Eye for an Eye- Book 1 of The Republic of Plato

The first section of Book 1 was really interesting. Specially because I enjoyed the way Socrates has conversations with people, questioning everything they say and hence making them reflect about what they just said. This is an example of how dialoguing can help you create new ways of thinking. I will write about the first two conversations he has. The first one with the respectable Cephalus. 

The talk between Socrates and Cephalus reminded me of the talks my parents and I have before I come back to college after a break. Socrates, thought, is clearly more willing to ask questions to the elders than I normally am. Socrates eagerly, with a tone of respect, wants to know how Cephalus directs his life. Socrates learns from the wisdom of an old man.  It is interesting because it reminded me of Plato’s Pheado where Socrates is summing up his life moments before dying in the presence of other philosophers. This is a foreshadowing of what he will do when its close to his last moments of life. Cephalus’ saying: “When a man comes near to the realization that he will be making an end, fear and care enter him for things to which he gave no thought before”, stood out to me the most. Again, we encounter the idea of the importance of reflecting in your life and what direction you are giving to your mind. The fact that this is the first topic the reader is introduced to highlights its importance for Plato. 

The second conversation happens between Socrates and Polemarchus. The topic of justice is brought up. Socrates believes that justice is not necessarily what people commonly think of justice as; speaking the truth and giving back what one takes. He gives the example of the man who owes a weapon to his neighbor. But, would he give it back when his neighbor is in a mentally unstable state? This reflective tone on justice is what catches my attention. Socrates questions Polemarchus’ idea on the topic. Polemarchus believes what Simonides says that it is “just to give to each what is owed.” Socrates’ way to argue about this is by setting out different scenarios of when Simonides definition becomes complicated and incongruent. Again, inviting Polemarchus to think beyond what he has heard. Reminded me of what he did with Hippocrates on his way to see Protagoras.

I think that one of Socrates’ main concern is Simonides' poetic riddle for justice; ‘giving back what is owed’. The conclusion is that Simonides’ ideas lead us to think that we only owe good to a friend and harm to an enemy. Socrates is suggesting that it is the style of poetic writing that influences to the wrong interpretation of justice. He makes blames Homer for this. Through the dialogue Socrates realizes that people falling for what is mytho-poetic is detrimental for the critical thinking mind.

The true definition of justice as a human virtue goes beyond the poetic riddled definition people have for justice; the ‘eye for and eye’ idea. The following quote shows this, “Then it is not the work of the just man to harm either a friend or anyone else, Polemarchus, but of his opposite, the unjust man.” (Plato Repub. 335d). This is Socrates major conclusion after analyzing what doing harm to enemies with “just” intentions might actually mean. His reason is that this is not true virtue.  Believing in ‘eye for an eye’ sounds "just" but if given more thought to it, we conclude that it is a contradiction to the nature of the virtue of justice; “But are just men able to make others unjust by justice, of all things? Or, in sum, are good men able to make other men bad by virtue?” (Plato Repub. 335d). Harming is not the work of true good. It sounds illogical for a good man to make other man something bad by virtue. So, I guess this comes down to the question of what virtue is. For Socrates, it sounds like it is something cohesive like good does good, the product of virtue is in cohesion with the nature of its preceding reactants.

How much cohesion does my life have with every action that I do? Do my actions really reflect what I believe? Maybe, this sense of cohesion can be a proof for those in search for a validity of claims. I think, indirectly, one of the effects of this conversation between Socrates and Polemarchus is to invite us reexamine the ways we think about not just virtue but any theories that we have in our minds that explain our behavior.

By the way, my respects to Socrates for being so malleable of thought and being able to have multiple philosophical conversation one after the other with different people!