Derek Holmes Seminar Paper 2/29/2016

Derek Holmes

Seminar Paper

2/29/16

 

Soul Food

In The Republic, Plato covers a diverse range of topics, but Socrates’ teaching is only concerned with the soul. Justice is at the center of the discussion in book one of The Republic, but Socrates only uses this topic to teach principles about the soul that recur throughout the Republic. Socrates world revolves around the soul. His teaching is derived from the paradigm that the soul is eternal so the highest goal is to cultivate a virtuous soul. Socrates believes that this thread of knowledge is essential because if one truly believes, it inevitably leads to a happy life.

In book one of the Republic, there is a discussion to find what justice is and rather it is better to be just or unjust. It is taken for granted that amidst the discussion of justice, Socrates somehow finds a way to talk about the soul. No one else in the dialogue comes close to relating justice to the soul. The first definition of justice is to speak truth and pay off your debts. The second is to be good to friends and evil to enemies.  The third definition is to be good to the just and do harm to the unjust. Finally, Thrasymachus defines justice as nothing more than the interest of the stronger. Other characters in the dialogue seem to see justice in terms of circumstances. Their definitions sound more like laws and codes. In book one, Socrates eventually determines that, “justice is virtue of soul, and injustice vice” (33). Socrates proves that, “the just man is happy and the unjust man wretched” (33). Socrates makes a strong case against injustice because he is grounded in his belief that the justice is virtue and wisdom while injustice is vice and lack of learning. This is the foundation of his argument from the start. Socrates then goes even further by saying that justice is the excellence of the soul and that injustice is the defect of the soul.

Moreover, Socrates discussion about justice becomes a means to an end. Initially, Socrates inquires what justice is and then that justice is more profitable than injustice. In an attempt to find what justice is, Socrates only discovers that it is a virtue of the soul. Socrates admits to proving that justice is wisdom and learning and that it is more profitable than injustice, but he says he still has not figured exactly what justice is.  At the end of book one Socrates says, 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” (34). Socrates uses an example of the functioning of the eye to illustrate his point that justice is truly a virtue of the soul. The work of an eye is sight and if an eye were deprived of its virtue it will not be able to see. He means that the work of eyes, “will be done well with their proper virtue, and badly with vice” (33). The work of the soul is living. Can a soul live well without justice? If a soul needs justice to live well then justice is a virtue of the soul. This was Socrates’ interest from the beginning, to see if justice is a virtue of the soul; to see if justice is good for the soul. For the rest of the Republic, Socrates shows what a soul looks like when deprived of justice and with justice. Socrates initial conversation with Cephalus foreshadows this thinking. In old age one can more clearly see what is good for him and what vanity is. Many people find old age daunting but Cephalus says that he finds it peaceful because he no longer has to struggle with the “mad masters” of life. When asked if life is hard easy or smooth Cephalus says that it truly depends on, “the character of the human beings. If they are orderly and content with themselves, even old age is only moderately troublesome; if not then both age and youth alike turn out to be hard in that sort”(2). Cephalus alludes that  unhappiness, discomfort and wretchedness are not due to poverty or old age but is really a result of injustice or vie and ignorance. Later in the Republic Socrates affirms that the just man is blessed and happy.

In book one of the Republic, Socrates goal is also to examine the unjust soul. The topic of injustice opens the door for Plato to explore many ideas, but to examine injustice of the soul is Socrates main goal. Socrates finds that justice is virtue of soul, and that justice is what helps the soul function properly. He asserts that, “the just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one” (33). Thrasymachus says to Socrates that, “you are so far off about justice, and the unjust and injustice, that you are unaware that justice and the just are really someone else’s good, the advantage of the man who is stronger rules, and a personal harm to the man who obeys and serves. Injustice is the opposite, and it rules the simple and just; and those who are ruled do what is advantageous for him who is stronger, and they make him whom they serve happy but for themselves not at all” (21). Thrasymachus makes an intriguing argument. There must be some validity to Thrasymachus’ argument because Socrates and the other characters seriously inquire rather the unjust life is good. Socrates later finds that the unjust is one who is, “unable to act, because he is at faction and is not of one mind with himself, and, second an enemy both to himself and to just men” (31). Socrates eventually shows that injustice is merely ignorance and lack of knowledge. It seems that to Socrates injustice comes as a result of people being misinformed, and he insinuates that injustice would be eliminated if society’s priority was the state of the individual’s soul. In The Apology, Socrates says, “are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul” (5).   Socrates sees injustice a symptom that comes from jaded thinking and beliefs. He believes that individuals would cease from unjust actions if they valued their souls more than the rewards that they perceive to come from unjust actions.

            Essentially, the position that Socrates takes in book one is based on the consistent gospel that he teaches throughout the rest of the Republic and in his other works. The gospel is that the soul is eternal and one should cultivate the soul. Through the topic of justice and injustice, Socrates subtly asks what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul. However, Socrates adds to this by asserting that the just life is more profitable and happier. Socrates argues that you do not have to wait to get your reward in heaven, but that, “the just man is happy and the unjust man wretched” (33). Socrates describes justice as an active condition. He does not distinguish justice from a just soul. By the end of book one these two are one in the same. In his article about justice and virtue, Aryeh Kosman asks a great question about justice as an active condition. What sorts of actions create an active condition of justice? I believe that Socrates would answer that a man’s actions do not make him just. The just man is just because he believes that the soul is more precious than to anything and this belief guides his actions. This belief is what gave Socrates happiness even in the face of death and is his foundation when defending justice in Book one of the Republic. From the perspective of a man who truly values his eternal soul over everything, justice is clearly better than injustice.

            In conclusion, one may feel cheated out of a straightforward answer to the question asked in book one of the Republic. Socrates says that justice is virtue of soul so justice is what helps the soul function properly. The function of the soul is to live. Justice is what helps a man live a good life. Justice is what makes a ship sail smoothly.  Justice is what makes a city function as a good city. Justice is what is good for the soul.