Read book I,
text available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Journals due on Sept. 16
Guidance questions:
1. Can justice do good to friends and do harm to enemies?
2. Does justice mean the advantage of stronger?
3. Is injustice more useful than justice?
Plato's Republic (Book I) let us think whether justice do good to friends and harm to enemies. I believe that justice do good to friends, the reason why it exists is to punish those who cause harm to us. In other words, those are our enemies. Justice do harm to enemies in the way that it punishes the enemy who had caused any harm. However, sometimes justice may also harm the good ones, instead of the bad ones. Moreover, I believe that in certain ways injustice is more useful than justice because there are several people around the world who do evil stuffs but they are not punished at all especially those who are powerful.
ReplyDeleteSaleem Javaid
ReplyDeleteTo be completely honest, Plato's Republic was the most confusing text I have read thus far. After reading this text I've came to a certain comprehension of the discussion at hand. Justice and injustice. In my opinion, justice and injustice works hand in hand. Anyone in their right mind (including myself), will trust their friend over an enemy. For an enemy will be the one who does evil to you. But can trusting your friend also have a bad outcome? Also, is it justice to receive what is rightfully yours, when what you are receiving is hurting or even effecting others in a negative way? For example, if my friend had lent me twenty dollars one day (for my own use), and I had told him as he was handing me the money that "I will pay you back as soon as i get the money," is it fair for him or her to ask or even take the money from me if I only had twenty dollars in my pocket? Although, I do have sufficient funds to repay my debt, will it be just to return what they rightfully deserve when I do not have anything left for myself? In conclusion to my response, I feel as if justice and injustice, evil doers and good people, all go hand in hand. You do not know what is a true friend, and you will not know who is truly your enemy because of the different faces or intentions people have. Ask yourself this, does your enemy really want to be your enemy? And does your friend really want to be your friend?
justice and injustice is up to the eye of the beholder and who as the power to enforce it what i got from Book I is that their is a fine line between just and injust .example if a friend does u harm u should seek justice just as if the person is your enemy. but we must be careful of begin the person in power and the one who is enfocing the law on tho the weaker ones in society as this may seem to be unjust to them because you are imposing ur beleives and laws on them . when u have injustice society is rendered incapable of commming togeher because of the the distraction of arguing with one another. to me reading from this text both justice and injustice can cause harm, but if u think what you are doing is a just cause you will be happy. because u think what u are doing is wise, just and virtuose and by doing so a person looking in at your cause may say that you are unjust and evil and stupid.
ReplyDeletei think justice is something that we use in order to decide which is good and which is bad, therefore justice can either do good or bad to a friend or an enemy. More or less justice can be used to be fair or to be unfair, lets say if you have the most power out of a whole empire you can do whatever you want because you have everything in the plam of your hands. In that case justice comes into play, if you're a person of good moral character you will not harm anyone but if you're not a good person you will definitely use your power to take advantage of anyone. Moreover just is the positive and unjust is the negative, therefore the word justice should be positive because it has the word "just". In conclusion justice can be used by the stronger one. It can be a positive thing. It's just that the result will depend on how justice will be used by the stronger one.
ReplyDeleteInjustice can not be useful. Our world is full of injustice, kids are starving because of injustice, trees are being cut down due to injustice. People of bad moral character use injustice against others because they are the one in charge of everyone. Injustice is not doing anyone of us any good therefore it can't be useful.
what i got from it is that justice doesn't come in the form of harm or good imposed by someone else. Rather the just will naturally inherit good in the form of inner harmony and peace. And in that the just will naturally benefit more than the unjust and will be stronger because they are filled with happiness and peace (which comes naturally in being "just"). And the unjust will naturally be weaker and unhappy because they don't have the inner peace and harmony (which brings them internal harm). My thought is that justice is brought in the form of inner harmony and those who are just will be rewarded by feeling the harmony from within. I see justice and injustice as being more defined by the psychological effects as being selfless or selfish.
ReplyDeleteRita Babkin
ReplyDeleteThis is a similar argument to the one on Euthyphro, it concludes almost the same way, the parties never come to an official conclusion of what justice is and whether it brings happiness or not. What I found to be interesting was, throughout the middle of the argument, the men attack Socrates and call him out on his “tricks,” basically his ironical style and the fact that he picks out bits and pieces of other people’s conclusions and none of his own, which means he himself knows nothing and relies on the knowledge and wisdom of others. Once again we see many different examples and comparisons of situations but a definition is not present. I believe that Socrates himself might or might not know the real meanings, definitions and proper conclusions of these arguments, however, his main goal, in my opinion, is to challenge the people he is arguing with and perhaps confuse them. Just like he did with Euthyphro who was supposed to have great knowledge of religion, and Socrates questioned his field of knowledge. Perhaps Socrates just wants to show that most people can speak persuasively and beautifully, practice rhetorics, but knowledge and wisdom lies deep inside and maybe cannot even be explained or put into words, maybe he does know what justice really is and whether a just man is happy or not, but he cannot explain it they way other men can, even though other men don’t really know what it is exactly they are explaining.
Cesar Herrera
ReplyDeleteThrough this whole reading I had trouble understanding it I had to go over it many times. What I got out of it is that justice is used to punish those who do wrong but has flaws in the system itself. It can do good to friends and harm enemies but at the same time it can fail on do harm to both and that isn't justice. I think there is more injustice in the world than justice but does that make it more useful in my eyes no. How can injustice really be useful the only problem is when the person making the decision of what is just and is unjust what is his idea of injustice and justice does it differ from our friends and enemies and how similar is it to our friends and enemies. And I think that how justice is handled goes back to what that persons definition of piety cause doesn't that affect how you think?
jonathan ramos
ReplyDeletePlato's republic represents different aspects of morality justice and injustice. injustice such as robbers, thieves and evil doers will unite and create more terror among civilians. the injust will take many forms and act on his instincts while having any regrets for it. justice means that you own your friends help if they need and then harm the evil doers. justice will always prevail in the face of evil cause the law always takes into effect the minute it happens. sometimes injustice may have the upper hand in addition to preventing depression so the people or economy will suffer.
In Republic, Plato has a discussion with many people. but their topic focuses on only one main point, what is justice and injustice.In my opinion, the whole justice and injustice debate is just a waste of time. Who has the knowledge of whats justice and injustice? Pure justice is based on the logic which determines right or wrong in the situation. The trick is that nobody voluntarily accepts being wrong and if the wrong one is stronger, then very quickly the quest for justice becomes an exercise of power using justice as an excuse. In this light, the victim of injustice becomes even more a victim because there is an infinity of means to punish the weaker. There is no such thing as justice or injustice from my point of view. Both are man made rules, because some might say that what he thinks is injustice was not fair to a particular person. But another might think that that is perfectly justice for that person, so its more of an individuals own perspective, from what they believe justice or injustice to be. Not everyone is going to agree with whats justice or injustice.
ReplyDeleteRepublic by Plato was a bit confusing to me. I understood Socrates was accompanied by his friends to a festival where they enjoyed the activities. But was puzzled me was what took part at Polemarchus house. Socrates apologized for not being able to visit very often and that sparked a very interesting conversation. They talk about friends and money and how important it is for one who earns it and one was given it. I think Socrates was trying to help them understand the difference between justice and injustice or better yet socrates was trying to understand it himself. I had to read this text many times to maybe get a slight idead of what was going on. But like socrates I enjoy the challenge of knowing what others may know!
ReplyDeleteIn the article The Republic (Book I), Socrates is trying to define what is justice. In the arguments made it was said that justice would be someone being accountable of a debt. But they go on to say that justice is possible as long as money is not the main issue. They also said that justice is possible amongst friends but not with enemies. I believe that Socrates made a good point by saying how do we know who is truly our friends or our enemies. So in order for to be just we must know who our true friends are but at that we wouldn’t be truly just if we would be unjust to our enemies. Isn’t it our actions that determine if we’re just or not? So by acting against our enemies we would be totally the opposite of just, in this case unjust. The article also says that the act of justice is when you do what you are commanded to do, which only the strong command.
ReplyDeleteThis reading I actually found more easier to read then the others. The way that justice is described in the Republic is like a privelidge for strong people. Its like their saying that the weaker people dont get a chane at justice becase they aren't interested in competing. Everyone is obligated to be in the justice category, but only the strong survive. Justice can also be bad, and its giving someone what they deserve. Its like throughout the article they are taklin about different types of justice because justice could be a good or bad thing, a weak person can get justice if their wise along with a strong person.
ReplyDeleteIs injustice more useful than justice?
ReplyDeleteNever, because injustice is a charecteristic of ignorant and greedy men. A injust man will always look to benefit himself in gains even if those gains ultimately hurt him. For example if a man wants to make quick money he will steal from a weaker person that is definitly an injustice. Although he maybe satisfied with what he did the injustice he has done will most likely come back to haunt him. Either he will end up going to jail or later in life when he realizes his mistake he will regret what he has done and have no way to ease the burden off his soul.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJacobo Juliao
ReplyDeleteIn The Republic, Book l,Socrates is in a quest to define what justice really is. In a society where corruption and love for power is in the heart of man, no justice is to be found. Socrates was well aware that moral dererioration and love for power were contaminating the men of his society. we can see this when Thrasymachus(a Sophist)gave his definition of what is justice. He said: "I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." in other words, the ruling class make the law only for their benefits. "...and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust". This idea of justice was not only held by the Sophists, but we can say that other people influenced by them, thought the same way. for them unjustice was more advantagious than justice. I think many people think this way in our modern society. they see how people in power lie and break the law and then these actions go unpunished. this i believe is not justice.
Lorenna Duran
ReplyDeleteIn Plato's Republic (Book I) Personality ,I found the text to the quid confusing. I think justice is what we normally use to choose from what is right and wrong. Personality, don't believe justice do good to friends or do harm to enemies. I believe it works both ways ,for the reason that being justice with an individual or towards a situation, doesn't necessarily means you are taking a friend side or you want to harm an enemy.It's simply being Justice, which means being fair to every individual equally. Of coarse injustice is more used, all over the world ,everyday many people experience different types of injustices. But we don't have control over them, that's how the world goes around. However, if each person would fight for the cause they believe to be injustice, we could make the world a better place.
In the text, Socrates made the distinction between what was considered as "good" to be "just" and "enemies" to be "unjust".Justice can do good for friends as well as enemies. The righteous may sometimes include going against
ReplyDeleteour friends who are sometimes the evil-doer,
and who is suspected as enemies are sometimes beneficial and good.Every interest of an individual could be defined as "just". Due to the fact that basic actions are in the "interest of their subjects".
In addition, strenght doesnt necessarily makes one wiser. What one person is ignorant to, someone else is more knowledgeable about. This could be used as an advantage over others. For example as stated in the text, people who are considered "just" would not challenge the wise, but would challenge the "unjust".They are seen as ignorant and foolish.
In general, i dont believe that injustice is more useful than justice, because the "just" possess great wisdom and are gainful of their own knowledge. Whilst, the "unjust" needs to plot according to how man individuals are able to "work together" to gain a special excellence or evil- doing.
the republic appeard to be boring to me im not sure if its because i didnt feel like readin sucha long texted but i tried... i think this thing should be a play easier to watch and discuss....
ReplyDeleteIn platos The Republic book ll the idea of justice is being isolated and argued. Glaucon wants reasoning as to why justice is desired for both its rewards and its own sake. The majority of the time I think justice is desired entirely for its rewards and the reputation one will receive as the outcome. It seems to be difficult for Socrates to discuss how one defines justice in terms of itself rather than in terms of injustice. I don't think justice would even exist if it wasn't for injustice making it quite difficult to isolate the idea. It is difficult to simply associate justice with good and injustice with evil because because of how and to whom the outcome of either justice or injustice can be beneficial. These reading can be quite difficult although this is what I was able to grasp from this reading and I hope this ideas are leading to the right direction or to even any direction at all. :)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading tepublic by Plato it give me the thought of whats really just and unjust. Ever one has his or her own opinion to whats really just and unjust. In my opinion the one who has the final say to whats just and unjust is the Govenerment. You can never beat the sistom, Socrates was right in many points in his preveous text but when your going up against the govenerment everything that you say would be wrong eventhough its right. What just and unjust means to me is right and wrong, but its very limited because there are so many things that we see in ower lives today thats very unjust and that doesnt appliy to the constitution but its wrong in the hands of the govenerment.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I of The Republic Socrates tries to obtain the meaning of the word justice. Like Euthphyro, they are once again left without a concrete answer. From what he was able to obtain, justice can do good to friends and harm to enemies. But, as Socrates questioned, "who is truly our friends or enemies?" According to the text, Justice can be the advantage of the stronger. For example, in any givien situation, the right person will be considered the stronger individual. At the same time, there isn't a meaning to this term, therefore it is used by the implication of one's understanding and what they believe it is. Lastly, injustice is never more useful than justice. Wrong is wrong and no one should try to or be allowed to make it right. The stronger individual according to their position in state may try to overrule a weaker individual by being unjust. Whether you look at it from one side or another, it can easily be interpreted that an act was unjust.
ReplyDeleteChih Hao Hsu
ReplyDeletePHI 100-141
The Republic by Plato talks about the question “what is Justice?” Speaking through his teacher Socrates, Plato not only descried “Justice” but he also included why we should be just. Unlike Apology and Euthyphyo, “The Republic” was divided into 10 books and in book 1, the climax came down to the argument between Thrasymachus, the Sophist and Socrates himself. When Thrasymachus, said “Justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger”, it made me think about the finical meltdown we are in and all the terrible scam that was conducted by those corp. bosses. It also made me think about the idea of “Survival of fittest”. So is it correct to say “justice” is nothing but a restrain that we put on ourselves and those who freed themselves from the restrain would be the stronger individual?
-“Rules are meant to be broken”
i believe that justice can do good for friends and harm to enemies. however, i also believe justice can do harm to friends and good to enemies. I don't believe that justice means the advantage of the stronger, but depending on the circumstances, whether it is just or unjust there is a natural law of fairness. injustice is just as equal as justice, its all about how it is understood and how one perceive it.
ReplyDeleteKevin Granados
ReplyDeletePHI 100-141
In Plato's Republic (Book I) the main idea of the story is the difference between justice and injustice. In my opinion society needs justice to conclude an individual's wrongdoings or actions. Injustice and justice is basically right or wrong and they are all one central idea. How would we know what is right if we didn't know what is wrong? Justice is good for the victims and is necessary to punish the unjust people. But in our society justice is unfair because the judicial system is corrupt. When the system is corrupt justice only benefits to the rich and powerful because they can use their status to get them out of crimes while the lower class citizens have to suffer from the penalties of breaking the law. Justice and injustice is an idea that humans have long been trying to sort out but progressively we are finding out the flaws. We need an honest and reliable judicial system to fully create balance and harmony amongst the individuals in our society.
In my opinion justice is very useful and powerful than injustice. Justice also doesn't mean the advantage of the stronger because a stronger man can never follow a single path and they don't know the right things and do wrong that is why the weaker people should speak against the stronger and should not follow to the stronger one's always. Justice also doesn't mean doing good to friends only and harm the enemies. Justice should depend on the truth and lie. The truth should always be justified whereas the lie should be punished. But as everyone knows the truth is not seen easily it takes a while for the truth to be justified that is why some people follow the way of injustice because it is a very short way of gaining power and superiority. As we can see in the debate in the book which also proves that telling truth does not always mean justice.But anyways at the end justice always win and just people always live a better and happy life because they are wise and know the limit of intelligence.
ReplyDelete