"Thoughts on the Republic"

by Walter Jensen

This paper will concentrate on the first book of the Republic. Its focus is on Plato's account of Socrates' discussion on the nature of justice. It will show why Socrates refutes the definitions given on the nature of justice by the other characters in the book. It will also show that this chapter allowed Socrates to move the discussion into a discourse.

The book begins with Socrates and Glaucon meeting up with Polemarchus. Soon afterwards, they are joined with Adeimantus, Niceratus, and a cast of other characters. The entire party travels to Polemarchus' house for dinner, after which, they plan to attend all-night carnival. The discussion starts out with Cephalus, Polemarchus' father, requesting Socrates to visit him more often since he is no longer strong enough to make a journey to visit Socrates. Cephalus complains that old age has taken some of the physical fun out of life and replaced it with a need for rational conversation. He request that Socrates "come and talk to the young men and visit us as if we were old friends" (Lee 4). Socrates replies,

Socrates questioning Cephalus kicks off the discussion. Cephalus admits, in an around about way, that he is not overly fond of money and that it does not rule his life. Cephalus further claims that with money one can rectify some of the injustices that one has caused during one's life. This leads up to the first definition of justice, that is, "doing right consists simply and solely in truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed" (Lee 8). Socrates refutes the first definition of justice with his analogy of returning a borrowed weapon. Socrates ask the question would it be just to return a weapon you had borrowed from a friend, when the friend is furious, dangerous, and has an inkling to do harm to himself or others. The group replies that returning the weapon, at that time, would be an unjust act. Using determine negation, Socrates keeps the idea that truthfulness is part of the idea of justice and negates the idea that returning anything one has borrowed as being an intricate part of the nature of justice. At this point, Cephalus turns the conversation over to Polemarchus and Simonides.

Debating with Socrates, Simonides consolidates his view of the nature of justice. First, he defines justice as giving everyone his or her due. Then he modifies his position that justice is a matter of giving everyone what is appropriate to him or her. Finally, with further direction and questioning from Socrates, Simonides defines justice as being something that consists in helping one's friends and injuring one's enemies. By using his method of teaching by asking questions (the Socratic method), Socrates concretely negates this definition of justice on both fronts. Socrates shows that the function of a just man is not to harm his enemies. For doing so, the just man becomes unjust. He goes one step further by stating that there is always the chance that the friend you are trying to help out is really your enemy or the enemies that you are trying to harm is really your friends.

At this point, Polemarchus restates Simonides position that justice is benefiting one's friends who are really good human beings and injuring one's enemies who are really evil human beings. But once again Socrates finds grievous error in Polemarchus position. Socrates states, "it is never right to harm anyone at any time" (Lee 15). Polemarchus becomes convinced that his refined definition of justice is critically flawed and is ready to join Socrates on his side of the debate.

Thrasymachus, who has been dying to jump into this discussion, is convinced that he alone has the answer. He states that justice "is in the interest of the stronger party" (Lee 19) and that it is a virtue only intended for the weaker members of a society. According to Thrasymachus, the just man leads a good life because he is fearful of the repercussions of his actions. The unjust man is not fearful of these repercussions because he is stronger and more intelligent than the average citizen. These traits will allow him to avoid social reprisal for his unjust actions. Furthermore, the more unjust a man is the stronger he becomes. Thrasymachus finally states that since the unjust man is living outside the law, he will lead a happier and more fruitful life because he is free from the social constraints of society.

Socrates attacks Thrasymachus' position on three fronts. First, the just man is always more intelligent than the unjust man. Socrates' argument on who is the more intelligent human being between the just and unjust man, my opinion, is a fruitless argument. Socrates' argument fails to convince me that an intelligent human being will always do the right thing. The second front is concern with the idea that the unjust man gains strength from acting unjustly. According to Socrates, this idea is really the unjust man's down fall. Socrates points out that there must be some honor among thieves or they could not work together to steal something greater than their own individual needs. If the thieves could not agree with what they wished to collectively steal, they could not trust each other to perform their individual function to attain the object of their desires. Complete injustice only leads to total chaos and destruction. In his final attack, Socrates states that the function of human kind is to live. Then he posses the question: What is man's virtue? To Socrates a virtue is a characteristic that makes something perform its function well. If injustice is a source of chaos and disharmony, justice is a source of order and harmony. If injustice is a defect of man, justice is man's virtue. According to Socrates, without justice man cannot perform his function, he cannot live. If man cannot live very well, how would he be able to live a happy life? Faced with these facts, Thrasymachus is not convinced but has no rebuttal.

The first definition of justice offered by Cephalus comes from a poor understanding of the inter-workings of society. There is more to society then telling the truth and rental agreements. The second definition of justice offered by Polemarchus and Simonides come from an infantile perspective. The reason I call this definition of justice infantile is because I see several similarities between their definition and the behavior of my two-year-old son. When my son sees either my wife or I cleaning up the house, he will help in a way that is within his means. He will move his toys into his bedroom, take dishes left in the living room into the kitchen, or pick up scraps of paper and put them into the garbage can. By the same token, when my son thinks he has been unjustly treated (given a "time out" for inappropriate behavior), he will lash out at his temporary enemy, the adult that is administering the punishment. Thrasymachus definition of justice also fits into the infantile perspective of being greediness and selfishness. My son constantly tries to get away with anything he can, whether it is good for him or not. Just like Thrasymachus, my son is only concern with his little world and what is his. Polemarchus, Simonides, and Thrasymachus definition of justice are simply that of a two-year-old, nothing more and nothing less.

This leads into my belief that Socrates discussion is a discourse. Before we address this question, we must clarify our terminology. According to most dictionaries, a discussion is an informal debate or argument for the propose of arriving at an understanding or a clarification of an idea. As for discourse, I agree with Rudolf Siebert's definitions of discourse. He states that

Socrates is not trying to win an argument with his friends. He is trying to teach them what his lifetime experiences have taught him about the nature of justice. I believe that Socrates speaks from his experiences being a soldier in the Peloponnesian War, a father of two children, living in a state under the control of Sparta, and the political upheaval within his society. He proves, with reason and logic, what justice is not. Socrates shows that there is more to justice then the concerns of a two-year-old. It seams to me that he is searching for a definition that would bring about a more just, humane, and rationale society. By removing inadequate and infantile definitions of justice, society can concentrate on the true meaning and application of justice.

Walter Jensen is an undergraduate student at WMU. This paper submitted for academic review October 2, 1997.