Introduction.
The famous philosophers such as Polemarchus, Thrasymachus and Socrates occasionally met together to discuss such important matters concerning life. The subject concerning the exercise of justice and the consequences of being just or unjust is the subject matter of one such discussion as shown in this paper. The core values that accompany being just or unjust, such as happiness and sadness respectively. The self-justification involved when we do something that is unjust and yet continue in the same line and end up being the tyrants that we know today. How sure are we that we are making the right choices regarding this matter concerning justice? Do we make judgmental errors when we think that we are right and in the real sense we are wrong? These among others are the very important questions that Socrates and his colleagues discussed concerning the matter of justice. The happiness and sadness entailed in this philosophical concept of being just or unjust is a discussion that prompted Socrates to come up with the various arguments that Plato wrote in the Republic.
Polemarchus line of reasoning is that people should always put one’s friends first and always help them while at the same time harming one’s enemies. (Jeffrey, A. (1979) Therefore, according to him, friends are kept close while we frown upon our enemies. Socrates reasons along the following lines, though; that the law does not apply in the other fields such as cooking and medicine, that this analogy does not apply in all contexts, that most of the time and probably all the time we do not know who our enemies or friends are. This argument is a gray area that is very tricky to analyze. The just person is also prone to human error and will sometimes be useless and unhelpful when we consider that person being good at useless things and at being unjust in whatever that person will do. The choosing of how we treat out enemies or friends poses the question of how just we are if we treat our friends well and our enemies badly. Is this just? The choosing of how we treat another, depending on our subjective view of them to be friends or enemies does not constitute justice. This discussion is in this, Ferrari’s translation of the Plato’s Republic (Ferrari, G. R., & Griffith, T. (2000).
The next points of arguments between Socrates and Thrasymachus, are also fascinating to consider the subject at hand: justice. Thrasymachus argues that justice is the advantage or the competitive edge that the active person has. That the regimes that exercise their authoritarian rules since they justify their strengths by this argument. Socrates counters the argument by soliloquizing on some important aspects of this philosophy. Does the firm take it upon themselves to rule with iron fists, thinking that they are the rightful owners of the justice system or is it their right? And is all these beneficial in each case? What happens when the firm makes mistakes? Do they admit it or do they justify their mistakes by formulating other laws?
Thrasymachus counters by pointing out that the stronger hide their mistakes and that this serves their advantage as they do not appear to be weak. Socrates counters by reasoning that the teacher’s main aim is to empower the student and not the teacher himself/herself. Thrasymachus counters by shepherding which does the reverse of the above statement. That's the wrong person, not caught in the act is happier than the just person who struggles to do the right thing. This argument is the belief in a just world. This case creates tyrants who justify every wrong action if they are entitled and continue to rule with authority without being deterred. They seem to be happier and getting it all. Socrates counters by reasoning that any art, including shepherding is projected outwards at helping another person and not oneself. He further illustrates that a real ruler does so out of necessity since they do not wish to be ruled by someone inferior.
In sum, Socrates, therefore, offers three solid arguments concerning the just and unjust human life. Foremost, the opposites of the just being good and the unjust being evil. The second argument is that unfair produces discordance in a person or an organization and hence doomed to fail. Lastly, that in retrospect, the just person is happier since, in whatever things that one does, they simulate into a perfect symphony and hence happiness since the soul is much more satisfied. Socrates is unsatisfied with the accounts since they have not yet understood the true meaning of justice and hence cannot fathom what a just life is or its reverse.
In the IX book, Socrates describes the tyrannical ruler who by all means is unjust. That those at peace can control their unnecessary urges when unjustly ruled. The brutal individual, however, becomes susceptible to the lustful desires much quicker. The urge to satisfy the lusts drives the proud person mad, and they become like savages from the eliminate anything in their way in their quest to quench their lust. Tyrant people put themselves first above all else and hence do not forge lasting friendships. The tyrannical person is full of constant complaints and lamenting and is surely the most unsatisfied person there is. As is turns out, the individual who rules the tyrants is the saddest person in a city or state.
Socrates further illustrates this concept of happiness by considering the pursuers of wisdom, profit, and honor. The happiest person is the one who pursues knowledge, and that one’s judgment is better trusted. The final nail in the coffin of this argument is that the pleasures of this world are useless since they are few escape routes from pain. True happiness comes from understanding and the conscious living. These are illustrated in the context of living with one another in a state or a city (Kraut, R. (1984).
Conclusion
We conclude the argument by seeing how Socrates ties the two books together and further illustrates the actual concept of being happy in life. That being happy entails being just and being rational while reasoning. That the real pleasures of life can only be found in wisdom and the understanding of objects. The argument is well put out, and they illustrate Socrates wealth of knowledge at his time.
References
Ferrari, G. R., & Griffith, T. (2000). Plato:'The Republic'. Cambridge University Press.
Jeffrey, A. (1979). Polemarchus and Socrates on Justice and Harm.Phronesis, 54-69.
Kraut, R. (1984). Socrates and the State. Princeton University Press.
