The Discussion About Socrates: The Just Life
Socrates: The Just Life
Plato's accounts of the life of Socrates are eye opening and show a deep understanding of human nature from one of the most significant figures in western philosophy. In books IV-IX of The Republic, Socrates is participating in a dialogue with a group of men who cynically believe that the unjust life is the best life. Socrates methodically challenges their views of life through careful questioning and taking apart their arguments piece by piece. This paper will lay out the theory of which is the best life to lives a just or unjust one.
During one of many of Socrates' many conversations, he is discussing living a just life with Thrasymachus, who believes that that the individual should aggressively pursue his or her self interest, regardless of the law or morality. Socrates refutes this with: 'Then the soul that is under a tyranny will least do what it wants-speaking of the soul as a whole. Always forcibly drawn by a gadfly, it will be full of confusion and regret' (Republic IX577d). Socrates takes to more virtuous approach here. Rather than merely being vague by using platitudes, he believes that there are real and present negative attributes to living unjustly. The Republic is still influential during the present day because it deals with permanent questions such as what is justice, and how to live the happiest life. Many world religions also follow these concepts today, and the ideas espoused by Socrates are a centerpiece. While these issues are not debated directly as they were in antiquity, they play out in real-life between those that seek above all else to gain wealth and power, and those that believe living a moral and ethical life is imperative. This essay argues that the just life is the best life and that the unjust life leads to disorder and misery
At the beginning of the dialogue, Socrates silences Thrasymachus by forcing him to either agree with his arguments or commit blasphemy, a capital crime in Ancient Athens. Thrasymachus ironically assents to Socrates's case, and the dialogue moves forward. Adeimantus and Glaucon, two young Athenian aristocrats are not convinced by Socrates's assertion that moral behaviour leads to happiness: they more tactfully take up where Thrasymachus left off. To support his contention that the just soul is happiest, Socrates creates an allegory comparing the soul to a city. Socrates contends that we'll say that a man is just in the same manner that a city too was just' (Republic IV.44ld) In other words, one can better understand the nature of justice for the individual by comparing the individual soul with the polis.
Socrates contends that reason should govern the passions both at the individual and societal level. Socrates argues that 'Isn't it proper for the calculating part to rule, since it is wise and has forethought about all of the soul, and for the spirited part to be obedient to it and its ally' (The Republic Iv.44le). Civic and personal virtue is a matter of subordinating emotions and drives to the intellect. Like a healthy city-state, a wise individual restrains and channels his or her feelings, does not let them take the leading role in his or her life. Letting the passions run wild creates disorder both at the level of the individual and in society as a whole.
Moderation and self-restraint are the highest virtues for both the individual and the polis, according to Socrates. A just society, and by extension a moral individual, is well ordained and governed by the intellect. According to Socrates, 'In truth justice was, as it seems, something of this sort; however, not with respect to a man's minding his external business, but with respect to what is within, with respect to what truly concerns him and his own He doesn't let each part in him mind other people 's business' (The Republic IV.443d). Justice is subordinating that which is lower and base to that which is noble and wise. Socrates makes a compelling case for the importance of establishing order in one's soul and society as a whole. A disordered individual who has no sense of discipline damages him or herself and those around them. A community that allows passions to run wild quickly descends into chaos and bloodshed. History backs up Socrates's argument about the dangers of unrestrained emotion, the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union allowed unbridled irrationality to govern national policy with tragic results. The genocidal hatred of the National Socialist regime and the obsession with equality at all costs of the Soviet Union are real-world examples of the dangers of allowing the passions to take the driver's seat.
Living a just life both at the individual and societal level produces health while behaving unjustly creates sickness and decline. According to Socrates, 'virtue, then, as it seems would be a certain health, beauty, and good condition of the soul and vice a sickness, ugliness, and weakness' (The Republic IV.444c). In other words, immoral actions are not wrong merely because they offend the gods or social convention. Instead, immorality actively damages the individual who behaves unethically.
By creating this standard of morality, that virtue is health and vice is sickness, Socrates redefines the meaning of justice. Morality is no longer a matter of following the will of the gods and customs of the polis; instead, it is behaving rationally. Reason replaces piety under Socrates conception of the just soul and city. The goal of Socrates moral philosophy is to convince Glaucon and Adeimantus that it is profitable to do just things, practice fine ones, and be just (The Republic IV.445a) Behaving justly, that is wisely, will bring the individual happiness and success according to Socrates's line of thinking
Behaving justly is not a sacrifice, according to Socrates moral philosophy. Behaving morally is good in and of itself, regardless of societies' rewards or punishments. A person who acts unjustly, who allows his or her passions to overtake his or her reasons, is like a city governed by a tyrant. The unjust man destroys himself, he is mad and deranged' (The Republic IX.573c). While immoral behaviour brings short term pleasure, over the long term it ruins the individual or society. Everyday life and the record of history support Socrates's argument that immoral behaviour leads to unhappiness and self-destruction. For example, a person addicted to opioids experiences a temporary high, which is far outweighed by the destructive effects of addiction. A person who makes his or her living through criminal activity may benefit over the short term, but over the long term, suffers as a direct consequence of his or her unjust actions. Similarly, a society governed by unaccountable power destroys itself.
A person who behaves unjustly damages him or herself by earning the suspicion and hatred of his or her neighbours. According to Socrates, 'The tyrannic nature never as a taste of freedom or true friendship' (The Republic IX 376a). While at first glance,The person who lives only to satisfy his or her desires appears happy, this is a superficial interpretation of their situation. An individual who cannot subordinate his or her passions to reason is like a city that is ruled by a tyrant. He or she is tyrannized by their Irrational pleasures, and unable to live life to fullest by experiencing the happiness which comes from moderation or friendship. It is human nature to avoid or shun those who are governed only by the desire for pleasure at the expense of personal dignity and the needs of the community. Living unjustly thus brings short term happiness but at the cost of one's longterm and health and humanity.
A person who behaves unethically is a state of constant chaos and disorder. According to Socrates, the unjust soul is under a tyranny will least do what it wants speaking of the soul as a whole. Always forcibly drawn by a gadfly., it will be full of confusion and regret ' (Republic IX.577d). The unjust individual surrenders his or her legacy. Injustice may lead to temporary satisfaction of petty desires, but these irrational desires will multiply. The unjust soul thus is profoundly unhappy because his or her wants are never genuinely satisfied. Unrestrained desire has no limitations, thus it is impossible to satisfy.
The unjust soul is necessarily always poverty-ridden and insatiable' (The Republic IS.578.a). Injustice does not produce happiness, even if the unjust individual escapes the judgment of the law and society. The inability of the person who lives unjustly to turn his or her desires leads to self-destructive behaviour. Without the restraint of reason, the irrational individual will seek more intense, self-destructive pleasures, which lead to his or her downfall. He or she will be dominated by his or her senseless desires and will become impoverished and miserable. Thus for Socrates the just life is the best because injustice causes misery both for the unjust individual and society
Socrates argues that the just life is objectively superior to a life of injustice. A wise individual behaves morally not just to avoid punishment or offending the gods, but because justice leads to happiness. For Socrates, justice is not merely being pious or following the rules of society; it is living a life governed by reason. The person or community who behaves unjustly is damaged by the consequences of their actions. A person who engages in immoral behaviour is tyrannized by his or her passions and never able to experience genuine happiness or fulfillment. For Socrates, justice and reason are one, to behave rationally is to be moral according to this line of thought. person who allows emotion or pleasure-seeking to overpower his or her reason self destructs. Irrational passions, by their very nature, are unable to be satisfied because they are limitless, know no boundaries. Virtue, adequately understood, leads to happiness and the best life.
