The Dialogues of Plato: The Republic, Part I

By -
The Republic is one of the most well-known books of philosophy in the world of academia, for good reason. The beginning of the book covers the idea of justice and what it might be. Socrates starts by discussing with Cephalos the concept of justice, and if there is a definition to it. Cephalos said that justice is to speak the truth and to give back whatever one has received. Socrates gives the argument of a friend who entrusts a set of weapons to you when he is in "right mental condition," i.e., not crazy. Then, he says, when he is not in the right state of mind he asks for the weapons back. Your friends would tell you not to give the weapons back. Cephalos then says that yes it would be just to not give them back to the friend when he is not in the right state of mind. 
I personally agree with this idea, except for the fact that saying the truth is not justice. I believe that a fundamental part of justice is speaking the truth and supporting the truth. In this situation, while the person may not give their friends the weapons, they should not lie to them about it, as that would be unjust. However, the following definition that Socrates gives fall even further away from my personal ideas.
Socrates then states that justice must be to help one's friends and harm one's enemies. I do not think that is the definition of justice. An example of this would be in a court of law. Assume that your enemy is defending themselves against an accusation, and all evidence points towards their innocence. If you grant them punishment, it would be viewed as unjust. Also, in the previous scenario discussing the weapons and state of mind, it would be "helping" your friend by giving him his weapons even when he is not in the right state of mind. However, this would be morally wrong because of the implications that follow, such as unjust dangers to society.
This leads me to believe that justice must be the ability to put everything in its proper place. By this, I mean that you should act in scenarios that allow people to fall into the most fitting consequence based upon their actions. In a way, this is speaking the truth by allowing people the correct consequence. This consequence, however, depends on a definition of moral right and wrong which I do not have at the moment.
The Republic is so far an excellent read, however. No matter if you agree or disagree with Socrates/Plato, it is an excellent way to get you thinking critically and to hone your argument skills. I believe that this book is of great value to whomsoever picks it up and that it would benefit your life by allowing you to reflect on the most basic concepts society is based on.

Comments

  1. Zoya A.October 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM

    I think philosophical books are not widely recognized and appreciated by readers, especially by those of our age group. This blog post made me realize that books on philosophy explore real ideas and promote deep thinking, which is something a lot of books that teenagers tend to read, lack. I agree with your belief that a fundamental part of justice is speaking the truth and supporting the truth, and this ties in well with the main ideas you present from The Dialogues of Plato: The Republic, Part I. You did a great job in summarizing the plot which could have been tedious for some. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  2. NoahOctober 11, 2019 at 6:29 AM

    While reading this blog post I too started thinking about the topics you spoke about, what justice is, moral right or wrong, and I see what you meant when you said that this book would get you thinking. I like the fact that you included your point of view in the blog post because it gives the readers of the blog post an idea of what type of thinking the book makes you do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HozaifaOctober 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM

    The Republic looks like a philosphical book which requires a lot of critical thinking to understand! However, I do see a few flaws in the blog post. You state in the topic sentence of the second paragraph that truth is part of justice. You then state that you should not lie to your friend just to dispense justice. However, you never mentioned in the first paragraph that Cephalos said you should lie to your friend. In fact you said the opposite of that by saying 'Cephalos said that justice is to SPEAK THE TRUTH and to give back whatever one has received.'
    Additionally, you state in paragraph 3 that you disagreed with Socrete's idea, ' justice must be to help one's friends and harm one's enemies.' You countered the argument by writing, 'Assume that your enemy is defending themselves against an accusation, and all evidence points towards their innocence. If you grant them punishment, it would be viewed as unjust.' However, you never clearly defined what an 'enemy' is. In fact, a person might just have a grudge against another person for no logical reason or due to a series of misunderstandings.
    I do appreciate your critical thinking process in the blog and I hope that your next blog will improve on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SAhmad DastOctober 17, 2019 at 7:04 PM

      YEAH OK HOZAIFA. TAKE A LOOK AT THESE FACTS:
      1. Cephalos did say that, however, I do say that Socrates gives an argument against this. If anything, I disagree with Socrates and agree with Cephalos.
      2. That's the point. You should not have your sense of justice swayed by whether or not they are your friend.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

By -
Image
  Sometimes, reading about an unfamiliar subject can be difficult if the material is not written in an interesting way. Naturally, for me, like most people, my personality gravitates towards fiction because the plot can always change on a whim depending on the author’s personality. However, I still find nonfiction books appealing, just not the generic books. For me, the generic books just drone on and on. What If? was one of the first nonfiction books that really appealed to me at the start of middle school and changed my view of nonfiction books. Grade school nonfiction reading contained many pictures, and was easy to understand. However, everybody seemed to expect that being a middle schooler suddenly meant having a much better ability to comprehend books. Although teachers had read short chapters aloud in school, I never had a chance to finish the book until this summer because I was always reading other material. What If? is a nonfiction book, but not the stereotypical nonficti
Read more

Why You Should Read On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres

By -
Image
On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres  was written by Nicolaus Copernicus, and was the book that started the heliocentric revolution in Europe. This was my second time reading this book, the first time being last year for a project I did. I reread it because I felt that I may not have understood the book to its fullest when I read it as a subbie, and felt like I would be able to grasp the concepts better now that I am a freshman. I can firmly say that I did, and I these are the reasons I would recommend this book to any of my classmates. 1. It shows us the basic proof for heliocentrism. Heliocentrism is the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system, which is almost the opposite of geocentrism, the belief that the earth is at the center. I'm going to make an assumption and say that everyone who reads this blogpost takes the idea that the earth revolves around the sun as a basic fact and assumes it to be true. That makes perfect sense, it almost feels like it
Read more
By -
Image
Recently, I was bored and wanted to read a book, so I went to the library (duh) and came across a book called Tattoo Atlas , by Tim Floreen, which I realized I could blog about. The book is science fiction, but is quite realistic and revolves around a research laboratory that is trying to cure a sociopath named Franklin. The book is told from the first person perspective of Rem Braithwaite, the main character whose mom is trying to steady Franklin’s sociopathic brain.  Rem has a relatively normal school life with friends, but constantly relives Franklin’s crime against fellow classmate and friend Pete Lund. Franklin, an outsider to his classmates, harbored and still harbors ill will to Pete and others because of inconsiderate words or actions and feels justified to have killed him. Rem’s mom, concerned for Rem’s well-being and jumping at an opportunity, admits Franklin to her research center and implants a chip into his brain that will allow her to “control” his brain’s feelings.
Read more