welcome to our first session on plato's republic which will cover book one first let's address the major characters in this book and their goals socrates is the main character and wants to learn what justice is through discussion paula marcus is his friend a fellow learner who introduces the first concept of justice and thrashimakis is an intellectual adversary with a differing view of justice with that out of the way let's begin the first paragraphs of the book cover an interaction between socrates and paula marcus along with paula marcus's friends socrates wishes to leave but is forced to stay after being threatened with a fight this also produces one of the standout lines so far do you really think you could persuade us if we refuse to listen this line i think speaks quite convincingly on the people who will not listen to reasons some of whom are encapsulated in this book the group returns to paula marcus's house where socrates briefly converses with cephalus the father of paula marcus socrates asks whether old age is difficult to bear cephalus responds by saying that many of his friends that are of the same age complain of the loss of their life and freedom and yet he is happy this he says is due to his freedom from having to live his life the same way he did when he was young citing sophocles the poet as another example of this it is at this point that we reach our first philosophical term negative freedom defined as the absence of obstacles barriers or constraints when cephalus expresses his love of the freedom of old age he is remarking upon the absence of barriers to his happiness he is no longer forced to act as a young man is supposed to do citing sex alcohol and feasting as things he no longer feels compelled to do in this way he agrees with the conception that his freedom is in fact separate from his desires and he is happier without the choice from this cephalus concludes that it is not old age that is a burden but one's character socrates does not feel the need to address this in much detail but he does ask whether it is not one strength of character but riches that contribute most to happiness cephalus checks his privilege and yet says that even the wealthy can be unhappy if they lack the correct temperament socrates then asks cephalus what the greatest privilege he has received from being wealthy is and the reply is that cephalus in his old age wishes to leave the world feeling good about himself for which reason he prizes wealth most highly for allowing him to pay his debts so what i will from now on called the cephalian concept of justice is that it is paying what you owe truth above all else socrates analyzes this idea of justice briefly using the example of a friend who has asked you to keep weapons for him if he later asks you for those weapons back when he is not in his right mind are you obliged to give them to him socrates thinks not the whole congregation agrees with him upon this point but paula marcus comes to the defense of his father proposing the concept i will refer to as seminidian justice simonides says paula marcus posits that justice is to pay what is owed but specifically to do good to your friends as good as owed to them and ill to your enemies as ill is owed them so with this amendment socrates's example is valid as not providing your friend with weapons when he is not in his right mind is doing him good continuing with this seminidian version of justice socrates applies it to other aspects of life ensuring that their functions are indeed paying what is owed to whom it is owed to with this in mind he continues to the idea of justice defining it similarly to the above as doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies now socrates employs a very useful method in arguing when someone asks a question socrates asks three different questions that demonstrate a conclusive answer to the original for example when is justice useful first he establishes that justice of the seminidian conception is most applicable during war and alliances with this in mind he proceeds to ask when one is not sick one does not need a doctor no when one is not at sea one does not need a ship's captain no therefore when one is not at war or making an alliance one does not need justice i want to point out that if you intend to employ this technique it does not do well at defending assertions only answering questions and dismantling positive claims paula marcus objects despite the method being clear because this makes no intuitive sense how can justice be useless in times of peace socrates asks what justice is therefore useful for during peace time to which the response is contracts and so socrates sets about establishing exactly what polymarcus means finding that the just man is useful for partnerships involving the safety of money and other things from this the application is that when something needs to be kept safe the just man is the best for the job socrates then makes the shocking statement that if justice is useful only when other things are used less than perhaps it is not much use at all he proceeds to explain by way of a fighting analogy that the man who is best at avoiding something is also best at committing it therefore the just man must be a very adept thief if he can keep things so safe socrates now embarks on a different line of questioning that of human error his initial idea is that humans are not infallible and that they have certain flaws that should be taken into account when considering justice for example are our friends always good and our enemies always bad the obvious answer is no humans make mistakes so seminidian justice is perhaps not the best conception of justice if it permits harm to good and just people socrates then proposes an amendment to cementition justice saying that it can be expressed as treating the just well and the unjust poorly this i will call polymarkey injustice and the difference between this and the seminidian conception is the qualifier of being good as opposed to simply being a friend with this in mind socrates sets about redefining friend as one who appears to be good and is an enemy as one who appears to be bad and is however one who appears to be good and is not is no friend and one who appears to be bad and is not is no enemy socrates now follows a related topic is it just to do harm at all his reasoning is that anything treated badly will become worse for example a horse treated badly becomes worse not in the way that we measure dogs but in the way we measure horses this last part about how we measure excellence is integral as socrates puts forward the idea that justice is a measure of human excellence he then points out that one cannot become unmusical by being around musicians or worsen at horsemanship by being around a horseman how then can the just man harm people and make them more unjust so what i will tentatively call the first iteration of socratic justice is that the just man does no harm to anyone under any circumstances therasamacus now enters the intellectual fray eager for an answer to this judicial question he is dismayed by socrates's method of taking apart others arguments and not presenting his own although thrasomachus does make an important point socrates does not himself know what justice is he approaches it in the wrong way with ad hominem attacks another important term ad hominem is a logical fallacy committed when one attacks the person rather than the argument thrasymachus rather than attack the arguments presented insults socrates instead thrasymachus in the following paragraphs appears very belligerent demanding that socrates pay a penalty if thoracimacus can present a new conception of justice the crux of their conflict is that socrates is trying by a communal approach to learn what justice is while thrashimakis wants an answer right away so the concept that he proposes heretofore known as thrasamachi injustice is that justice is what is good for the stronger his definition is based on the assumption that rulers in every city regardless of ruling philosophy make laws that benefit themselves his position therefore is that the just thing in all cities is to follow the rules set out by and benefiting the stronger socrates attacks this position by first clarifying that it is just for subjects to follow the laws that their rulers have passed then arguing once again from human error if the rulers are sometimes prone to making mistakes then to carry out these incorrect laws would be just if the citizens are to follow orders given to them by the stronger but unjust if justice is to do what is best for the stronger socrates points out this conflict but is assured by one of thoracimakis supporters that what is meant by thrasomachi injustice is in fact that justice is what the stronger thinks is best for him thrashimakis denies this saying that in the action of making a mistake one loses the skill they were practicing and in that case are not practicing the skill at the time so the phrase the doctor made a mistake should instead say for a time the doctor ceased to be a doctor and practiced medicine irrationally and incapably this done he doubles down on the first definition of thoracimacki injustice that it is what is best for the stronger socrates now undertakes the task of proving that thrasamachi injustice is flawed to do this he asks what the use of medicine is to which socrates says the answer is to perfect the body from this he extrapolates that there are some arts or skills which care for things beneath them but that there are many skills like medicine which need no higher skill to think about what is good for it eg medicine perfects the body from this socrates argues that each skill thinks about the good for what is under its control therefore the strong the authority exercise justice when they seek the good for the weaker the subjects thrasymachus following this takes a different attack comparing the ruler to a shepherd and the people to sheep in this case we understand that justice is good for someone else and entails harm to oneself his example is the duty that is owed to a ruler of a city the just subject follows these laws and benefits someone else at the cost of his own freedom harming himself but the unjust man does not follow these laws enriching himself at the cost of others thrasymachus has now almost accepted socratic justice but also raises the most interesting question thus far why be just it's a compelling question why be just what makes justice good or profitable thurasamakist lists numerous examples in which the just man is worse off than the unjust man including business contracts taxes and the abuse of political office he defines the unjust man for us as one who has the ability to be selfish on a large scale he even puts forward the idea that the unjust man is happier because of his ability to seize things for himself and grow his material possessions he goes so far as to say that the world is afraid of experiencing injustice and that is why they condemn it despite it being the best way to live so how will socrates refute this argument well he begins with the sheep and shepherd analogy he redefines the shepherd as one who looks after the flock if he wished to sell the sheep he'd be a businessman if you wish to eat them a diner he proceeds to argue that the intended usage and purpose of skills is the important thing to address saying that the intended purpose of medicine is health and the intended purpose of seamanship is safety at sea he demonstrates that the art of earning a living that is making money from a skill is for the purpose of payment he then proceeds to state that each person practices the art of earning a living as well as the other skill that they practice because the art of medicine does not bring payment it is the art of earning a living that does that therefore the practitioner receives no benefit from his own skill and yet provides benefit to those beneath him when he works for nothing this means that for each skill the good is for the weaker not the stronger that is why payment is prescribed for medicine or ruling because they do what is best for what is under their control socrates then explains that rulers are paid in ruling by money prestige or the consequences of not ruling questioned about this he explains that ambition and greed are negative traits and so the good man will not ask for money or power but he is convinced to take political office because if he does not someone worse will rule this is in keeping with ancient greek and roman stories which often prize most highly rulers like cincinnatus who never wanted to rule the natural conclusion is that were everyone perfectly good no one would wish to rule the added responsibilities would be too great as well as the fact that people would prefer to have good done to them rather than do good to others now socrates addresses the main thrust of thrasymachus's argument whether the life of the unjust is better than the life of the just he begins by asking thrasymachus whether justice is a virtue and injustice of ice but thirasimakus says no his claim is that justice is a vice and injustice of virtue in keeping with this socrates confirms that what is meant by this is that the unjust are wise and good people so with his work more difficult socrates establishes an interesting comparison the respective desires of the just and unjust man the just man they agree would attempt to outdo only the unjust while the unjust would try to outdo everyone the just man will only try to defeat what is unlike him while the unjust attempts to defeat both what is like and what is unlike him socrates now brings this whole thread into focus by saying that the unjust man wise and good according to thoracimacus is also like the wise and good but one who is good at for example music has knowledge of music and one who is bad has no knowledge of it the musician never attempts to outdo another musician only the non-musician but the ignorant person would try to defeat the knowledgeable person due to his ignorance in this way the just who only out do what they are unlike are good and wise and injustice must following this be bad and ignorant finally socrates addresses injustice as a powerful force the city that most desires conquest is the most unjust and the most powerful however due to the previous argument a city could not achieve power without some necessary wisdom entailing the use of justice in the acquisition of power the extension and proof of this lies in the group of thieves who were they to behave unjustly towards each other would never accomplish anything the phrase honor among thieves springs to mind and socrates says that this is due to injustice causing dissent while justice breeds cooperation on the large scale socrates offers numerous examples of this concluding that injustice leads to inaction when groups of people try to work together unfortunately he then commits the fallacy of division which is when one applies to apart the attributes of the whole socrates's mistake is saying that the perfectly unjust man would be inactive which he offers no evidence to prove simply inducting it via division despite this his following arguments are sound saying that the unjust man is the enemy of the just and that if the gods are just the unjust man is therefore against the gods as well this and his following argument are not particularly relevant to the main idea of the work but are at the least interesting his next argument follows from his fallacious assumption that the unjust man is completely inactive and states that he therefore acts in a state of semi-injustice socrates's final argument concerns that of the happier and better lifestyle just or unjust beginning by stating that each item has a function and an excellence for example the eyes are made to see and excel at their function socrates explains that without the excellence of their function they perform that function poorly the eyes are blind and the dull knife does not cut the soul says socrates also has a function which is living and that its excellence is required to live a good life having earlier concluded that justice is a human excellence when debating polymarky injustice socrates therefore says that to lead a successful life one must necessarily be just excellently so for the soul to properly perform its function of living that concludes the first book of the republic where socrates reasons that a requirement of living a successful life is justice but he still does not know whether justice is a virtue and whether or not it causes a happier life than injustice join us next time for the republic book 2 which will cover the famous ring of gaijus analogy and if you want to help out the channel please consider liking and subscribing