The Republic
Book I
- Socrates and Glaucon visit the Piraeus to witness the festival and prayers to the goddess Bendis.
- They encounter Polemarchus, who insists they wait for him along with his companions.
- Polemarchus invites them to his house, where they meet Cephalus, an elderly man, and other guests.
- Cephalus reflects on old age, stating that its difficulty depends on one’s disposition rather than age itself.
- Socrates questions Cephalus about the source of his wealth, and Cephalus emphasizes the value of a calm and happy nature in facing old age.
- Socrates challenges the notion that wealth is the greatest blessing, prompting Cephalus to discuss the peace of mind that comes from a clear conscience regarding debts and justice.
- The discussion turns to the definition of justice, with Socrates questioning if it’s merely about speaking the truth and repaying debts.
- Polemarchus, taking over the argument, asserts that Simonides believes the repayment of a debt is just.
- Socrates expresses doubt about the clarity of Simonides’ statement regarding justice.
- Cephalus excuses himself to attend to sacrifices, leaving Polemarchus to continue the discussion.
- Socrates questions whether returning a deposit when someone is not in their right mind is just.
- Polemarchus agrees that it is not just in such a case.
- Simonides’ idea of justice, according to Polemarchus, involves always doing good to friends and never harm.
- Socrates challenges this idea, suggesting that returning a deposit that harms the receiver contradicts the concept of justice.
- The discussion revolves around the nature of justice, and Socrates questions the analogy of justice in various situations, such as medicine, cookery, and partnerships.
- The idea that justice is only useful in times of peace is challenged, and its relevance in contracts and partnerships is explored.
- The conclusion is drawn that justice is beneficial when things are not in use, contrasting it with activities like medicine, shipbuilding, or playing the harp.
- Socrates questions the overall usefulness of justice, and Polemarchus argues that it is essential in contracts and partnerships.
- The conversation shifts to the analogy of justice in the use of money and the keeping of a deposit.
- Socrates suggests that justice may not be as valuable as Polemarchus believes, leading to a discussion on the usefulness of justice in different contexts.
- The concept of justice is further challenged, suggesting that justice may be good at keeping things safe when they are not in use but less valuable when in active use.
- The dialogue explores whether a just person is good at keeping things, implying they may also be good at stealing, leading to an association of justice with theft.
- The discussion concludes with a reconsideration of the meaning of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy,’ emphasizing that true friends are those who are genuinely good.
- The error in understanding the terms ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ is acknowledged, and the correction is proposed that a true friend is both good and appears to be good.
- The dialogue ends with the idea that the good are friends, and the bad are enemies, correcting the initial assumption about the nature of friendship and enmity.
- Socrates challenges the definition of justice provided by Polemarchus and argues that returning harm to anyone, just or unjust, is not just.
- Thrasymachus intervenes, criticizing the discussion and urging everyone to provide clear answers rather than evade the questions.
- Thrasymachus asserts that justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies, but Socrates questions the validity of this definition.
- Thrasymachus becomes aggressive, claiming that justice is the interest of the stronger.
- Socrates seeks clarification, asking if this means that whatever benefits the stronger is just for everyone.
- Thrasymachus denies this interpretation and accuses Socrates of deliberately misunderstanding.
- Socrates requests a clearer explanation of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice.
- Thrasymachus finally declares that justice is the interest of the stronger.
- Socrates questions whether this implies that what benefits a stronger individual is just for everyone, using the example of Polydamas and eating beef.
- Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of distorting his words and urges him to understand the concept of forms of government.
-
Socrates challenges Thrasymachus by examining the nature of rulership and the interests of rulers. - Thrasymachus claims that justice is the interest of the stronger, implying rulers, in the strictest sense, always act in their interest.
- Socrates questions whether rulers, being fallible, may unintentionally command actions that are against their own interest.
- Cleitophon and Polemarchus argue that Thrasymachus has admitted that rulers can make mistakes in their commands.
- Socrates suggests that if rulers can make mistakes, then justice cannot solely be the interest of the stronger, as subjects might be ordered to do something against the ruler’s interest.
- Thrasymachus asserts that rulers are unerring in their rulership and always command what is in their own interest.
- Socrates asks if rulers, in the strictest sense, are healers of the sick or makers of money, illustrating the idea that the true nature of an art is to serve its own interest, not another’s.
- Thrasymachus agrees that rulers, in the strict sense, are concerned with the perfection of rulership for their own interest.
- Socrates concludes that if rulership is an art with its own interests, justice cannot solely be the interest of the stronger but must also consider the perfection of the art itself.
- Thrasymachus argues that rulers in states, like physicians or shepherds, act in their own interest rather than the interest of those they rule.
- Socrates challenges this view, asserting that true rulers, like physicians and shepherds, prioritize the well-being of their subjects or flocks over their personal interests.
- Thrasymachus claims that injustice is more advantageous than justice, as the unjust person gains more in various situations, such as private contracts and dealings with the state.
- Socrates counters, emphasizing that true skill in an art, whether medicine or ruling, is focused on the benefit of the subject, not the practitioner.
- The discussion leads to the conclusion that rulers, in their capacity as rulers, act for the benefit of their subjects and not for personal gain.
- Thrasymachus, unconvinced, asserts that injustice is superior to justice, and the unjust person is happier and more successful.
- Socrates urges Thrasymachus to stay and continue the discussion, seeking consistency in his arguments.
- Thrasymachus questions Socrates’ upbringing and suggests he lacks understanding of rulership and the pursuit of self-interest.
- The dialogue explores the nature of different arts and their specific functions, highlighting the importance of each art serving its distinct purpose.
- Socrates reinforces the idea that rulers, like physicians and shepherds, should prioritize the well-being of those they rule.
- Thrasymachus claims that perfect injustice is more gainful than perfect justice.
- Socrates questions whether Thrasymachus would classify injustice as virtue and justice as vice.
- Thrasymachus affirms that injustice is honourable and strong, ranking it with wisdom and virtue.
- Socrates points out the contradiction in Thrasymachus’ argument, questioning how the just man would regard attempts to gain an advantage over the unjust.
- Thrasymachus acknowledges that the just man would indeed try to gain an advantage over the unjust, but the unjust man would strive to have more than both the just and the unjust.
- Socrates concludes that the just man desires more than his like but less than his unlike, while the unjust desires more than both his like and his unlike.
- Thrasymachus is led to claim that the unjust is good and wise, while the just is neither.
- Justice, identified with wisdom and virtue, is shown to be stronger than injustice if injustice is considered as ignorance.
- The power possessed by a superior state or group can only exist or be exercised with justice, as injustice creates divisions, hatred, and fighting.
- Injustice, whether in a city, army, family, or individual, renders the body or person incapable of united action and makes them enemies of the just.
- Injustice in a single person renders them incapable of action due to lack of unity within themselves and makes them an enemy to themselves and the just.
- The gods are considered just, making the unjust their enemy and the just their friend.
- The just are shown to be wiser, better, and more capable than the unjust, who are incapable of common action.
- The claim that the unjust can act vigorously together is challenged, as their ability to do so implies some remnant of justice in them.
- Whether the just have a better and happier life than the unjust is acknowledged as a further question to be examined.
- Socrates begins by asking whether a horse has some end, and if the end of anything is that which cannot be accomplished or not so well accomplished by any other thing.
- He uses the example of the eye, ear, pruning-hook, and other things to illustrate the concept that each thing has an end and a special excellence.
- Socrates argues that the soul has an end that nothing else can fulfill, such as superintending, commanding, and deliberating, and that life is among the ends of the soul.
- The soul must have excellence to fulfill its ends, and justice is identified as the excellence of the soul, while injustice is considered the defect of the soul.
- Socrates concludes that the just soul and the just man will live well and be happy, while the unjust man will live miserably.
- Thrasymachus concedes to this conclusion, admitting that injustice can never be more profitable than justice.
- Socrates expresses his dissatisfaction with the discussion, acknowledging that he hasn’t discovered the nature of justice and is unsure whether justice is virtue or vice, and whether the just man is happy or unhappy.