The Republic Essay -- essays research papers

Most normal individuals in the modern military individualnel would assume that all books written, not published, by man are establish on either a portion of the authors imagination, an moment (biased or non-biased) in either history or during the life of the author, a straight- by autobiography, or a generalized biography of another person they once knew. However, this philosophical novel fits none of the descriptions above. The book is actually an in-depth arranging of a philosophy contest between Platos teacher Socrates and several(prenominal) other great philosophers. What is significant about this contest is that, in it, Socrates describes his individual(prenominal) view of a perfect world, and why justness is so strategic in the process of creating a civilized world.The novel was completed in 370 B.C., and it describes a strong debate between Socrates and five other speakers. The cardinal main transmission lines that he illustrates in this novel are that a normal cann ot obtain more power than the state, and that a philosopher is best suited to territorial dominion a nation since he has the ability to maintain this balance. Also, Socrates claims that only the philosopher has travelled beyond the cave of worldly desires and temptations to disc everywhere what legal expert really is. Socrates first gear major argument is with Thrasymachus in Book I. The current debate lies on the pure definition of legal expert. Thrasymachus claims that there is only one principle of nicety the come to of the more dominant force. Socrates counters this argument by using the contrive the stronger. He claims that the ruler of a nation will not be aided, provided harmed, by an unintentional command, in the long run. Socrates then builds his argument gradually by stating that the good and just man looks out for the interest of the weaker, and not for himself. Thrasymachus tries to counter Socratess argument by vaguely proclaiming that wrong is more gainful tha n justice.However, Socrates bravely explains that the just man will go bad happily because he has a just brain, and the man with the unjust soul lives in poverty therefore, injustice can never be greater than justice. At this point in the novel I saw Thrasymachuss flaw and also the reason why Socrates has silenced Thrasymachus. Injustice, in my opinion, whitethorn be better as a short-term plan for pleasure, but in the long run the unjust man will be condemned by just men of his evil deeds, thus leading to his downf... ...nally, Socrates points out that, in his perfect State, philosophers will always have the advantage over other types of rulers because they have wisdom and knowledge, which gives them the ability to govern justly and wisely. In my opinion, Socratess perfect State sounded plenty like the scenario progressing in the debate. Socrates, since he is a great philosopher, had the advantage over everyone because he was wise and sharp in his arguments therefore he obvious ly knew more about justice than anyone else. So, in conclusion, Socrates won the debate on the definition of justice. The reason for this is because Socrates, as stated before, had the wisdom and knowledge to analyze, in the most descriptive way, what justice really is. Glaucon and the others lacked what Socrates had, and so they could not support their arguments as well as Socrates could. I really liked this novel a lot because I am a lover of philosophy and understanding. However, I must allow for that some of Socratess arguments were redundant and besides the point. But other than this authoritative flaw, the book showed great insight, and Socrates created a vivid description about what justice means to the modern world.