"Then, Thrasymachus, will a soul ever accomplish its work well if deprived of its virtue, or is that impossible?"
"Impossible"
"Then a bad soul necessarily rules and manages badly while a good one does all these things well".
Socrates goes on to say, "Then the just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one". Thrasymacus says that it is more profitable to live an unjust life. This is true depending on what definition you give to profitable. Is it only wealth and power? Or is it your soul's virtues? To describe this a little further, say a man has stolen money from his business partner all the years they have been in business, he lives a wealthier life on earth while his partner who would be the more just man lives a less wealthy life because he has less money than he actually earned. In this situation it is more profitable to be unjust. However it would not be more profitable if the just man were to find out that his partner was stealing the money. If a person only views profitability as wealth and power then does justive even have a place in that situation? Because if that is a person's only measure of 'good life' then gaining by dishonesty would not be considered wrong. Much of the time it tends to be unjust actions that brings power to people. Those people in power tend to come up a lot in Socrates' arguments. At the beginning I quoted that a bad soul rules badly and a good soul rules well. It seems true that a good soul would have a better shot at ruling well, while a bad soul would do unjust acts towards his people and rule badly because of that, but in the world of politics, can a just man get and maintain power? What Thrasymacus says about it being more profitable to be unjust seems true, but if we go back and look at the very beginning when Socrates was talking to Cephalus about old age we see that maybe it is only profitable for a short time. Cephalus says that "when a man comes near to the realization that he will be making an end, fear and care enter him for things to which he gave no thought before. The tales told about what is in Hade--that the one who has done unjust deeds here must pay the penalty there..."

It may be true that justive is one of those virtues that cannot be taught. In thinking about this, i started wondering if maybe some ideas are born inside of us from the very beginning. I dont know of anyone that is happier when they acquired something unjustly. At the time that someone commits an unjust act and receives fortune from it they may be content fr a time, but at some point it is human nature to fear what will happen when we die or fear that we will lose what we have gotten. At the same time, not all people are the same. Some people have no feelings or knowledge of right or wrong or very different ideas than everybody else has. Some people are taight by their familes to hate and harm others. Some are taight that whatever you have to do to get ahead is ok. So, whether justice can be taught or not, the opposite definitely can be taught.

Can We Figure This Out?

The question that comes to mind while reading book II and beginning book III, is whether or not Socrates' city is going to make answering our question any easier. While I understand the principle behind what he is trying to do, I wonder if in reality it is going to make our situation any better. By adding all of the layers and parts of the city, we are supposed to gain insight into what is better, justice or injustice? But I am afraid that it is only going to make things less certain and a little more fuzzy.

Now I don't want to complain without suggesting a better way of doing things. So what I think we need to answer Glaucon's question, is a more definite answer of what justice actually is. While we are moving forward with some ruff understanding of what justice is and what injustice is, I don't think a concrete definition of either term has been given. And so how are we to know which is better, when we don't really know what either is. Perhaps I am the only person with this uncertainty, but maybe someone else does too.

And so I come to the part of the post where I really don't know where to go. Sometimes I think we should attack justice in the same way that virtue was attacked in Meno. But that still did not answer the original question that was posed. Or maybe we should continue on with the city, but I really am unsure where it is going. And I begin to think that Socrates is more serious than I first thought when he claimed that he did not know anyone who could tell what virtue is, or could tell what justice was and where it comes from. These are very difficult questions, and it is hard to tell where the answers are.

Justice and the Self

Much of Book II in The Republic is spent addressing the topic of justice on the personal level. Often times, the word is colloquially defined by examples; we saw this occur much in the same way on the subject of virtue in Meno. While this method is not a formally acceptable way of defining virtue, justice, or any other idea, for that matter, that does not mean that the examples bear no meaning in the discussion of the topic. When Glaucon asks Socrates to prove to him that justice is not only practical due to its consequences, but also for its own sake, Socrates turns to yet another analogy: the city. During class, we began to debate whether or not this is an acceptable analogy. After all, a city is built of many parts, and whether or not that can be said of the soul is going to require much attention. However, without reaching that argument just yet, we must postpone it for two reasons.

First, Socrates has already told us that only after his examination of the city's justice will he endeavor to show that this justice and personal justice are analogous. To be able to compare the two, we must first have a clear view of both the city and the individual. While both are complex, the city can be constructed using layers of complexity that promote understanding. This is why Socrates turned to this example in the first place. As individuals, being able to connect the concepts presented in the city will be easier than to examine it from the other direction. Second, we must look at the aforementioned examples which come to mind when justice is mentioned; Helping the elderly, treating others with kindness and respect, and defending your family are a few examples among many. Nearly every example of justice, though, has one central theme: interaction among others. This is why every attempt at examining the nature of justice thus far has led to less than ideal conclusions. By attempting to remove this idea from the argument, they have faltered, and as Socrates begins to examine this subject from a new angle, we stumble across another integral component of justice: Religion.

A Response

I apologize that i do not remember your name, but in class you brought up an awesome question that i would like to address.

You asked about how God can be "just" when in Exodus in the Bible, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." (Exodus 4-9). One response to this is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and "made him sin" in order to accomplish a larger, more important purpose: to glorify Himself in the end. This seems very selfish, but in my humble opinion, if God did not glorify Himself, he would not be the highest being in the universe and not worthy of our worship. But besides that point, I would say that--and this is not my idea, but a thought that i have gathered from Biblical scholars i have read on this issue--God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart, but that Pharaoh was already against God by his own will and because of his own opinions of God. One scholar put it this way: “God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh's free but stubborn action…” (http://bit.ly/9xztSn)

So i would conclude by saying that God is just; he made us in his image and is the ultimate judge, so it is hard for us to fully understand his purposes and why He does what He does. But, the best explanation i have seen is this logical argument above. And this makes sense because we have seen people in our world who are turned off by God and would make a similar decision if they were in Pharaoh's shoes. As would most of us...including myself.

Feel free, anyone, to respond :-)

The "G" Word

God.

As i read The Republic and hear what these philosophers have to say, all i can do--because it is my worldview--is think about if what they are saying is true in Christianity or if i can somehow use what their secular mouths are saying and help strengthen the argument for God's existence and power. Sorry if this offends anyone, but i feel so unbelievably motivated to write about this that i feel that i must. As they argue about what justice is, if justice or injustice is better, and how to be just, i can't help but wonder why they are asking these questions. Well, of course they are looking for answers, but they must feel a need to be just even though they desire to be unjust and selfish. It seems that this is a human characteristic and they seem to be checking with someone who seems to have the answers to life to see if they are allowed to be selfish. For me, as i see these people so long ago asking similar questions to what our culture asks today, i see that this must be a good question--an important one. And from my Christian worldview, Jesus asks us to take care of the poor and care for them. The Bible says that "...the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor" (Ps 140:12). Justice in a social sense, in a personal sense, and in a worldly sense seem to be very important in God's eyes.

Today, we see many people who perform injustices, but we see a number of people who perform justices. And it's usually these people who we see and love. We feel drawn to these types of people and sometimes wish we could be as "good" as they are. This is proof to me that we are all wired to be just people. I feel that God made us to be just towards one another. I feel that there is a government in place to keep justice and peace because that is when people are happiest.

There are many definitions of justice, but whenever it is the word "injustice" or "unjust," there are not normally positive associations. As a human race, we are made in the image of God, who is just.

These are just my thoughts on The Republic so far.

Specialization - Book II

Does it seem odd to anyone else that China does the sort of thing Socrates talks about in Book II? Not as much as they used to, but they certainly train their olympic teams from birth. I think Socrates' idea to build the perfect city is a good one, but it sounds to me like he's making it up on the spot, which I suppose it true, but his argument just seems weak, especially when he begins to explain Guardians. I understand he is explaining the impossible, but it seems he has a somewhat difficult time doing so.

Regardless of that (thank you for letting me vent my frustration), I like the idea of building a city on specialization. It sort of reminds me of communism, but again we are talking in ideals here so let's entertain the idea. I honestly question why we (Americans) insist on educating everyone formally. Why not have a process for determining one's skills/talents/passions and put him in a training program at an early age? Perfection is impossible, but I imagine that the bar of potential would be raised for achievements in all vocations.

-Mr. Carter

Book II- A Common Goal

At 369c Socrates says, "So, then, when one man takes on another for one need and another for another need, and, since many things are needed, many men gather in one settlement as partners and helpers, to this common settlement we give the name city, don't we?" Each man has a given gift and has certain skills. Some men are good at engineering while others are great farmers. Each man contributes his own skills to make the city. If everyman was the same then the city would not have much potential to grow. When they put their skills together, they can accomplish great things.

In a city each man must add his own skills for the common goal. If each man is working against each other then the city will fail. This is the reason that every individual is not good at everything. If everyone could do everything then we wouldn't be able to split the work between the most talented people and provide the best work. A city has the main goal of bring people together and creating one force.