Two thing immediately emerge here that are central to Plato’s understanding of thought: “No one would say you ought to return it.or tell him the whole truth either.” (331c) The phrase “speaking of justice” signals that we are not going to deal with justice itself, with what justice is. But speaking of justice (dikaiosune), do you really think it’s as simple as telling the truth and returning what you receive, or are both these acts sometimes just and sometimes unjust?” And he goes on to mention the case of returning a weapon to a friend who has gone mad. Here the dialogue takes philosophical flight as Socrates replies: “Beautifully put, Cephalus. (330d-331b) The most useful purpose of wealth, he says, is that it helps you avoid intentional wrongdoing. Cephalus represents the successful, socially respected individual, who actually thinks there is some connection between wealth and doing the right thing (being “just’). There are three sources of “moral enlightment,” as we might say, that are firmly (if not brutally) set aside in The Republic Book I.Ī. Taylor, Plato: The Man And His Work, is also extremely helpful in setting the real life context of Plato’s work. Joseph’s treatment on it in his collection, Ancient and Modern Philosophy, and perhaps the first fifty pages of Julia Annas’ An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Any one will be greatly helped with Book I by reading H. (See Socrates’ admission at 354c.) But this is so only for the superficial or uninformed reader. Book I actually constitutes one of the “search” dialogues, which seem to not get us anywhere. And they represent positions on the primary issue of The Republic-Who is the really good person (like Socrates)? And Which is the really good city (like Socrates wanted Athens to be)? The arguments Socrates brings to bear against those positions seem thin and forced, at least in some cases, and the connection of the end of Book I (Thrasymachus shown wrong about whether the just or unjust person is better off) with the beginning of Book II (the Gyges myth) is not transparent. They all meant something to the Athenian reader, at least, because of the actually history of Athens. A number of personalities are introduced whom we today rarely have any sense at all of their significance. 327-354) usually strikes the contemporary student as quite puzzling.

The republic book 1