The Republic of Plato

The Republic of PlatoStudent’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Abstract
In Plato’s political-philosophical book, The Republic of Plato explains various concepts including justice and social class that define people’s view on politics. Socrates investigates to determine whether justice or injustice can make a person happier. According to Socrates, justice is one of the essential virtues of human beings and thus his explanation of justice relates to the human soul. In the Republic, there are five proofs of why people should be just. The first proof is the analogy between physical and psychological health found in Book Four. Socrates also provides the “three proofs” in Books Eight and Nine. The last proof is the human body, which consists of reason, spirit, and appetite. Plato describes the arguments about justice through his teacher Socrates in the book. The most crucial question found in the book is, what is justice? The book refutes every description provided by other people, but Socrates fails to provide his definition. The discussion ended in aporia, a deadlock.
Keywords: Philosophical, Political, Republic, Justice
Republic of Plato
The book described the events that took place in Polemarchus’ house. According to Cephalus, justice meant people being honest and living to their legal obligations (Adam, 1902). However, Socrates criticizes the argument by offering a counterexample of returning a weapon to a madman. Cephalus excused himself from the discussion and his son, Polemarchus takes over the argument.

According to Polemarchus, justice meant helping ones’ friends and harming his or her enemies. The argument meant that people should be given what they are due. Socrates opposed that argument about justice due to various reasons. According to Socrates, people may be wrong in determining their friends and enemies. Sometimes the enemies might pretend to be a friend. Likewise, a friend may turn a be a total stranger possessing the characteristics of an enemy, which can be extreme and dangerous. People are prone to mistakes and thus may fail to differentiate between their friends and enemies. Thus, following Polemarchus’ argument, people may end up helping their enemies and harming their friends. In addition to that, Socrates claimed that the idea of harming the bad people could not be viewed as justice.
In addition to that, Socrates claimed that many classes of people who engage in certain occupations are viewed as better in participating in a bad or a good, but their acts cannot be said to accomplish justice (Adam, 1902). Socrates suggests that a just person is not always the most suitable person to achieve a given benefit or harm. Conversely, just does not reflect on personal values to quantify an individual as morally upright. As such, dividing people into rival groups may not achieve justice according to Socrates. Socrates argued that when we harm others, we do not make them better people but worse people. Thus, when one group harms their rivals, the rivals become worse and lead to conflict, not justice.
Polemarchus thought that it was wise to differentiate people into groups. Some of the groups composed of good people while other groups would be comprised of bad people. The bad groups should be harmed due to their wrongdoings and harm others. The good groups would be dealt with in a good way. According to Socrates, divisions were harmful led to an unjust society, which did not implicate the value of justice and law. People define good or bad differently. Thus, the members of the community may view a group as good while other members view it as bad. The society has no single way to define good and bad. Therefore, dividing people into good and bad groups is difficult. Additionally, harming one group would not make that group a better group. Dividing groups only create the rivalry in the society.
Socrates does not offer the correct definition of justice. Additionally, he does not offer a clear description of how people should be harmed for their wrongdoings. From the book, just people are happier than unjust people and happiness cannot help express the value of one’s goodness or evilness. That is, even the evilest man is happy than the just person according to Socrates. He distinguished between pleasures and lack. Genuine pleasures do not fill a lack and thereby replace a pain. The just are thus likely to experience the pleasures and happiness of their actions. The unjust would experience lack of pleasure and lack of happiness. Therefore, groups, which are struggling to deal with the injustice, should eliminate the pleasures that are enjoyed by the just. Socrates suggests that the removal of pleasure can be painful. Therefore, the group should reduce the pleasures of the unjust so that they can encourage them to engage in just actions and behaviors to regain the pleasures.
Socrates was not contented with the way his city operated. Thus, he formulated his city-state, which was an alternative to the state at his time. The ideal city was composed of three classes. The guardians were philosophers who governed the city; the auxiliaries were soldiers who protected the city and the producers who were the lowest ranked members of the city. The three classes were not likely to experience rivalry due to various reasons. First, the guardians and the auxiliaries would have the same level of education. The education system would involve music, literature, and gymnastics. Arts were avoided in the curriculum because some artwork may motivate the members of the city to fight against each other. Some musical instruments like flutes would also be forbidden from the city since they encourage vices. Apart from Dorian and Phrygian musical modes, all other modes would be banned in the city.
Also, rivalry in the city would be avoided by implementing repressive laws. The laws would allow people to engage in only one occupation, which they are best suited. Strategically, this would allow people to value their position in the city avoiding prejudice that would cause division or inequality. Nonetheless, the division between the public and private would be eliminated hence creating an equal and conducive environment for all members of the city. Excesses would also be avoided, and hence people would not be allowed to be too rich or too poor.
Justice in the city would be achieved by unifying all the people and allowing them to work together. According to Socrates, the value of togetherness established a sense of worth and value that promoted a common interested among people, whether woman or man, child or old. The usual family setup would be abolished in the city. Men would have children and women in common. No man would be attached to some children than others or one woman more than he would be attached to the other in the city. Nonetheless, the mothers would not be allowed to know their real children or drawn personal claim to a child in the society. Thus, the society would be equal and have a common goal. Justice would prevail in Socrates’ city since all the members of the city would be equal. The disparities that existed in the society were believed to cause the injustice according to Socrates.
The Republic of Plato expressed the ideas of Plato through Socrates. Socrates criticized the prevailing ideas of a just society. The society only seeks to provide people with what they deserved. However, doing good to good people and harming bad people only served to create rivalry and hatred. Thus, Socrates disputed such ideas. Socrates created the just city to express his thoughts and understanding of a just society. From the book, in it clear that Socrates believed that making the people equal by all standards and eliminating disparities would create a just society.
References
Adam, J. (1902). The Republic of Plato, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.