Intro to Plato, Republic

Paper #1: Plato Essay

PHI Introduction to Philosophy

“The result of the Discussion, So far as I’m concerned, is that I know nothing” (Republic 354b).

What Socrates has unveiled with this statement is that he is unhappy with the entire discussion. I don’t think he is saying he has no knowledge but that he has learned nothing from the argument. The argument began with two men discussing the differences between what is just and what is unjust. Socrates dissatisfaction comes from the fact that they did not define what Justice is therefore they cannot truly discuss something without first defining it. How can one tell the difference between the just and unjust if they have no true meaning of justice? “For when I do not know what justice is, I will hardly know whether it a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy” (Republic 354c). The philosophical point behind this statement is that their base definition was flawed therefore their argument never existed and in turn neither has learned anything. Its not that Socrates knows nothing, it means you cannot argue for or against something until you first define it.

Socrates is also unhappy because he has missed the point. He became fixated on the argument rather than the topic. The initial argument was about justice. This then spawned subcategories, which in turn fueled more arguments. Socrates began arguing for the sake of arguing. He compared himself to a glutton at a table, who instead of thoroughly finishing the point at hand he moves on to something different before he had a chance to explain it. “I seem to have behaved like those gluttons who snatch at every dish that passes and taste it before having properly savoured the preceding one” (Republic 354b).

The Socratic method or self-refutation can be seen at times in book 1. Thrasymachus claims to have knowledge or a better understanding of what justice is. “What if I show you another answer about justice, one that is...