The Republic of Plato

This is a book that explains the human need to learn what the term justice means and what it implies. While the real concept of justice has never been defined, people all over the world use it to justify their enforcement of laws and vendetta against others. As seen in Plato's novel, the debate has not been able to determine the true sense of justice but has only made it more complex (Bloom et al 15). According to the claim, justice can not only mean replacing what has been stolen, as possessing a debt would not cause an individual to pursue justice. Therefore all individuals should be given equal chances in employment. This book covers several discussions in a bid to explain justice. There are many significant contributions made by different people giving their personal reasons while making an attempt to explain the true meaning of the term justice.

A very unique dialogue ensued among Cephalus and Socrates. Cephalus holds that, justice is as simple as paying back all what is taken. Whereas, Socrates outlines that, according to the nature of various cases, some will have justice while in others there will be no justice at all Bloom et al 17). Socrates gives an example of an unjust situation which involves grabbing a weapon from a friend and returning it while he/she is of an unsound mind. Such an act may be presumed to be justice but when critically examined, it is established that there is no justice but only a rational act. According to this case, justice only amounts to a rational act. In another example, if a closest friend steals something from you, you may choose not to report but advice to give it back to avoid hurting the person, although the practice is prohibited by law (Bloom et al 19). Therefore, on the basis of rationalism, one may not expose their closest friend, and thus justice does not only involve acting rationally. But sometimes if the thief is not a close person, one may decide to inform the authorities. When this act is considered, justice will therefore comprise of doing something that is of benefit to oneself. However, if an accident occurs where one person is injured by another seriously in the presence of a witness, the accused person will be convicted if the witness opts to provide evidence (Bloom et al 20). In this case, justice may mean assisting people who are in need as it is right. Referring to the book and the argument held by Socrates and his allies, justice varies depending on the situation.

The discussion of Polemarchus and Socrates proceeds in establishing on what justice really is. Polemarchus gives an example of a poet named Simonides who is of the thought that justice means paying back what you owe to people. Socrates does not support this idea by referring to the example described earlier of grabbing a weapon from a mad man by putting it that the weapon should be returned when then person has calmed down to prevent harm (Bloom et al 23). Another example is discussed of a landlord who hikes rent in the third month but the tenant has to pay although that was not their initial agreement. In this case, it may not be justifiable to pay the extra amount but the tenant has to pay. Therefore, based on this case, justice can be perceived to be a situation when both parties accept the terms of the agreement and are satisfied (Bloom et al 25). Simonides would not support that in this case justice prevailed since the tenant was not given notice.

Therefore, Polemarchus and Simonide did not arrive at a common conclusion on what justice implies. The two seem to conclude that justice is being nice to the people who are nice to you and vice versa. This contradicting because in reality it is not necessary to treat others in a bad way to achieve justice. This portrays how Plato finds it complicated to determine the appropriate way to define justice (Bloom et al 27). On the other hand, Socrates does not uphold any definition of justice implying that no words are enough to fully describe it. This shows that justice is a false theory since Socrates does not support any definition as appropriate. The concept of justice is not real since its origin can only be traced to come from the law or doing an act that is fair.

Another discussion by Plato’s brother Adeimantus and Socrates implies that, heading a city is not easy. Here, the ruler may not possess his own wealth, take a leave, be with a mistress or have time to enjoy. Whereas Socrates says that, running a city may not be the work of an individual but for everyone presiding there. Thus if the ruler applies a different mechanism, he will not be presumed to be the head. A city is considered to be on the right track when the ruler does what is just for all members (Bloom et al 29). Based on the major specialization of law, which allows people to perform duties that they agree fits them best. This means that some people may become lawyers, doctors, scientists. Some other jobs may not be just, for example when a person with no experience is employed to work. This also creates complications because it is unjust to offer jobs only to the experienced people. In this case, justice can be seen to mean hiring all the available people not limited to the most qualified. Therefore, Adeimantus and Socrates seem to accept that, justice is allowing everyone a fair opportunity to work. This makes it even harder for Plato to describe justice since he does not agree to any meaning that is given (Bloom et al 32). The arguments by Plato do not conform to a specific definition but are only philosophized. His discussions represent the ideas of people across the world. They require a lot of critical thinking in order to be able to interpret them. Everything discussed is meaningful and cannot be overlooked.

Conclusion

The book written by Plato shows that it is really hard to establish the correct meaning of justice since the discussed characters keep on disagreeing on the actual definition. They give different responses that cannot be harmonized to explain justice. In the discussion, Socrates upholds that, justice is compensating what has been taken. He further admits that, in order to practice justice, every member of the community should have a fair chance to get employment. This book proves that justice is not real as it is the only way that people hide their true will of conflicting with others or adhering to the law. Therefore, justice may vary depending on the people conflicting and the circumstances under which the problem occurs. This implies that the word has no established true meaning and defining it even complicates the matter. Plato has given examples of different discussions that occurred trying to give the full meaning of justice but no common conclusion is drawn in all of them. Some people may presume justice to mean fairness while others take use it as a way of defending their actions. Numerous ideas have been developed to explain the reality of justice which is assumed not to be real. Individuals have previously dug deep into their thoughts trying to make justice real but all these efforts are in vain since justice still remains to be a theory.



Works cited

Bloom, Allan, and Adam Kirsch. The republic of Plato. Basic Books, 2016.