Philosophical Conversations of Socrates - Essay Example

Philosphical covnversations of Socrates The great philosopher Socrates is known to have many interesting conversations, with his followers, that havedeep meanings. The associates of Socrates tried to recreate these conversations in the form of dialogues, so that same can be recorded in literary medium for the proper philosophical investigation, down the ages. The purpose was also to present more information on dialogues than the one given by the detractors of Socrates. While Xenophon wrote a Symposium called” Dinner Party”, A follower of Socrates by the name of Aeschines also recorded the Socratic dialogues. However, most of these literary writings have vanished, as only some tattered bits are available now. Plato wrote around twenty-three philosophical dialogues, which Socrates had with his followers. Plato’s republic is the most important of such writings, as the same is being investigated philosophically, even in the current materialistic technological age. Plato’s Republic is recorded in Book, numbered 1 to10. This paper will discuss mainly the topic from book one. Plato’s view on Socrates’ definition of justice As per the Plato’s Republic, book one, while discussing on various issues, Socrates poses the question regarding the definition of happiness and justice, to his followers and critics. Socrates is not able to answer this question directly, even when he rejects the others’ views on “what is justice”.. However, Plato has given a rich and detailed theory of justice as detailed by Socrates, in the books of Republic.(337b) Plato’s Republic details the Socrates views on the issue, which is for the critics also to review. Although, the early dialogues reveals the position of Socrates viewing this on moralistic values, the later dialogues involve theories related to metaphysics, religion and psychology etc..These dialogues recorded in detail in books from 2 to 10 As per Plato’s Republic, its book 1 details about the returning of Socrates and his friend Glaucon, from a religious festival, when they meet young Polemarchus. On the insistence of this young noble, Socrates visits the home of Polemarchus, where the visitors also meet his aging father Cephalous Socrates starts conversation with the old man on the growing age. However, soon the topic of discussion turns to justice. Cephalous is a respected elder man of the region who is rich as well. During such conversation, Cephalous is of the view that justice means meeting one’s obligations and being honest towards others.(330) However, as per the Plato’s version in Republic book 1 and 2, Socrates is not able to agree with this and puts up an argument against this concept by giving an example that it will not be “just” to return a weapon owned by a mad man. Socrates further refutes these views by saying that Cephalous being a wealthy person may not know the real troubles and sufferings of old age. However, Cephalous, being a wise man argues that a wealthy bad man will suffer in old age as will a poor good man (332) Socrates is of the view that there is a difference between the acquired wealth and a self-made rich man. While self-made riches make the man to stick to his money, acquired wealth may not find much favorite with the person who acquires it. While delving on the question of Socrates about any single enjoyment that Cephalous might have had from his being rich. Cephalous reveals philosophically that as man travels through his old age, he is afraid of all the bad deeds and injustices done by him during his lifetime. He thinks about punishment for the same at the time of his death Therefore, the great wealth is, as per Cephalus, is to keep away from unintentional cheating and lying as that will keep the person away from leaving life in the fear of repayment of such unpaid debts.(331b) This reveals the importance given to the actions and not the wealth, acquired or inherited, that will determine the happiness for the old age, in terms of Cephalus. While Cephalus left to make preparations for the festival, his son Polemarchus, joined in to give his definition of justice as “giving anyone his due”. Socrates quoting earlier conversation of giving back a mad man his weapon refuted this. Polemarchus , agreed to Socrates saying that it will be a mistake to do so. However, Polemarchus had quoted Simonides for defining justice, which as per Polemarchus would have meant that Simonides was referring to the idea of justice as “helping your friends”. Socrates poses further questions on the issue of true friendship and its relationship with honesty. By such definition, Socrates opines that it will mean helping bad men and harming good men. Socrates views are redefined as he puts the conversation in a suggestive phase saying that a friend is a good man and an enemy as a bad man, hence helping the friend is certainly a part of justice. Socrates concludes that justice is the valid mixture of wisdom and excellence. He compares metaphysics of “Cooling as a heat function” with the “ability of harming to be a function of a good person”, as it is not an act of justice to harm anyone. Thrasymachus, while joining in an angry mood, as he accuses Socrates of not telling how he defines justice, gives out his definition with regard to justice being carried forward. He sums up saying that justice is for the stronger to survive better and as such the “advantage of the stronger”. Comparing this with medical terms like a stronger medicine, he feels that prescription of justice is not for the stronger but for the poor that are being ruled by it.(342d) He further argues that it is the perfection of injustice that makes the possessor happy, while making others miserable.. Thus, Trasymachus concludes that while justice is carried out to the advantage of the stronger, injustice is still stronger and freer to suffice. While refuting this, Socrates asks Trasymachus how he can elaborate on his idea of perfect injustice being more beneficial than justice is. Now, Trasymachus refines his definition saying that while justice is noble and good natured, injustice is good judgment.(349d) Socrates is still pondering over the question of what compares justice with injustice. He further elaborates that an unjust city with unjust people can enslave other cities while the men living in the unjust city are doing justice to each other, being “partners in crime”(351) Socrates puts forward his views through examples, as he feels that the justice “concerns the way we ought to live”(352d). He argues that function is subjective to its purpose and can be best performed for the particular thing only. However, he feels that anything, which needs a function, will also have excellence and combination of both ensures perfection in performance. Socrates has given the best example of this by saying that life is the function of soul and nothing else can perform this function. Life needs excellence to perform the function of soul and this excellence is JUSTICE. This in effect means that people with bad souls will be bad rulers and mangers Socrates, although still not satisfied with the definition of justice, feels that excellence combined with wisdom can ensure delivery of justice. Source: Plato, The republic, Book 1 and 2 Read More