Plato on Justic

...

The second character to attempt at answering the question of what is true justice is Polemarchus, Cephalus’ son. As the son Cephalus’ Polemarchus grew up rich and of course will be inheriting his father fortune upon his passing. From certain aspects of the text we can infer that Polemarchus’ is spoiled, entitled, and even slightly pompous. Polemarchus sends his slave boy to stop Socrates and his company of course, since something like that is beneath him. He also even threatens violence as a way of getting what he wants when interacting with Socrates. As the dialogue progresses Polemarchus gives his definition of justice. According to him justice is to give back to everyone what is fitting by saying “the one that gives benefits and harms to friends and enemies” (Republic pg. 8) is justice. From this quote we can further grasp the level of entitlement of Polemarchus character. He firmly believes that it is just he receive the benefits of his father because he is his son. What Polemarchus fails to see, which Socrates exploits, is in order for his definition to hold truth a just person must be able to identify friends and foes and treat them as such. This relies on the absolute that one is completely certain all the time regarding who is who. This however is not true because the appearance of who is our friend and who is our enemy can be misleading and therefore not true in its form.

Finally the question is turned onto Thrasymachus. The only accredited scholar of the group, Thrasymachus is a scphist or a hired teacher and as such is a master in rhetoric. At this time rhetoric was a very sought after knowledge to acquire and only the wealth could afforded to be educated in this by a scphist. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was very sought after skill to have in acinent Greece due to its direct correlation to one’s place in society. Those who had strong abilities in speaking and convincing other almost possessed this short of gift of manipulation over the masses. However as a scphist, Thrasymachus’ focus is on the structure and art of rhetoric and not its content or implementation. As an educator Thrasymachus’ has an interesting view on what it means to be just. In he’s view justice is the advantage of the stronger. It is his belief that the powerful with in society have the power to define justice and therefore define it in a way that benefits them, but do it in a way that it seems the benefit the masses. Thrasymachus’ cleverly paints an analogy when stating “…you suppose shepherds or cowherds consider the good of the sheep or the cows and fatten them and take care of them looking to something other then their masters’ good…” (Republic, pg. 21) Thrasymachus’ definition of justice clearly derives from his work as a scphist. As a teacher of rhetoric he has been paid to equip those born of privilege with the skills to navigate and even manipulate society for their own benefit. While I find Thrasymachus’ definition very interesting and slight of topic yet holding substance, Socrates dismisses it based on the fact that it is relative and dependent on the situation. Socrates argues that the ruler changes or the intensions of the ruler maybe subjected to change. Since this is susceptible to change it is no absolute and therefore is not a true definition of justice.

Throughout The Republic (on just) Plato stands on his ideologies as a rationalist philosopher to explore various perceptions of what it means to be just. Utilizing his theory of true he deconstructs and delegitimizes the various definitions of truth that are present. While this never concludes a unanimous and comprehensive definition of justice Plato is able to prove that true is equivalent to essences and unchangeably stable in relation to what it mean to be just.