THE REPUBLIC:

BOOK 1

Jian Mohamed 243184 A-10

Hana Ayman 239489 A-10

Maya Mohamed 239793 A-12

Joud Ahmed 241439 A-12
Main Ideas:

In the vast world of Philosophy, Plato created a timeless masterpiece called “The Republic”
which is a book that explores the complications of justice and mortality. Book 1 is composed of
dialogues between the wise Socrates and a series of interlocutors that contributes to the basic
concept of justice. Each conversation adds something new to the fundamentals of morals and
justice. The first discussions with Cephalus and Polemarchus set the stage for a deep dive into
the definition of justice that gradually got heated as the daunting Thrasymachus appeared.

The first main idea in Book 1 of The Republic by Plato that is the nature of old age and the
notion of justice was discussed in the dialogue between Socrates and Cephalus the father of
Polemarchus, in which Cephalus asserts that old age has brought him peace and tranquility
unlike some of the old men he spoke with, who claim that they can not enjoy the pleasures of life
anymore. Cephalus also states that the words of Sophocles the poet that are “I feel as if I had
escaped from a mad and furious master.” (Plato, 375 BCE, p. 3) had stuck with him. In addition
to that, Cephalus thinks that fulfilling one’s legal responsibilities is essential to achieving justice.
He stresses the importance of keeping promises and paying back debts. According to him
following the law is the basic component of justice.

The second main idea in Book 1 the first given definition of justice, was discussed in the
dialogue that occurred between Socrates and Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus where he
elaborates on his father’s views and contends that achieving justice is to give each person what is
owed to them. Moreover, justice according to Polemarchus is doing good to friends and harming
foes. Socrates challenges this opinion by giving Polemarchus a case, where he asks if returning
arms to a friend who is not in the right state of mind is a just act or an unjust act. Polemarchus
then refines his first definition of justice as he questions whether a just person would
purposefully harm someone. (Plato, 375 BCE, pp. 5-13)

The third main idea in Book 1, which was Thrasymachus’s resolution of justice resides in the
debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus where Thrasymachus presents a more pessimistic
view of justice. He claims that the people in high positions create the law for their own personal
gains only and that justice is a tool used by the stronger to their advantage. He then expands his
argument to individual behavior and suggests that people should behave in their own personal

1
interests instead of following traditional ideas of justice. Socrates challenges Thrasymachus’s
ideas and although he started out with a simple declaration of the stronger’s advantage, the
debate progresses into a more complex exploration of the dynamic between the ruler and the
subjects. (Plato, 375 BCE, pp. 13-37)

One other idea that was discussed is that a condition of justice is the happiest, most
comfortable place for the soul in Plato's Republic. He mentioned that the appropriate sequence of
cites, and souls is fairness. Additionally, Socrates said that a man whose soul is unjust is an
unhappy man while a man whose soul is just is happy due to being morally convinced that his
actions were the correct decision, further proving that justice is the happiest place for the soul. this
reason should take precedence when making an important decision to ensure proper justice.
Judgments are made based on what is morally correct and just as opposed to what is only enjoyable.
Hence, true contentment and inner serenity are the outcome of this righteous state, In contrast, the
soul feels conflicted, anxious, unsatisfied, and in a state of imbalance when there is injustice.
According to Socrates, the soul thrives when it operates in accordance with its rational natural
world. Philosophers have discussed and argued this issue of justice and fulfillment, and it is still
of absolute importance to fully comprehend the current state of humanity.

2
Implicit ideas:

When Polemarchus mentioned, “Justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to
enemies” he discussed a broad topic that included many underlying ideas. The use of the word
“art” in his sentence indicates that the act of justice isn’t a simple action that doesn’t need any
effort however it’s a complex strategy and skillful approach. If ethically assessing this idea, then
the target is seeing whether the act is considered just or not in the first place, and if justice should
be weighed according to the person (good or evil) or based on the understanding of the difference
between a right or wrong action. This mainly depends on the morality and ethics of an individual,
so it usually varies. There is a loyalty approach when considering this just act where giving good
to friends who deserve it, and evil to enemies who accept those consequences.

Thrasymachus suggested that justice is in the interest of the stronger, meaning, that the
stronger person always does what they think is right and the weaker person will just follow, as the
weaker person has no power in conflict with the stronger person’s side. Thrasymachus’s idea on
justice is actually what happens in the real world, for example, you can’t force your opinion on
your leader, not because your opinion isn’t right, but because you simply don’t have the power or
authority to say and do your ideas. This might sound injustice or incorrect and unfair however,
humans are different, and each person has different ideas and perspectives on how they see the
world and what they think is right, so if each person wants their idea to be done and out in public,
the world would be a mess. That’s why when choosing a leader, you must have full trust in that
person, even if you think that one or two of his ideas are terrible. The leader you chose probably
has a picture in their head about their ideas and has their considered a future, long-term, plan based
on these ideas. So maybe if you just follow their lead till the end, the idea of “just” will be
accomplished.

3
Justice and social issues:

Justice is a word with many definitions. While some may define it as fairness in the
treatment of individuals, others think that justice is a law that applies equally to everyone. Our
opinion is that justice is taking the correct action according to the situation faced. Palestinians have
the right to defend their country and their people when faced with such malicious war crimes
therefore, it is justified for them in this situation. The Palestinian-Israeli war is one of the most
devastating occurrences of our current times.

To relate justice to our current social issues, we will be talking about the Israel – Palestine
conflict. This conflict has been going on since the 19th century to have sole judgment over lands
and resources. It began when the European powers started colonizing the Palestinian region, but
the problem intensified in 1948 when thousands of Palestinians were removed from their lands.
Many protests happened and are still happening to this day all over the world against the Israeli
government; however, the war got worse in the past few weeks, with hundreds of humans killed
daily and thousands killed in total.

People who support Israel have a certain point of view of what they think is just for them,
their concept is that they own the lands and resources in which the Palestinians live and that it is
just if they took back their lands even if they have to force the current citizens out of it. The events
of the 7th of January led to more than 1000 Israelis killed and 240 kidnapped by the group
“Hamas”, which stands for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas was established to fight the
Israeli military, so many people believe that it is unjust to kidnap and kill innocent citizens and
that they should have dealt with the government or military instead of the civilians.

On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed every single day
since Hamas attacked Israel, including more than 3600 innocent children. Thousands of poor
civilians also lost their homes and hundreds can't even find their families. All of these innocent
people, dead or alive, are being tortured because a few years ago, Israelis decided to take over that
land forcefully. Today, Palestinians don’t have the basic life necessities such as shelter, food,

4
water, or even clean, breathable air although the Israelis have more than just the basic life
necessities.

Both sides of the story have a completely different point to where just is, it mainly comes
from the human’s background. For example, as Arabs, we consider that the Palestinians are
suppressed, and our idea of justice is to bring them back their rights by fighting all the Israelis and
to also retrieve all their lands from the opposing side then again, we also mentioned killing
innocent Israeli civilians, and that its justice to kill them the same way they attacked the Palestinian
children.

If we try to relate justice and current social issues, we will find that justice is very
proportional, if you hear a story from one point of view, you might feel that the other side is unjust,
and vice versa. That’s why critical thinking is needed when trying to find out whether the topic
matches up with your idea of justice or not.

5
Historical and Political Background:

The Great Peloponnesian War, which started in 404 B.C. and ended in 431 B.C., was the
first major conflict between Sparta, Athens, and their allies. The war initially started in 433 B.C.
when Athens was defending itself and its ally, Corcyra, against Sparta and its ally Corinth. Despite
the three delegations sent by Sparta to Athens to avoid war and blame it on the betrayal of Corinth,
Athenians rejected the delegations and peace. In 423 B.C., Athens and Sparta signed the treaty
known as the Peace of Nicias which was supposed to last for fifty years; however, in 415 B.C. war
reignited when Sicily, one of Athens's allies, requested their help against invaders from Syracuse.
Therefore, Sparta joined forces with Syracuse and won over the Athenians in a significant sea
battle. Contrary to the expectations, Athens did not directly collapse but instead, they secured a
series of naval victories over Sparta. The conflict continued for another decade, under the rule of
the Spartan general Lysander. In 405 B.C., Lysander dealt a severe blow to the Athenian fleet in
battle and subsequently laid siege to Athens and engaged in its surrender to Sparta in 404 B.C.
(Peloponnesian War - Who Won, History & Definition | HISTORY, 2009).

The Athenian democracy in the 5th century BCE had a significant influence on Athens.
The active involvement of citizens in the Assembly, through attending meetings, voting, and
holding public positions, created a sense of civic engagement. This had a profound effect on
Western political thought, emphasizing the importance of citizenship and democratic principles
(Cartwright, 2023). This period also saw the growth of culture and intellect, with famous
playwrights and philosophers emerging. Additionally, the democratic system extended to military
policies, allocating resources for the navy and providing opportunities for citizens from lower

6
social classes. However, Athenian democracy faced criticism, particularly from Plato, who
expressed concerns about the potential for demagoguery and instability, as seen in the events
surrounding Socrates' execution. Socrates faced trial in the Athenian legal system, where a jury of
approximately 500 citizens decided his fate. Instead of showing remorse, Socrates defended
himself by questioning and challenging his accusers. His unique approach, known as the Socratic
method, might have played a role in the unfavorable verdict he received. Nevertheless, despite its
challenges, the legacy of Athenian democracy had a lasting impact on ancient Athens (Socrates |
Biography, Philosophy, Method, Death, & Facts, 2023).

During the time, Athens was experimenting with democracy, Plato, a student of Socrates,
expressed his disapproval. In his book "The Republic," he openly criticized democracy, fearing
that it could result in unqualified individuals ruling and being easily influenced by public opinion,
particularly through charismatic leaders. To address the perceived flaws of democracy, Plato
proposed an alternative concept called "philosopher-king." According to him, the ideal leader
should be a philosopher-king, someone who possesses a deep understanding of truth, justice, and
reality. These rulers would base their decisions on knowledge rather than mere popularity. Plato
had reservations about the democratic process, as he believed that the majority might not always
make rational choices, leading to an unstable and unjust society (Juzer, 2021).

7
References
Plato. (375 BCE). The Republic. In Plato, Book 1 (pp. 1-37). Greece: Plato.