Socrates was a Greek philosopher born in Athens in the year 470BC. The lifestyle of Socrates made him a famous figure in the world of philosophy and influenced western philosophy and the history of the world of philosophy. He was admired by many because of his mastery, insight, and great arguing skills in philosophy. Socrates had a significant influence on ancient philosophy thinkers who preceded him were called pre-Socratics. He is considered the first philosopher who talked about ethics in Greek; hence his work became recognized far and wide as a controversial philosopher.
Socrates did not record any of the dialogues he depicts but were written by his devoted followers who admired him for his bravery, integrity, and insight into philosophy. Among the people who wrote about him are Xenophon and Plato, who portray him as insightful and argumentative. Socrates became more famous for the events that led to his death. During his trial, Socrates explains the meaning of justice by examining the action of the citizens of the republic of Athens, where he gives a response to the challenge of Glaucon and Adaimentus on what justice truly is. Socrates uses the republic to show that it is the same as its citizens on the grounds of justice. In this paper, the three arguments of Socrates recorded in book ix are discussed and analyzed to see whether he answered the questions posed and if they are relevant to the challenge by Glaucon and Adeimantus on justice.
Socrates’ Argument on Ignorance
Plato explains that Socrates disliked the republic because he was considered wiser than any other citizen. Socrates claims that he does not have any knowledge of being wise. Still, since the oracle told his friend Chaerophon, “no one is wiser than Socrates” (Mouracade 48), he decides to find a wise person to show that the oracle is wrong about him being more intelligent. In his quest for a wiser man, Socrates visits politicians, poets, and craftsmen, but all his encounter with these people who seemed wise proves that they are not smart but do what they do due to the knowledge or inspiration they have
Finally, he concluded that he indeed is more intelligent than the republic because he is not ignorant of his lack of wisdom. According to Socrates, being ethical means acknowledging one ignorance of some things. Socrates repeated arguments on ignorance demonstrate his view on justice that as much as he can tell what justice is, there is still more he does not know about it. In his apology, Socrates condemns Athens for being ignorant on matters of justice because the citizens fail to answer his question on who is in charge of helping the youth if he is accused of corrupting them.
As per Socrates, the implication that he corrupts the young generation means the rest of the citizens condemn him to take care of them, which is not the case. He vies himself as the only person concerned with the youth, contrary to the accusation that he is a bad influence. He claims that harming the youth is like breaking himself voluntarily, which is impossible logically. In any case, punishment for one’s wrongdoings does not help in reducing crime. Instead, educating the accused is better so that they can find out where they went wrong.
Socratic ignorance, one of Socrates’ famous arguments, demonstrates the ignorance of the republic, which he compares to a tyrannical ruler. Due to ignorance and pursuit of his desires, the tyrant is unjust in his decisions. He is never happy because his tyrant self controls his action, but the tyrant is adamant about knowledge and justice because of ignorance. To answer the Glaucon challenge, Socrates says that a wise man is happier than the unwise since he leads a controlled and governed life just and free of worry. In contrast, an unjust man lives miserably because the tyrant nature controls his soul hence does unjust deeds that make life full of regrets.
Socrates’ Argument on Caring for the Soul
According to Socrates, the soul should care for more than any material wealth on earth (James 1). He divides the soul into three parts of desire, reason, and spirit form. The desirous man seeks material gain for satisfaction, and the spiritual man aims for success and honor in life while the reasonable man tries to find knowledge. Of these three categories of men, the reasonable man is juster and happier despite the assumption that all three have that they are all happy. He finds out the republicans fall in the category of the desirous man, who cares for material things and their bodies instead of caring for their souls.
Socrates argues that being virtuous can make wealth but be wealthy cannot make human beings righteous or bring more wisdom. He believes that God sent him on earth to demonstrate and preach to people about the importance of caring for the soul than the body, especially the people of Athens, where he is specifically sent to give this message. His argument implies that whatever he did was according to the oracle that sent him; hence it should not be judged as a crime. He compares himself to a horsefly and the city of Athens to a slow horse that needs provoking to stir up (James 5). An analysis of this argument shows
Socrates as the horsefly is considered the philosophical inquiry that provokes the horse, the citizens of Athens, to examine their actions. He considers himself an asset to democracy, contrary to the belief that he is a democratic burden. In conclusion, Socrates defends his argument by saying, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or properties but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul….” (Mouracade 50). Therefore, Socrates concludes his argument that since the reasonable man is just, then he alone is justified to judge himself s a happy man.
The Argument on Examining Life
When Socrates is given the death sentence, the citizens and prosecutors worry that he could talk his way out of the sentence and live as a free man with his arguments. But Socrates declares to the republic that he could not continue being silent on his defense because that would be disobeying his divinity god and not because he could not accept the sentence. He claims that “the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings” (Mouracade 62). This statement demonstrates to the republic that to live a life full of meaning, one must reflect on what they believe in, account for their words and actions, and speak for justice. Human beings are naturally drawn toward wealth and power, which is deemed to increase one’s reputation in society.
Socrates argues that living an examined life is more directed on personal reflection of an individual’s actions, distinguishing what is worthy of doing and what is not. If an activity or word does not add value, it is better to discard and look for things that add real value to our lives. In this argument, Socrates accuses his prosecutors of having no respect for humanity. Giving him a death sentence did not guarantee them a life without reflection on the action. He argues that one cannot escape examining their lives, and in sentencing him, they are not getting rid of a burden but tainting their own lives with sin (Mouracade 71). Following this argument, Socrates responds to the challenge by showing proof using the difference between illusory pleasure and positive pleasure. Unreal pleasure is assuming, while positive pleasure is reflective because it is a pursuit of knowledge. The knowledgable man is just and happier, with a clear conscience than a man without knowledge.
Works Cited
James. “Justice and the Fundamental Question of Plato’s ‘Republic.’” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, vol. 35, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1–17. Jstor, Web.
Mouracade, John. “Plato’s three arguments for justice.” Méthexis, vol. 18, 2005, pp. 43–52. Jstor, Web.
Mouracade, John. “The many challenges of ‘republic’ II.” Méthexis, vol. 21, 2008, pp. 63–80. JSTOR, Web.