Read book I,
text available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Journals due on Feb. 14.
Guidance questions:
1. Can justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies?
2. Does justice mean the advantage of stronger?
3. Is injustice more useful than justice?
Jennifer Bacigalupo
ReplyDeleteIs the just man happy or unhappy? Well lets look at what makes him just to begin with. Is he just only because he is not unjust, or does he do something extra that makes him just? Every person cannot be equally just in every way possible, so that means that some are more just than others. If this is the case, than those that are mostly just and not completely just, does that furthermore consider them as unjust? And same vice versa- that if there is two unjust people, and one serves to be more unjust than the other, then does that make him or her just? Just or unjust is like observing the black and white, right and wrong, or night and day. What about the median? Every person has that middle point. Our actions are our choice, and we are not perfect in our actions because we are not a god. Does it matter how often we are wrong in our doings as opposed to right, that would put us on more of an unjust scale as opposed to just?
Now about happiness..what is happiness anyway? Happiness is not reliable and never consistent. Is happiness satisfaction with life? If so, then thats a rollercoaster in its own. Possibly, by being a just person, that can bring temporary happiness. Happiness is never here to stay. Especially since we are not consistently just, than how can that possibly lead to a constant happy life? What also must be taken into consideration, is that some people which whom are considered unjust (and in some cases lacking a super-ego), recieve mental pleasure from their unjust actions. It definitly takes a certain type of person in order to recieve pleasure from their unjust actions..there is no argument there..but thats is not the issue--because maybe that is whats truly making them happy. Maybe we choose to be just or unjust in order to seek happiness and/or satisfaction from our lives. So now I raise the question, is being just or unjust, selfless or selfish?
After reading "The Republic,"by Plato (Book I), I have to say that ultimately the "just" person is the one to benefit more out of making decisions that benefit others and not solely for himself. Although Thrasymachus tried his best to prove that the greed and eagerness of the unjust provides them a better life,riches,and power, Socrates proved that those characteristics can backfire when dealing with those that are equally unjust.The person who tries his best to live his life by what is considered to be just feels contentment even in the end of his life. For in old age is when we consider our actions and what price we shall pay for them. To live your life only to benefit yourself and satisfy your own needs will probably leave gain you riches but at what price? You will have no true friends in your times of need and if your ability to continue to apprehend riches is somehow taken from you by memory loss or incapacitation you will have nothing but your self and your conscious, Whereas doing the "just" act for towards other and doing unselfish things will gain you the love and respect of others. In your old age and whether or not you have material things there will be those who will be indebted to you out of respect and love. That to me is the principle gift of being a "just" man.
ReplyDeleteSaleem Bradley February 9th, 2011
ReplyDeleteWhat is justice? In the Pledge of Allegiance, it says “with liberty and justice for all”. Does everyone actually get justice, in any matter? No, sometimes it will be fair and sometimes it will not. To our friends, we see them as someone positive and who we want around us but are we always friends with people who morals are high as individuals? Our enemies, the person who we have hatred for or our foe, but are they always the trash of society or even worthless? Our judgment concerning friends and enemies are bias. If someone has an enemy, they are not being impartial because clearly we favor our friends more. So many people give love to friends, evil to enemies, and consider that justice. People will follow “just” laws because they have too and if there were not any consequences to live with then people will follow the “unjust” laws.
Joseph Hamm Philosophy 100-143
ReplyDeleteUpon reading The Republic, Book 1, I was struck by a realization which bothered me. In all of the texts we have read so far, Plato presents the conversations of Socrates and whomever he is questioning at the time. What bothers me is this: all of the sly interplay, all of Socrates' besting of his opponents, all of the trapping of his opponents in their own words, is staged and false. Plato is not a reporter. He is an author, and Socrates is his protagonist. Plato wants Socrates to win his arguments, as it serves his purpose, which is to represent and champion an ideology, or to pick apart and invalidate another. My objection to this approach is that Plato can control not only the line of questioning of his hero, Socrates, but also the answer that will be given by his opponent.
I feel that more often than not, Plato labors to animate his antagonists with seemingly sound arguments, but that have one or more fallacies, which will inevitably be discovered by Socrates. For example, in The Republic, Book 1, Socrates expends a lot of energy in a long-winded fashion disproving that such-and-such's argument that 'injustice is more profitable than justice.' I didn't find that argument compelling in the first, so I didn't find Socrates' rebuttal to be all that impressive either. He has tried to build his argument upon the argument of another, which is found to be fallible. In other words, he had won, but not by the strength of his argument (of which he makes none until the very end when no rebuttal is allowed), but rather by the weakness of another's. He has only served o disprove what was structured by the author to be disproved.
Personally, I feel that the writings would be more meaningful to me if there really were two opposing ideological forces involved in the writing, instead of one masquerading as two. If it were truly an intellectual game of chess, wherein Plato wrote for Socrates, and another wrote for his opponent, I would be more compelled to read it. Socrates may not find himself presented with arguments so easily dismantled. He may also find himself on the receiving end of a question or two.
All that being said, I do enjoy these readings. Also, I think Plato champions important and meaningful ideologies which are as relevant today as they were when he wrote them.
Ruby Rios
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent injustice can be something much more beneficial than justice but it's on, for lack of a better term, a shallow level. Sure, being unjust can get you to the "top," money, a house, the whole nine but, can it get you to place where you'd be happy if those things were taken away?
Aside from the personal loss with very slight gain, going about things in the wrong way is something that not only leaves an impression on whoever you're doing wrong to but, also everyone around them. Its sort of like a chain reaction.
Now, if things were achieved in a morally correct way, not only will no one be harmed but, there'd be greater gain. There would be a sense of achievement and appreciation. The gain would reach you on a deeper level. And as Socrates sides with Pindar they make the same point. In justice lies a greater achievement.
Is justice the advantage of stronger? In a way, justice is the advantage of stronger because people who are unjust have become powerful and strong. On the other hand, when lower people are justice, they have disadvantage against the stronger people. Also, as mentioned by Thrasymachus who claims that justice is advantage of the stronger. Even though unjust people are stronger and have advantage against the weak but without the power they are just in the same level as the lower people. Justice may seem more useful but I believe injustice is more useful than justice in the long run.
ReplyDeleteSheena Lambert
ReplyDeleteAfter Reading The Republic Book 1, it's clear to me that Socrates always feels the need to plague those who are known as wise with questions to prove his point that although one seems to be wise by others, in actuality they're not. Socrates and Polemarchus goes back and forth drawing examples of what each thinks to be just or unjust.
This reading creates to prominent questions in my mind. What is to be just or what makes someone just or unjust? According to the dictionary, the word just means implying justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all.Being just is not the ability to do good to friends and harm to enemies in fact it is the ability to do good to those who deserve it and to do evil to those who are evil whether or not they are your friends or enemies; it all depends on what is right or what's wrong. Because when one is just they are free from favoritism,self-interest or biasness. For example, in the previous reading Euthyphro by Plato, Euthyphro prosecuted his father for murder. I think this is a perfect example of what it means to be just. It didnot matter whether or not Euthyphro was prosecuting his father or any other man, the only thing that mattered was that Euthyphro saw that what is father did was wrong and as a result he had to be punished.
In conclusion, to be just is to be true and fair in everything, no matter what the circumstances are.
Preston Charles
ReplyDeleteFebruary 12th, 2011
Can justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies? No, because if justice was only made to serve the good then what’s the definition of a good person? And who are we to judge. Socrates asks Cephalus if the repayment of debt is your definition of just then a friend that is not in the right mindset and requested a gun would you deny his request? Regarding the case that even a good person can be evil. This theory brings us back to the question if justice was to repay your debt back then what if the enemies was to return the same repayment to each other is that considered evil? I agree with Polemarchus as he seem to be frustrated with Socrates questions because its only causing people to be just as confused as he is. People already got their mind set on what’s justice and unjust to think otherwise can cause damage to the way of life during time.
For me, this has been the most difficult of the 3 journals to read. The argument of being Just and Unjust is very debatable to each who has his/her own opinion; but, to he who is willing to put opinion and "interest" aside, justice proves to come to a conclusion. Even as Socrates pursues this conclusion, like the pursuit of "truth" a previous journal, he finds that it is a cycle..
ReplyDeleteJustice and injustice are universally supposed to be applied to everyone equally but is not the case everywhere as the laws that are supposed to provide and protect justice are given by the "rulers" who, more often than not, have their own interests at hand. As for justice being more useful than injustice, it depends on one's inner values. If one feels the need to gain higher placement in a society such as ours, then injustice becomes more valuable to that individual. If another feels the need to do his or her art for the sake of the love of it and for fulfilling that love, than justice becomes more valuable to that individual.
As we see with this dialogue, it's very difficult to convince an individual who finds injustice useful that the opposite is true, or vice versa. I find it difficult to think that Plato about Socrates in order to portray him as a hero or others as villains; in any case, i'd like to think that names haven't the smallest of relevance in comparison to the arguments themselves, and that they exist only for the purpose to say that these are people speaking, not animals. With that being said, it's a very good discussion and one that can be contemplated in order to find truth within ourselves on the matter.
I completely agree with Joseph's views on the way Plato dictates the conversations of Socrates. I have thought the same thing myself in class before, but now on to the journal itself...
ReplyDeleteJustice is supposed to benefit the majority, the way laws would. Ofcourse not everyone is always happy, for things are not perfect like that. But just like morals, what is justice is dependent on the viewer. Justice is purely situational and depends on so many factors, to simply say justice is better than injustice, or vice versa doesnt cover really anything. I would like to think whatever is found in any situation to be just actually is but depending on the situation instead of being helpful it can damage a number of people greatly.
Shaunelle Hall
ReplyDeleteFebruary 13,2011
In the "Republic" by Plato (Book I), the topic of just and unjust are the two major topics argued through out the reading. In my own opinion justice can do both good and harm to both friends and enemies but it all depends on the situation. The just man is always right because what is just is the truth and what is unjust is wrong. Some might say that a just man can not be trusted and their only reason for saying that is because a just man does not take sides even if it is a friend who is that of the unjust. If the just man chooses sides of an unjust friend when that friend has done wrong that makes them both unjust. No matter who you compare the just man with, he will always be the best at what he does and that is his everlasting acts of justice.
Bianca Gayle
ReplyDeleteJustice is never precise. Who is just? Cephalus argues that justice is repaying debt and telling the truth, but Socrates shows that Cephalus' definition is circumstantial for example; you should not return a gun to a crazy person. Polemarchus argues that justice is doing good to friends who are good and doing harm to enemies who are bad, but Socrates believes, friends can be unjust people and performing harm on an unjust person does not result in justice. “It is just to do good to our friends when they are good and harm to our enemies when they are evil”. Thrasymachus argues that justice is simply the advantage of the stronger, but injustice contradicts virtue.“I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” such as the government. Justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man's own profit and interest. Socrates argue, when the government make laws that are just, they make them agreeably to their own interest; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest. Socrates tries to prove that Thrasymachus is promoting injustice rather than justice.
There is no such thing as justice. It is a word created by people in control and it is not intended to help anyone other then the one's in charge. In Plato: Republic I, Socrates states that it does not matter whether it is a friend or enemy, both are capable of doing unjust things. I agree with Thrasymachus, that justice is an advantage of the stronger. Injustice is for the individual's profit or interest .
ReplyDeleteMartha De Los Santos
ReplyDeletePlato as in the previous readings keeps up bringing the word ignorance.Here he brings it up as to justice as to deserving to have done to you what you do to others.Learning and doing what the wise tought you is what you should deserve to be done to you.I some how agree with what thrasymachus has to say about socrates answering the question,in this case is as he's collecting everyones idea and changing it into his own.He learns of others and gathers his knowledge and wisdom of his surroundings,and past experience.
Simonides said that"justice is the giving to each man what is porper to him,and he termed a debt."At this point he's trying to say that justice is done and something is paid out from it.when injustice takes place,than it is the advantage of the stronger because he who is strong is getting something back from it.If this justice is the right doing,then good can't produce harm.Meaning that justice and its result is nothing bad to me is nothing bad if you desrve it.Its a fact that injustice is more useful then justice because the unjust is more skillful and takes that to its advantage.Justice can't do good to friends because they're paying for their wrong doing.Therefore, justice is good for our enemies and bad for our friends.
Erik Robles
ReplyDeleteAs I reading through Platos Republic (book1) i could not help to notice a question arising, What makes a good person? Socrates and Cephalus start a conversation which leads to Socrates wanting to have a clear definition of justice.
Justice must be just, fair, and equal to all. There shouldn't be a difference if its towards a friend or not. Besides its difficult to be just towards a friend and pay with evil towards an enemy because as Socrates pointed out that we sometimes ignorantly choose bad friends that pretend to be good but secretly are bad doers and good enemies are good doers. So are we doing bad to are friends? for not correcting them on there error or for simply allowing them to continue in there unrighteousness. Socrates agreed that justices is of interest, now weather it was the interest of the stronger he disagreed. For what the stronger example Physician ruler of the patients body isn't seeking personal interest but that of the subject. Besides rulers are subject to error and for them to impose these errors over the weak doesn't seem just. What is the law given by a ruler is to harm or bring injury toward ones own self. do i still have to obey to be just? So does a ruler impose laws over people bases on his interest or the interest of the subject? it seems to be if a ruler is interested in the subjects needs that everything can flow better.THRASYMACHUS lastly claims that the just are more miserable the the unjust for example a just man would pay more taxes then an unjust man would. there fore making it seem that to be unjust seems to have far more advantages are to being just but then would, but the just man is able to rule him self and others.
justice it it's simplest meaning is to giving back in return. If you put on a scales what you received and what you give it will turn to be even. It could be on both sides of the coins for good and for evil, for friends and for enemies.Justice does not mean good, but being good cause justice; therefore not justice should be the motivation for being a better man.
ReplyDeleteI think that just is a personal definition. There isn't a definition that everyone will be satisfied with. Because people always twist their words to, in the end benifit them. So if a person who has done wrong will find somewl way to explain their actions were just. Even thouh it might have not been. But even though the individual has an explaination for their actions and how it was necessary or "just" society might not agree. So who is to say whether if an individuls' actions were just or not. In the end it is all up for personal interpertation. So then ho has the say in whether justice does friends good and enimies bad? Because in the end it is all up to how the person sees it.
ReplyDeleteKyle Yanagihara
ReplyDeleteJustice will do good to friends and to enemies. To say that one persons justice will harm another does not ring true To be just is to benefit humanities well being as a whole, not just the self, but the whole state of mankind. It is also my opinion that justice does not mean the advantage of the stronger. If Thrasymachus' claim is in fact true, then weaker people that carry with them no burden of their own injustice would be unhappy, but i believe the opposite is true. People of morality and ethics are happier and contribute to a better and more positive society. Unjust people only serve to torture their own psyches, much as a criminal must keep eyes on the back of his head. Socrates argues that people who are just are happier. though there may be an unjust man who able to take advantage of another by fraud or power, this still does not convince Socrates that injustice is more useful than justice. What are the advantages to being just? I, for one, know that being just keeps a clear conscience and keeps one mindful and clear headed. Unjust persons will usually lack the ability to be mindful and clear and therefore serve less a purpose in society. With that being said, I believe justice is more useful than injustice
living just life is making wise choices, it is knowing yourself and your needs and without any greed which is born out of injustice. living just life will lead to happiness, because wisdom and justice are tools for us for living better life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteshamia mattry
ReplyDeleteJustice goes both ways. "is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse?" Justice is not to be for the interest of the stronger at all times. because as it states in the passage, rulers unintentionally command things to be done when are to their own injury. Justice can affect both sides if it can alter the rulers that set the laws in place in a negative way. It is also percieved that justice is not only for the benefit of the stronger because as it states in the passage justice is useful when useless and useless when useful
What I took away from the reading was that Socrates doesnt believe in man made justice because we dont have the absolute truth that God has. Therefore only he can judge and determine what is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteLife as we know it is inconclusive.Most of the time,we fail to acknowledge the beauty and diversity of life itself.Upon reading the republic,certain things become clear;justice is a virtue and can be limited in certain aspects of our everyday life,thus it is intuitive and counter-intuitive.Justice has its shortcomings just like any system be it,theory,philosophy or outlook on life has to offer.The reality is that humans tend to trade nature with behavior,which is not inter-changable.As humans we are gullible creatures,we are curious creatures and striving for perfection.Justice to me righting the wrong in the most deserving persons favor.Since every system is faulty and full of gaps,in comparison,justice is better than injustice to an extent.Even Socrates was in-conclusive on justice and so am i.
ReplyDelete