Socrates Meaning Of Justice Analysis

997 Words4 Pages
RI shows the discussion regarding the interlocutors’ beliefs on the meaning of justice. Socrates’ attitude of curiosity – intrigued to know what Polemarchus, Cephalus and Thrasymachus really believe – unveils through his questioning misconceptions in the definitions and arguments presented by them. And despite the eventual vigorous adversative arguments in a heated debate with Thrasymachus, at the end, the discussion of RI reaches no definite conclusion regarding justice. The interlocutors –including Socrates – are baffled with the result of the conversation. Socrates argues his interlocutors into silence, and nothing replaces their previous beliefs. In RI, Socrates – who wins the argument’s dispute and defeated Thrasymachus – concludes that the discussion did not reach any definitive knowledge: “So that now as a result of the discussion I know nothing. So long as I do not know what the just is, I shall hardly know whether it is a virtue or not and whether the one who has it is unhappy or happy” (354c) . RI differs with the literary and philosophical method used by Plato to portray the subsequent books of the Republic .…show more content…
Using this method, Socrates examines in a rational way his interlocutors’ beliefs regarding moral subject matters (such as piety, bravery, or right-doing). Plato’s Socrates gives moral subject matters a rational relevance similar to the one hold by mathematical sciences. Thereby, he asks his interlocutors to mean what they say and give seriousness to their opinions. In the case of RI, Socrates states that the effort in the rational quest for justice is worthwhile and well intentioned; he understands that finding justice would be of much value, more than finding gold

More about Socrates Meaning Of Justice Analysis

Open Document