The Republic by Plato Essay -- essays research papers

The Republic by Plato At the beginning of Book I, we are introduced to the narrator, Socrates, and his audience of peers. We are made aware, however, of Socrates' special charm and intellectual gifts through the insistence of Polemarchus and the other men for the pleasure of his company. The tone is casual and language and modes of expression rather simple, as is commonly the case in Plato's dialogues. However, Plato's unaffected style serves at least two purposes. For one it belies the complexity and elevation of the ideas, thus it is in accord with Socrates' characteristic irony itself, which draws the "fool" in by feigned ignorance, only so that the master can show that he does not know what he thinks he knows. And second, the plainness of style complements truth and wisdom, the aim of all the dialogues, which by nature are aphoristic. In Socrates' conversation with Cephalus, the proper approach to aging and the state of old age is addressed. Although other men Cephalus' age commonly complain that for them, "life is no longer life," Cephalus feels that they misattribute discomfort and unhappiness resulting from their defective characters to advanced age. Building on a statement by Sophocles, Cephalus concludes, "he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age." Socrates' inquiry as to whether Cephalus' happiness owes to the comfort of wealth demands a qualification of this position? That while a man's nature ultimately determines his peace of mind in old age; wealth is also an undeniably important factor. The passage concerning justice illustrates Socrates' dexterous intellect and his dogged skepticism. Playful and humorous at times, the conversation ends, at several points, in absurd--and apparently inexorable--conclusions such as that the just man is a thief. What is at work here is another type of irony, in which Socrates and his auditors accept as a temporary resolution what the dialogue's audience, i.e. the reader, cannot. Here, Plato grants the reader space to think for himself. A central problem with Polemarchus' definition (borrowed from Simonides) a form of conventional morality of justice, "doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies," is the vulnerability of its individual terms. Not surprisingly, Socrates probes each one, exposing any and all weaknesses or limitatio... ...es itself on the wisdom. The souls of the wicked are a more complicated issue, for, insofar as they are immortal, evil cannot destroy them. However, Plato warns, there are various manifest parts to the soul, and evil-doing damages these. And unjust men also injure their own bodies and the bodies of others. In any case the afterlife is what is most important; there the good soul enjoys the benefits it may or may not have experienced in life. The moral of the tale of Er, if we may drain it of its color, is that of the eternal return, or recurrence. After death the soul is ultimately judged. This judgment determines the owner of the soul's order of choice in lots for the next life. Then, whatever wisdom he has accumulated previously helps him make his choice when his lot comes up. Both moments are essential because they represent choices between good and evil. One is an ongoing choice, alive in mortal life, and the other is the ultimate choice the sum of what the soul has learned in life. Man is responsible for his own behavior, says Plato. And the final twist is that, it seems, the wise man does not really forget, since if he is truly wise he will choose yet another wise existence.