The Republic by Plato Essay Example for Free

The Republic by Plato Essay In the book The Republic, Plato explores the mystery contained in living a good life where he looks at living a just life and what it entails. He also looks at life when there are philosopher kings ruling. The main character in the book is Socrates who is engaged in a discussion by some friends he meets when coming from the Piraeus to offer his prayers. He is walking with Glaucon on his way to the city when Polemarchus catches sight of him and invites him to walk with him along with Adeimantus who is the brother to Glaucon and they end up going to his house. Once they get to the home of Polemarchus, there they find Cephalus his father, his brothers Lysias and Euthademus and also Thrasymachus, Cleitophon and Charmantides. Cephalus admonishes Socrates for not visiting him often yet he is an old man who cannot be able to travel as he would wish. He however appreciates old age since it has given him peace that he could not have gotten when he was younger. He exhorts the goodness of old age instead of complaining as his peers did about the ills of old age. Socrates becomes intrigued and asks him whether his position is affected by the fact that he is wealthy and there starts the discussion of what makes one content with his life. Cephalus is convinced that ones disposition determines how contented or discontented one is with his life. According to him riches whether acquired or inherited does not play a part in ones happiness instead how you have decided to live your life is what matters (Jowett B. pg 11). He is of the idea that a good man whether poor or rich is a happy man while a bad man whether rich or poor is an unhappy man. He defined a good man as he who is just to others. Socrates wants to know what justice is and thus the beginning of the discussion about justice. Since they defined justice as speaking the truth and paying off debts, Socrates wants to know whether there are any exceptions to these rules. He also wants to know if one becomes less just if he decides that it is for the best not to do exactly as required by the rule of justice if it causes more harm than good to obey the rule. Socrates is of the opinion that justice must have a much broader definition than the one currently in use. At this point Cephalus exits and leave his son to take over the conversation on his behalf. Polemarchus is of the same opinion as Socrates but still quotes a respected man and a poet (Simonides) as having said differently but excuses him by assuming that he had not considered all the scenarios that are possible.   Polemarchus is however of the opinion that this rule only applies to those people who are considered to be ones friends. To those who are enemies, the rule of returning what is owed applies strictly even if by doing so one cause harm to the one receiving what is owed. He interprets what Simonides meant when he wrote about justice and assumes it to mean that one should give to each what they deserve meaning that to a friend one should do that which is good and to an enemy one should give evil. If by repaying a debt one is doing evil to a friend, then one should not repay it but if it is to an enemy one ought to be able to do so gladly. In their discussion, it emerges that there are times that injustice is preferred to justice and that in most cases it is considered useless when other things are useful and vice versa (Jowett B. pg 17). After much discussion they seem to agree that a just man cannot cause harm to others whether they are enemies or friends. This then leaves them with no definition of what justice is yet they require knowing what it is. At this point, Thrasymachus enters the conversation but for him to give his opinion of what he thinks justice is, he demands that he be paid some money. He introduces to the reader the third definition of justice which he claims to be the interest of the stronger (Jowett B. pg21). This is because the laws governing people’s deeds are formulated by the government which in turn is made up of the strong people regardless of what sort of government it is. Socrates questions this definition since the rulers may be wrong in formulating the laws and make some which may cause injury to them. If the subjects in being just must obey the law, the question then becomes whether by causing injury to the ruler they are still supposed to be just. At this point, Cleitophon contributes by saying that as long as the stronger thought that whatever was being done was to his interest, then it was justice to go ahead and do it despite its assumed harm to him. Thrasymachus defines the ruler or the stronger man as he who cannot make a mistake and if one does make a mistake, he ceases to be a ruler. Socrates asks him who is the master of an art and after it is established that the one who does something best is the master of the trade. In agreeing to this, Thrasmychus finds himself cornered by Socrates because then it means that the ruler defines justice as that which serves the interest of his subjects and not his own interests. This is because a master of an art does all he can for the benefit of those under him and one of the examples given is that of a physician who does all he can for the benefit of the patient yet he is the master of the art. It seems in this case that the ruler has made a law that affects him negatively because it has reduced his social standing. In this way then, the ruler has made a mistake and hence stops becoming a ruler because he has not put his interests first in making the law. Thrasymachus is of the opinion that the unjust man benefits more than the just one does and he defines justice as â€Å" the interest of the stronger whereas injustice is a man’s own profit an interest† (Jowett B. pg 27). He seems not be consistent in his view since he attributes different qualities to different professions as the definition of justice. The discussion takes a turn at towards perfect societies where the perfectly unjust society is seen as being more profitable than the perfectly just society. Thrasymachus is of the opinion that just people want equality with the just but want to have more than the unjust while the unjust wants more than everyone (Jowett B. pg 32). Socrates asks if an unjust society can be able to rule without exercising any form of justice. He however does not receive a precise answer. The first book ends with the question whether justice is good or evil. Thrasymachus remains silent from this moment on. Glaucon enters the scene with questioning Socrates about the types of goods there are and how they can be classified. They come up with three types of goods an justice is placed at the level of goods which are accepted because by practicing them one gains but if they had another choice would rather not engage in them thus preferring injustice to it (Jowett B. pg 38). In doing this he seems to be supporting the position of Thrasmychus but still wants to hear the opinion of Socrates on the true nature of justice. He believes that people do that which is good because they are afraid of the repercussions of doing evil and if they had a choice they would opt for evil other than good. To support his position, he tells the story of Gyges, a shepherd, who got a ring from a dead mans body that had the power to make one invisible. The ring allowed him to do things that he would otherwise not do with people seeing him. People obey the rules of justice because others can see them but if there is a chance that they will not be seen, then their true feelings emerge and most often than not they (the feelings) will be inclined towards injustice and evil. As the story is told, Gyges uses the ring to become invisible and seduce the queen who helped him eliminate the king and he became the king. It is obvious that prior to his having the ring, he could not have done so but under the guise of invisibility he was able to do much evil (Jowett B. pg 39). Glaucon wants the unjust man to be totally unjust and the just man to be totally just because total injustice can be misconstrued to mean justice. Adeimantus his brother supports him by adding that parents teach their children to be just so that in future they may be able to get good jobs and marriages and not necessarily to make them good. However Socrates is convinced that they are arguing for injustice yet they do not believe in being unjust (Jowett B. pg 45). According to Socrates, a state arises as a result of the needs that people have and it must be comprised of different categories of people who all work together to ensure the goodness of all. Justice is supposed to have led to the existence of three classes of people namely: the rulers, the producers and the soldiers. They all have specified duties and none should try to do another’s because that would be deemed as being unjust. They all have their roles and to assume another’s role is to rob the individual of his way of earning a living hence becoming unwittingly unjust. Also in trying to add another person’s load onto your own, it would lead to doing a shoddy job hence becoming unjust to those who trusted you to do the job for them (Jowett B. pg 47). Socrates takes both Glaucon and Adeimantus through the formation of a state where the three categories of people exist with justice being defined as minding ones business and letting others do the same up to the point where out of increased needs, the roles start to intermingle leading to a breakdown of justice. People in the state require that which does not belong to them to make their lives comfortable and in so doing become unjust. He then decides to create an ideal city where there is no private property or even wives and children. This is done for the common good and in such a city justice is not required. The discussion changes from whether a city is just to the question of whether there is any possibility of such a city existing. It is at this point that he introduces the idea of philosopher kings. The philosopher king is supposed to be just, a lover of wisdom and of truth. He rules not because he gains but because he wants to help the people who are his subjects. In this state, there is no discrimination among sexes and neither are there classes of people since all are considered to be equal. Philosophers are assumed to be the only people who can be able to decide which pleasures are good for the citizens and hence the need to have one as a ruler. He believes that power corrupts a ruler and the only one who is incorruptible is the philosopher and hence the need to give him the power to rule. He finishes off by criticizing the forms of governments that arise as a result of corrupted rulers. According to him, the least threatening of the governments is what he calls timocracy which is an authoritarian rule that is headed by an unstable minded man who wants to avenge the humiliation suffered by his father at the hands of his mother. Oligarchy is worse than timocracy and is characterized by having a band of few rich men who are the leaders and respect nothing other than money. Democracy follows and is seen as the rule by demagogues who are not even fit to be doing so. The worst of all the governments is tyranny where the ruler has absolute power and rules by dictating his desires and making them into laws to be followed by the citizens. The book ends without any conclusion on the definition of justice but before Socrates leaves his friends, they agree that to live a just life is better than to live an unjust life.