- In Book 1 of the Republic, why does Socrates think that it is never just for one person to injure another, whether friend or enemy?
Socrates begins his argument with the proposition that justice consists in repayment of debts. The general argument was on the lines that one ought not to injure friends. Injuring enemies was considered to be acceptable. It was taken for granted that friends are good and enemies are bad. However, Socrates pointed out that a man can be seemingly good or bad. One who pretends to be a friend may have bad intentions at heart. Similarly, one who appears to be bad may be a good man. Hence, it is difficult to decide who is good and who is bad. It follows that one cannot decide who may be injured and who may not be injured. Appearances are deceptive.
Justice according to Socrates is a human virtue. In order to be just, one must repay debts. Everyone agreed upon this point. One owes good debts to a friend and bad debts to an enemy. Socrates had already shown how one cannot identify who is good or bad and who is a friend or an enemy. In such a situation, the good and bad debts may be directed towards a wrong person. Socrates explains how there is no justice in this view by giving another example. Suppose someone gives arms to be kept in safety for some time, when he is in his senses. If he asks for the arms when he is not in his senses, there is no justice in returning the arms because the owner may use them to harm others. Although it is true in this situation that one owes the arms to the owner, justice lies in preventing the owner from using arms to injure others. Justice lies in that which is beneficial to others. Socrates concludes that it is never just for one person to injure another, whether friend or enemy. One cannot identify a good and true friend or a bad and pretentious enemy. At times, a friend may do something bad or an enemy may do something good. Every circumstance is different. Justice is concerned with the doer, not with whom the doer is dealing. Hence, a just person must do only that which is beneficial and harmless to others. He must not injure others.
- What is Socrates’ reply to Thrasymachus’ idea that unjust people are stronger and more powerful than just people?
Socrates believed that just people are happier and better than unjust people. Thrasymachus was listening to the discussion impatiently and he wanted to join the argument earnestly. He did not agree with Socrates. He strongly believed that justice is nothing else but the interest of the stronger. He explained his view with the help of the example of the ruling authorities. He pointed out that the government makes laws and imposes them on the subjects. If the subjects break the law, they are punished. The same principle was followed in all the States. The government is most powerful and the government makes laws which are beneficial to them. The government is the ruling power in each State. The others had no difference of opinion regarding these statements made by Thrasymachus. The latter was sure that Socrates would be compelled to agree with his views. He had put forth his point very clearly and strongly. Socrates appreciated his efforts and was very patient with him. He explained how he had been right from the beginning. He agreed that what is commanded by the rulers is supposed to be just, at the same time, he pointed out that rulers may sometimes be wrong. When they go wrong, they will command something that is against their interests. Hence, justice is the injury as well as an interest of the stronger. Moreover, one who is mistaken cannot be stronger at the time when he is mistaken.
Socrates gave the example of a physician to make his point clear. He said that no physician, in so far as he is a good physician, considers his own good when he writes a prescription. He is concerned about the good of the patient. Similarly, a good pilot cares more about his sailors. When he is a pilot, he is not merely a sailor. Similarly, the rulers, in so far as they are good rulers, think about the good of the weaker subjects.
Socrates continues the argument in a different way. He agrees that if the unjust have free play, they may commit injustice by force or by fraud. Thrasymachus stated that if injustice is profitable, justice can be described as sublime simplicity. The States possess the power to be unjust. But when they exercise it, they can do it with or without a sense of justice. The unjust do not exclude anyone from injustice. They are unjust to the weaker ones and also to their fellow-beings. The truly unjust injure the villains as well as the just. Whether it a State, an army, a band of thieves or a gang of evil-doers, they cannot act if they injure each other. Injustice creates division and hatred; justice imparts harmony and friendship. If one single element is unjust, he cannot succeed. He must get the support of all to carry out his unjust tasks. According to Socrates, injustice in a single person was fatal. The unjust are incapable of acting in unison. They are incapable of common action. Socrates said that gods are just, so the unjust will be their enemies and the just their friends. Thus Socrates proved his point that the just are happy although it seems that the unjust are stronger and happier.
Socrates carried this argument a little further since all the listeners were not satisfied with the explanation, particularly Thrasymachus. Socrates said that the function of the eyes is to see and that of the ears is to hear. These functions are best accomplished by the special organs meant for the purpose and the functions cannot be assigned to others. A defect in the ear will prevent it from performing the excellent function of hearing. Similarly, the function of the soul is to command and deliberate, a function which cannot be assigned to any other. The soul is the best performer of its function. An evil ruler possesses an evil soul and a good ruler has a good soul. Justice is the excellence of the soul and injustice is the defect of the soul. He who lives well and follows the path of justice, is blessed and happy, although he may be a strong ruler. Hence, injustice cannot be more profitable than justice.
- In Phaedo, Socrates maintains that to engage in philosophy is to practice dying. Explain what he means and why he says this.
Socrates claims that any man who has a spirit of a philosopher will be willing to die. Death is nothing but a separation of the soul and body. The soul is imprisoned in the body and released when a person dies. The life and aims of a philosopher are different from those of ordinary men. A philosopher is more concerned with the soul; an ordinary man is obsessed with the body. A philosopher constantly tries to sever his soul from communion with the body while he lives. Socrates believed that one cannot attain truth through organs of the body. Eyes, ears etc. hinder the pursuit of knowledge by posing distractions of sights and sounds. They have limitations. They are inaccurate witnesses.
True existence is revealed only through thought. Thought is best when the mind is focussed and free from pleasure or pain which is physical experiences. Hence, the philosopher runs away from the body. Absolute beauty and truth cannot be seen through eyes. Reality cannot be observed through bodily organs. Philosophers desire to know the truth.
Body is a source of endless troubles. It needs food and can be infected by diseases. Bodily pleasures like love, lust, fears and fancies take away the power of thinking. Satisfying the needs of the body leaves no time for speculation. Hence, living with the body implies either not getting knowledge or getting it only after death. Philosophers are indifferent to bodily pleasures, so they are as good as dead. They pine for death all their lives. They prepare themselves for the other world where they know that there are other gods. They have to keep themselves pure until the gods think it fit to summon them because the impure are not permitted to approach the pure.
Hence, philosophers prepare for death all their life. Then it will be a contradiction if they repine when the time for death is near. That is why Socrates says that engaging in philosophy is to practice dying.
- Explain Socrates’ three objections to the ‘harmony’ theory of the soul that Simmias puts forward in Phaedo.
Socrates had previously convinced Simmias that there is life after death. He explained that life and death are cyclical in nature. The process is not linear; otherwise, all would die one day. Life and death are opposites and one gives rise to the other. We possess knowledge which is perhaps lost at the time of birth or may be before. The fact that we perceive similarities and differences in what we see is a proof that we recollect knowledge that was forgotten. We must have gained it in the previous birth. With total agreement on these views, Socrates proceeded to explain to Simmias the analogy of the lyre. Simmias was confused about the fact that if a lyre produces harmony, the harmony perishes before the lyre when the lyre breaks. The wood and strings of the lyre may continue to exist for some time before they rot and are eventually destroyed. Simmias wanted to know whether the soul perishes before the body, if soul stands for harmony and the lyre for the body. Then the soul, which is in a state of harmony, may perish first.
Socrates explained that the soul is a harmony which is made out of strings set in the frame of the body. Hence, harmony is not prior to the elements that compose it. Harmony is not like the soul which exists before the body. First, the lyre, the strings and the sounds exist in discord. Then harmony is created last and it perishes first. It cannot exist without the lyre. But the soul can exist without the body.
Secondly, Socrates points out that the two propositions - knowledge is a recollection and soul is a harmony are not the same. There is no harmony between them. The doctrine of knowledge as recollection is a proven fact. It was proved by Socrates in his previous discourse. The proposition that soul is harmony rests on probable grounds. It is not proved to be true.
Harmony or any other composition cannot exist in a state other than that of the elements out of which it is compounded. In this case, the lyre is compounded from strings and wood. Harmony does not lead to the parts but follows them. First the lyre, followed by harmony; first the soul and then the body. Harmony cannot have sound or motion that is opposite to its parts. The soul is not in agreement with the affections of the body.
The third objection raised by Socrates was that harmony can have degrees. There can be little harmony or complete harmony between two things. The soul does not admit degrees. Soul can have virtue or vice which are in discord with each other. There is discord within the soul. Harmony has internal harmony within. There is no discord; otherwise it would not be harmony. If there is harmony in a soul, it will never have vice.
- In Book VII of the Republic, what is Socrates’ explanation of the meaning of the Parable of the Cave?
The cave is filled with darkness. It represents the illusionary, unreal world of common men. They are mere shadows; they can see straight ahead. They cannot move their necks or heads. They can partly see the shadows of objects. The prison house is the world of sight. The light of the fire stands for the sun. The journey upwards, from the dark cave towards the light is ascent of the soul into the intellectual world, the world of knowledge. In the world of knowledge, the idea of good appears last of all. It is seen only with an effort. When it is seen, it is perceived to be the parent of light, which is the source of reason and truth in the universe.
Rational people have their eye on the power of light from where they derive knowledge. As they emerge from the cave, they are blinded by the brightness of the light and are unable to see until their eyes get accustomed to the light. Those who attain this real vision are unwilling to descend to the dark cave of ignorance and human affairs. Their souls hasten towards the upper world where they wish to dwell.
Those who pass from the divine light into darkness also experience blinking of eyes until they get used to the darkness. The world in the cave comprises of images or shadows of images of justice. Those who have seen the real vision of true justice are unwillingly compelled to fight in courts of law about images of justice. This is a reference to philosophers. They have to endeavour to meet the concepts of those who have never seen absolute justice. Bewilderment is experienced at both times: while entering the dark cave and while coming out into the bright light. This is true of the bodily eye as well as the mind’s eye. One who is in the cave pities the one who is outside and vice versa.
The eye is unable to turn from darkness to light without moving the whole body. Similarly the instrument of knowledge cannot get knowledge without moving the whole soul. One learns to endure the light of wisdom gained from learning by degrees. The soul turns from the world of becoming to the world of being. This is the symbolic journey from the dark cave of ignorance to the bright light of knowledge and reality. This is how Socrates has explained the meaning of the Parable of the Cave.
References
Plato., and Benjamin Jowett. The Works Of Plato. New York: The Dial Press, 1936. Print.
