Adam Pilarski Into to Pol. Theory Socrates life was mainly documented through the writing of Plato.

Socratic philosophy was a public examination of the ethical virtues (courage, piety, etc.): the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being (The Apology, 38a). Socrates was popular among students, but was also loathed by some powerful people. The ethical aspect of Socrates philosophy was trying to determine how a life should be lived. The political aspect of his philosophy was trying to determine how a polis should be run as a means of breeding that fully examined, fully flourished life. One of the aims of a properly run polis is trying to nurture that kind of life. Socrates believes that it is a part of human excellence to live a life which abides by the will of the gods. He even consulted oracles in his own life. Yet, according to his view, no one can truly know if one is just or not, if we can give a rational account of what the virtue justice truly is. We need the proper standard and knowledge of justice itself in order to rightly judge an individual. That very definition only comes about through the use of reason. In testing the various understandings of justice, one arguments for and against it, one ensures that they are extremely explicit in their comprehension, and etc. In other words, Socratic philosophy is about the examination of the virtues, and he did so publicly. He would do this in his home city amongst others who had thought that they were virtuous as well. In example, he would say, can you give me, an ignorant fool, what piety and justice a solid definition? Socratic philosophy was a public examination. He wanted to give an accurate definition of the virtues (courage, wisdom, piety, etc.) He believed life would flourish with excellence under these virtues. Socrates was put on trial on a variety of charges. He was corrupting the youth by undermining traditional morality, was tried by his own peers, and put to death. It is arguable that Plato believed that Athenian democracy had put its wisest and most just citizen to death. The central inquiry of The Republic is one of justice: its characterization and its effects. The question of justice in the text is: If one lives a just life, what kind of experience, what kind of life, would that be? What can we expect by living through justice or injustice? Or what could we expect from choosing injustice over justice?

Cephalus is an aged businessman. He is living a comfortable life and is not subject to rigorous, hard labor. He is a just character, and even holds some right opinions as to how to live a just life. Cephalus position on earning money is as such: have enough to sustain oneself, but it is possible to get excessive to it. Cephalus also says that, citing Sophocles, at old age one is free from the master of sex. By most accounts, he is a just man. What he cannot do, however, is give an account of the principles which underlie his just life. While he may intuitively live a just life, he has difficulty living by and comprehending the philosophical principles which render his life as it is. Can one tell the truth, return what is borrowed, and be unjust? This is Socrates inquiry as to Cephalus definition of justice. Cephalus is ultimately exposed as not a truly philosophically good man. While he goes through the motions of living justice, he is not principally living by such theories. He turns over the dialogue to his son, Polymarchus. Though Polymarchus is much more contemplative than his father, he is still flawed principally speaking. His conventional views are undermined by this point: justice is an art/craft (techne) that benefits all and harms none. This being said, justice can do no harm of any kind, not even to its enemies. Its characterization of art is crucial to the nature of Polymarchus argument of justice. Thrasymachus is a sophist. A sophist is a kind of intellectual gun for hire. It specializes in techniques of argument, rhetoric, in persuading an audience to its side, etc. It is supposed to be capable of arguing a position regardless of its truth. Truth is not the point, but being proved right through their conviction. A modern day equivalent might be a lawyer. Their purpose is to make an argument appear true. What sophistry does is break the rational argument into a piece of technique, art. When we see Thrasymachus first introduced, it can already be told that Plato does not hold him in high regard. He is depicted as a wild animal for his sheer passions in his conviction, as he displays his violent propensities throughout their dialogue. In Socrates view, a sophist is a potential philosopher whose virtues were corrupted along the way. Sophists would charge money to teach their skills, and thus self-benefit ultimately took priority over sheer god. Thrasymachus view says that Socrates arguments do not prove anything. According to him, he simply beats around the bush through his tireless inquiry by undermining the conventional views. Socrates refuses, given Thrasymachus violent nature. In the same way that Socrates refuted Polymarchus definition of justice, he soon refutes the notion that justice is simply the name we give to the interest of the stronger party. This is one of the most technical arguments of the dialogue, one which is so daunting we need not memorize its meticulous nature.

What Socrates does is compel Thrasymachus to admit that ruling is an art (techne) which employs the use of expertise. It is practicioner and the one who is practices upon the expertise. Think of a doctor: he is educated and uses his medicinal expertise for the benefit of the patient. It is not the case that he practices medicine only for money, for this is merely incidental. We call someone a doctor because they are able to produce health. We dont call someone a doctor because they produce health merely for financial gain. Therefore, Socrates says that a true ruler rules for the sake of the ruled as opposed to power. A true king makes decisions for the common good which benefit all of the people. A true ruler, like a true doctor, practices for the collective good rather than for their individual gain. In this regard, Socrates is saying that all matters of expertise practice for the collective good. The final turn of Thrasymachus definition of justice is that, because justice is a kind of skill, it has to benefit all, and thus it is refuted. Then, T tries to alter his argument, by saying that injustice is better than a vain attempt for happiness through the employment of justice. The basic counterargument is that injustice, or an unjust collectivity, is constantly at war with itself due to the anarchic and virtuous nature. Could a person who is not at peace with himself, who is constantly being pulled in different directions, be truly called just? And similarly, could a city which is constantly in contention with itself, ever be considered happy? What he reaches as a conclusion is the practice of justice brings out joy in a city, whereas injustice reaps misery. Thus, he is saying that there is an inherent link between justice and happiness. This underlies the remaining messages of the public.