Plato, the Greek philosopher, is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in Western Philosophy. His connection to both Socrates as a student and Aristotle as a teacher leaves no doubt about his expertise. One of his significant works is the “Republic”, which, though written in 380 BC, remains pertinent even in the twenty-first century. In this paper, I will analyze a quote from the “Republic”, offering a summary along with the contextual information from the text. Additionally, I will share my personal thoughts on the quote and Socrates’s argument as a whole.
The following quote is a paragraph from the fourth book of the “Republic”. It states that a just person is someone who has each part of their soul fulfilling its own role. In simpler terms, their soul must be in sync, with the spirited part assisting reason, and reason, with the aid of spirit, controlling the appetitive part. Socrates believes that the only path to justice, self-friendship, and wisdom in behavior is to attain this inner harmony.
The passage discusses the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon regarding the concept of “justice”. Glaucon had uncertainties about various aspects of justice, such as what determines a person’s just or unjust nature, whether it is more advantageous to be unjust, and why individuals would willingly choose to be just if it is not beneficial to them. To seek answers to these queries, Glaucon turned to Socrates. Initially, Socrates established that a person’s soul is comprised of three parts. The first part is referred to as “reason”, which is utilized for calculation and decision-making. Socrates also referred to this part as the rational aspect of the soul.
The irrational part, also known as the appetitive part, includes lust, hunger, thirst, and other desires. Socrates refers to the spiritual part as the last element of the soul, which assists the rational part as long as it hasn’t been negatively influenced by upbringing. Moreover, Socrates draws a parallel between an individual and a city-state. He states that a city resembles a human being in that it is comprised of three classes: the money-making (appetitive), auxiliary (spirit), and deliberative (reason).
The speaker argues that a city is considered just only if the three classes within it perform their designated tasks without interfering with each other. Similarly, an individual is deemed just when all three parts of their soul perform their respective duties, as explained by the analogy. However, I disagree with the idea of classifying the world into just and unjust. Justice itself is subjective, varying from person to person. Furthermore, it is not essential for all three parts to be in harmony for one to be considered just. To illustrate, consider the scenario of two close friends.
Two friends are talking. One of them asks the other to hold his golden gun temporarily and return it when asked. The second friend agrees. However, later the gun-owner becomes angry and wants to kill his noisy neighbor. When the second friend learns about this, the gun-owner asks him to give the gun back. In this situation, the second friend’s reason tells him not to return the gun to prevent a murder, but his sense of duty compels him to comply.
In conclusion, one individual’s desire to possess a golden gun pushes his appetites to want control of the weapon. Consequently, if the gun is not returned, this person will consider themselves just, as they believe their spirit adheres to reason, with both factors acting as restraints on their appetites. Another scenario involving different friends presents an alternative outcome. In this case, a person’s reason dictates that they should uphold their promise to their closest companion and return the gun to its rightful owner. According to Socrates, the reason of one individual in this scenario may not be thoroughly developed.
Both friends presented with the same dilemma are renowned philosophers. If Socrates is correct, it becomes impossible to discern true justice, even with a proper understanding of the concept. Conversely, if Socrates is mistaken, one potential explanation is that individuals hold differing opinions on what constitutes justice. In conclusion, Socrates argues that the notion of justice is concerned with maintaining harmony within the soul, ensuring that desires, spirit, and reason do not interfere with one another.
The speaker notes that a just person always acts with inner harmony. However, I personally believe that understanding the concept of “justice” alone is insufficient for evaluating just and unjust actions. Different individuals may perceive the same issues as both just and unjust. Thus, “justice” is a subjective term. Nevertheless, these viewpoints do not oppose the main quote or Socrates’s arguments. Therefore, I concur with the assertion that a just person possesses reason and willpower while regulating their appetites.
