![]() ![]() ![]() But Socrates implicitly points to the problematic character of the equation of the just man and the philosopher by revealing, among other things, that the philosophers must be compelled to rule in the best regime even though it would be a matter of justice for them to rule willingly. ![]() In Book Five through Book Ten, Socrates continues his defense of justice by equating the just man and the philosopher-indeed, by making clear that the philosopher is just more or less in the sense outlined in Book Four. It contrasts with the more commonsensical definitions of justice offered in Book One, e.g., that justice is giving to each what is owed and telling the truth. ![]() But this definition is paradoxical and appears to have little link with justice as ordinarily understood. In doing so, he relies especially on the definition of the justice of the individual that he provides at the end of Book Four, i.e., allowing each of the parts of the soul to mind its own business. In response to the request made by Glaucon and Adeimantus at the beginning of Book Two, Socrates tries to show, in the bulk of the Republic, that justice is intrinsically good and that it is better than injustice. I contend that recognizing the problematic character of Socrates' defense of justice in the Republic is a key to understanding his teaching regarding justice. In this dissertation, I examine Socrates' defense of justice in Plato's Republic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |