Kyle Sheehan

FYS 100 Section 50 – Social Utopias

Dr. Watts

September 4, 2015

Q: How does Plato teach the reader about justice through Socratic dialogue? 

Throughout all of book one and book two of the republic, Plato solely writes through Socratic dialogue. Socrates was very well known for asking difficult and thought provoking questions to his fellow Athenians. He did this through dialogue and conversation which later was named “the Socratic method” (Bibliography.com). Early in the Republic, the Socratic method is used on the topic of justice. However at the end of book one, the reader is never given a clear or full explanation of what justice is. Socrates instead negates multiple definitions of justice provided by Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. This allows the reader to see  many false notions of justice and instead formulate their own definition of it. Through Socrates negations, the reader can conclude that justice isn’t favoring the strong over the weak or following one’s legal obligations. They can also derive that justice is not simply helping  friends and harming enemies. In book 2, Plato utilizes Socratic dialogue to approach the topic of whether or not justice is desirable in a more conversational manner. As the dialogue progresses, Socrates seeks to find the definition of justice by imagining a perfect city and seeing where and when justice comes into play in said city.

Justice is by far the most prominent discussion point spoken about in the Republic thus far. However, the topic is approached by Socrates not by aggressive means but by means of conversation. Plato never portrays Socrates getting angered in any of his various discussions. Even when antagonistically challenged by Thrasymachus and told that he was speaking nonsense, Socrates remained calm and collected (Republic p13). In book one, Socrates takes a very unique approach to the discussion about justice with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. Instead of telling them his definition of justice and ending the conversation there, he asks them to first tell him their definition of justice. After each definition is given, the opportunity for discourse is opened. Instead of directly pointing out flaws in their definitions, Socrates responds by asking questions or using examples. These questions and examples are meant to make the speaker think more deeply about their definition and question their own beliefs (Republic p4 line 330a). By doing this, Socrates is teaching them how to find their own way to the truth rather than simply being told. For example, Cephalus believes justice means following the laws and being honest. Socrates responds by asking “is it sometimes just to do these things, sometimes unjust?” He then goes on to give an example: “everyone would surely agree that if a man borrows weapons from a sane friend, and if he goes mad and asks for them back, the friend should not return them, and would not be just if he did” (Republic line 331c). Likewise, Socrates responds to both Polemarchus and Thrasymachus with questions and discourse (Republic p11 and p18-19). In book two, the argument against justice becomes bolstered by the arguments of Glaucon and Adeimantus. Plato purposely makes the challenge even harder for Socrates. One of the main components of Socratic dialogue is to attack the strongest position or challenge so that afterward there is no further doubt to be had. Glaucon’s argument is noticeably much harder for Socrates to respond to. At first he is reluctant to entertain Glaucon’s challenge of proving justice to be a “third kind of good”. However, as a true teacher of philosophy, he really does wish to persuade Glaucon and Adiemantus that this sentiment is true (Republic p36 line 357b). As usual, Socrates responds to these challenges not directly but by examples. Instead of answering the question, Socrates decides to create a fictional utopia in explicit detail.

Although the definition of justice is never given outright, the reader learns a significant amount about what justice is not. The discussion between Socrates and the others begins by Cephalus offering his view of justice. He claims that justice is living up to your legal obligations. However, as Socrates disputes this claim, the reader learns that not all legalities are just. Cephalus than admits his defeat and ventures off to perform sacrifices. With Cephalus now gone, Polemarchus jumps into the discussion and offers his own definition of sacrifice. He believes that justice is helping your friends and doing the opposite to your enemies (Republic p11). Like his father’s definition, Polemarchus’ definition presents a very commonly held idea of justice that Socrates obviously does not agree with. Socrates defeats this argument by pointing out that we, as humans, are fallible in our choice of friends and foes. Therefor, the reader learns that justice can not simply be defined as helping those who we choose to like and harm those we don’t. By defeating both Polymarchus’ and Cephalus’ arguments, Socrates shows that the popular opinion of justice is not correct. However, Plato does not stop there. After Polemarchus’ definition is disputed, Thrasymachus angrily makes his way into the discussion. He offers a less popular notion of justice, that it is simply advantage to the strong (Republic p18-19). His claim is that justice is not beneficial, but in fact places restraints on people. This is where the debate shifts from the definition of justice, to the worth of justice. Socrates is able to break down Thrasymachus’ argument by explaining that injustice, being that it is opposed to the virtue of wisdom, can not be a virtue. Through this final debate, the reader can also conclude that there is a  certain amount of value in justice.

Works Cited

Ferrari, G. R. F. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.