastics, medicine, care of the sick, etc. Socrates stated that the second good fits justice the most and Glaucon argued that most people thinks that justice would fit most to the third type of good. To find out which group of good justice belongs in, Glaucon tries to find out what is justice and injustice and the power of each.
ReplyDeleteSocrates places justice in the highest of all goods, I think, because it has to work for the good and benefit of all, not just the good of the "strongest" or any other type of group. Adeimantos claims that poets and religion all have their own views of God and perception of how the ultimate is fulfilled. Socrates then argues that if God is ultimately perfect, there cannot be different versions(or religions) because if something that is perfect is ever changed, it can only change from being at the highest peak of perfection to something lower or in some cases worse. Poets in that time wrote stories of quarrels between Gods that existed within their writings that were confusing and led people to think that there could be disagreements betweens Gods.
ReplyDeleteSocrates goes on to create the "typical" society with all of it's needs and desires, and of course all of the means with which to obtain these necessities and desires. A guardian becomes a necessity in order to keep people safe in case of the inevitable war that will come with the fruitful success of this society. Socrates compares the skills and qualifications that should be held by a guardian to that of a dog. A dog usually wants to know who and what to trust and approaches the person or thing accordingly to whether it likes it or not. The guardian must learn what determines what he likes or doesn't like in order to know with whom he will fight and with whom he will not. Socrates claims that this necessity to learn in order to master his art, which is the art of war, can be philosophical in the way that philosophy bases itself on the love of learning or the love of wisdom. A quote from this book that reflects this argument is one in which Socrates asks Glaucon, "Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the State will require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength?" To which Glaucon agrees. Although these are some of the most important qualities that need to be in the guardian's possession, war is also an art, as much as medicine or carpentry, and requires training and education on how the tools of the art are used and handled.
Jennifer Bacigalupo
ReplyDeleteJustice is what is right, and what is right is the truth. We yearn for the truth, therefore we yearn for what is right and just. Whether justice is embedded in our souls, apart of ourselves from the moment we enter this world, learnt from stories and poetry, trained in us from the results of our raisings whether parents or teachers, the laws of the state or the laws of morality, or its something we must consider in absorbing from our loyal companions (our dogs), it all comes down to individuality. Whether we are shielded in our youth from all things unjust, or faced with them to help benefit our future in some way, we all obtain our own judgment on what is right or wrong, just or unjust, good or bad. A lot of it relies on our life instructions from school and family, and much of our environment and social surroundings results in our just or unjust actions throughout our entire lives. After reading and reading The Republic Book 2, and after re-reading and re-reading and examining The Republic Book 2, I cannot fathom the sense of all these questions without any plausible answer. Do we find out the True answers when we die in our afterlife? Are we waiting for one God or many gods to ascend down and speak the truth? I guess so? And if they know that, than why discuss and continue to argue when they are sure whether agree or disagree, these answers will never be proven, only assumed. So far from reading Plato, I find many consistent traits about Socrates and his search for the divine truth, and also the fact that no matter how much I think he is mad and so eccentric, he always gets me on his side by the end of the reading.
What is Glaucon's purpose for bringing up the story of Gyges and the magic ring? Is it to satisfy his own belief that no one in his right mind would neglect taking advantage of the opportunity? This I believe to be the most ridiculous of examples in that reality does not allow for magical rings. He has no way of proving whether a just man would selfishly take advantage of such an opportunity. Perhaps a just man would not steal from the dead. In contrast Socrates building of the city does explain how in the larger scale of things one might discover who the truly just man is and whether or not he has found happiness through his just life. Do we have to be exposed to injustice in order to find the justice? Will this truth ever be found? Or does the just life lie in the never ending search for it? In trying to do what is Godly which is what humans consider the most just we might get closer to the divine truth and ultimate happiness.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon states that injustice is more profitable than justice. At first Glaucon wanted to know what justice and injustice are and how each of them carries the powers in the soul. Glaucon gives the view of the beginning of justice and where it came from. Then he said people only practiced being “just” because it was required and not really a good. People are in order and follow the laws because they do not want to be on the receiving end of justice. I thought of this because Glaucon said, “those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest”. After Glaucon gives the story of Gyges’ and the ring, it proves that if anyone had a chance to be unjust they would because there is no fear in the consequences of punishment.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon mentions three kinds of good. The first good is the feeling of joy; this type is benign . The second kind of good is parallel to knowledge and health, i.e taking care of yourself; this is good because you better yourself in the end. The third kind of good produces useful results, i.e gymnastics, medicine; taking care of the sick . Glaucon says that the third type of good is closer to justice but at the same time Socrates says that the second kind of good suits justice better . Glaucon deciphers what justice is exactly , i.e just behavior or treatment so that he can figure out what kind of good justice belongs to . Frankly I don't think justice and good are even closely related. unfortunately .
ReplyDeleteGlaukon mentioned three kind of good. The first kind of good is the one that is welcomed to someone own sake. The second good is knowledge, sight, health which he adds that is not only desirable by itself, but for the result it can bring. The third class of good is the gymnastic and the care of the sick. He also adds that we might not count the third good as good or give it enough recognition, but it’s the most important not only because the physician who is the art is getting something in return, but he giving something as well. The problem that Adeimantos finds in poems and religion is that poets tend to write things about god that can and cannot be true. He doesn’t like that poet’s write things that leave people believing what he wrote are true. Adeimantos wants poets to write truth and nothing but the truth. He wants them to make sure that when they write something that they have proof of it so that the people can believe what their reading without having to question if these are or were the actions of god. The requirement of guardian in the proposed city is to teach the children what’s right from wrong. The guardians are around to tell kids things from young so that they can grow up believing these things. He believes that when you start telling kids things from a young age, they grow up believing things without later questioning if the truth was told to them.
ReplyDeleteShaunelle Hall
ReplyDeleteFebruary 22, 2011
In my opinion no matter how much we try to twice and turn the definition of justice, in the end justice is what is right, what is the truth and injustice and what is wrong are its opposites. In Plato's Republic (Book II) Socrates and Glaucon debated on what are the three classes of good and which of the three justice could be placed in. Glaucon states that there are three types of goods and they are: The first classes being goods that are for pleasure. They are wanted not for long term but for They serve no purpose after the enjoyment is over. The second class of goods are things such as knowledge, sight, and health. Things of this nature are not only desired not just for their immediate use but more for whats rewarded by them, the result that comes from them. last but not least you have the third class, this classis explained and described to be things that bring us benefits but even then we think of them as something that is unpleasant or offensive. Things such as the care of of the sick, and the skills that in turn are rewarded by gaining money. Out of the three classes one in particular plays a roll that sets it apart from the other two. In the highest class is where goods are not only wanted for one's own desires but also for its results. In this class is where you would find justice because Adeimantos, the brother of Glaucon stated that justice is looked at as good because of its benefits it offers.
Martha De Los santos
ReplyDeleteTo begin with this post, from book 1 to this one now i have concluded that is better to be unjust to a certain point, than to be just. when doing justice you might help the person, but you might hurt them as well. the happiness of one can be the misery of another; therefor being unjust would make you neutral even though it is still great evil. i believe that because justice doesn't falls on you by the law of power and judgement, it would get to you by the law of god and karma. if your conscience is clean then you are free of evil, if not then justice will fall on you in misery health and sorrow as you walk the path of life.
Glaukon mentioned three kind of good, and justice falls into the highest one which is; harmless pleasures and enjoyments that has no consequences. in this case if the pleasure and enjoyment is not evil then i do believe that it was put on the right class. pleasures and enjoyments can be something personal but when it turns evil and wrongful then justice is in the wrong class.
so far socrates hasn't pleased no one with his answer to what justice really is to him; is like i mentioned in the last post, socrates seems to answer his questions from information he has gathered from others answers and turn it into his own. therefor when he answers is as if they had already known what he had said.
Ademaitus says that "the gods apportion calamity and misery to good men and happiness to the wicked" when it comes to this i think that many do the wrong to live the good life, it is not that god doesn't want those who do good to not have anything. i guess the fact is that those who have a lot and are wicked and have happiness end up doing the wrong. while those that are good have virtue and courage to keep on living life and fighting for it, those are the basics of true happiness.
Ana Garcia
ReplyDeleteAccording to Glaucon there are three types of goods. The first which is for enjoyment and comes in a harmless manner. The second good is more for yourself. It is to look and be healthy in both knowledge and in health. The third good is for useful results. Such as gymnastics medicine and caring for the sick. In Glaucons interpretation he found that the third good is the one more closest to justice. Yet Socrates found the second to be closer to justice. If I had to choose I would agree with Socrates. Justice to us is what we claim to be fair. What we find will benefit us in the end.
Glaukon mentioned three kinds of good, the type of goods that we desire for their own sake. which we get pleasure and enjoy from them as they are although nothing will come out of it at the end no further result. second kind is goods that we desire not only for the good and the value of it but also for the good that will come out of it, for the result that it will cause. than the third king is goods that we desire only for their result that we less desire the way we have to go trough to get the result. and most of times the result us causing good and pleasure to others. in the first kind we desire the most it is simple and no effort is needed. the third kind is the one we desire the less, all the effort we do causing good for others. but the second kind is the one that we desire for it own sake but also for its reward. this is where justice belongs. Adeimantos wants Socrates to prove not only that justice is better that unjust but also that it is rewarding life and also to show what does make one person be good and the others evil. justice in its idea is beautiful but when it comes to real life not as in poems when everything is ideal, the good just man has harder life than the unjust.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon argues that there are 3 types of good and all the three goods are in their own way useful for different reasons. the first good is for the sake of what one is doing, but without regard to its consequence. this type of good is selfish and does no good to society. It is without positive consequences, and by nature of not having positive consequences, one could say that it is unjust to waste ones time producing nothing good as a result, instead of using that same amount of time to produce a positive and good result. that can be an opportunity cost, i believe. So the first type of good is unjust. the second is only concerned with the consequence and results from that activity, but not with its process of getting to this consequence. this means that the method of getting to this consequence can be ignored and brushed off ones shoulder, whatever the process may be, negative or harmful or selfish. this is also unjust. the third type of good is the type that is good and positive in its results and consequences and also good for the sake of being good to do. one apparent example of this is gaining knowledge or health. Socrates again confronted with people further denying that justice is the most useful and natural state of people. again, we hear that injustice may be just as good or better than justice. Also, Why is it that all these people can argue that injustice is better than justice? Is justice only an idea that can be categorized into one of the three goods? is it for its consequence? if it is, they argue, it is defined by society to mitiigate their fears of harm being done to them. is justice defined by society?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Glaucon the three types of good can be broken down into three classes. One in which is a good that we desire only for its beneficial reasons like the examples given above, physical health, we eat and exercise not because some of us want to but because the outcome is that of a great benefit. The second class of good is one in which we desire things because of its own sake, because we want to. Again, like joy or happiness, we exhibit these characteristics because it gives us physical pleasure in turn we help to give other people which are beneficial in the general sense. and the Highest class of good Glaucon stated was a good in which we desire both for its outcome and own being like knowledge and health , both giving off a series of wealth ,because we both desire it for its consequences and because we find interest and intrigue in both things alike. And being that the highest of them services more purpose it is also the one with more just in it. Because being that the first one is done almost out of fear in our self it holds more of a weakness according to him and it’s done out of vulnerability. And the second one which we desire because of our natural attraction is almost more or less of an individual aspect .leaving the third to hold more just because it’s done for both out of desire for it and because of the outcome it withholds
ReplyDeleteIdavil Almachi
ReplyDeleteGlaukon is telling Socrates that the there are three different classes of good, the first being of harmless pleasures and enjoyments, the second of knowledge and health which people want for their sake and also for the results, and the third class being one in which the goods would be only for the results and not for one’s own sake, like the various ways of money-making. According to Socrates, justice would belong in the highest class because in his opinion justice should be desirable for one’s own sake and for its results, but Glaukon disagrees, saying that it belongs in the third class where the good is desired only by those seeking rewards and recognition but not for their own sake. He also says that the goods in this third class are disagreeable and most of the time rather be avoided. Glaukon stated that men who practice justice do it only for its rewards and that if a man has the ability to be unjust and get away with it, he would be unjust.
Joseph Hamm
ReplyDeleteThe problem Adeimantos finds with religion and poetry is that they tell malevolent lies. He claims that they do not represent the true nature of the gods, and also that they contradict the notion that the gods are good, and therefore can be responsible for creating only good things. In the some common myths and legends, the gods are attributed with some rather nasty and un-godlike behavior. Castrating fathers, beating wives and devouring children are among some of the day to day activities of the 'great gods'. As well, in the modern religions, one can find without looking to hard, a plethora of un-Godlike behavior. In the 'holy' bible, one can find complete contradictions such as turn the other cheek, and an eye for and eye, resting side by side. .
The problem, Adeimantos states, is that religion, or myth is presented to children at a young age, when they are very impressionable. The morals and conduct acted out before them will serve as models for the way they live their adult lives. He continues that it does no good to teach children that "even in the most outrageous crimes there is nothing outrageous." He continues that it should not be permitted to say that the gods quarrel amongst themselves, because this promotes the quarreling among men. He states that while this is not the specific purpose of these tales, it is nonetheless a byproduct of their being told to people at such a young, impressionable age. Adeimantos claims that if we want a city free a quarrels, we should tell tales of gods that never quarreled, and that never would.
This leads them to decide that a standard for poets and weavers of myth should be that the gods are always portrayed exactly as they are, which is good. They are good, therefore they can create no evil. But this leads to a problem, as people will surely admit there is evil in the world. But saying that gods cannot create evil means that gods are not responsible for the creation of the entire world, which is widely believed by all religious people. So myths and religions seem to disprove their own dogmas, while teaching some rather unscrupulous behaviors.