A Critical Examination of Glaucon's Challenge in Plato's Republic

This essay provides an analysis of Glaucon's challenge to Socrates' definition of justice within Plato's Republic. Glaucon argues that individuals only practice justice out of fear and weakness, challenging Socrates' assertion that justice is intrinsically good. The essay examines Glaucon's three main points: the origin of justice, its instrumental nature, and the claim that an unjust life is preferable to a just one. It explores how Glaucon presents his arguments, essentially trapping Socrates into defining justice in a different way. The essay further discusses Glaucon's division of goods into three classes and Socrates' responses, including the analogy between a just city and a just individual. The essay concludes by evaluating the effectiveness of Socrates' arguments in addressing Glaucon's challenge, highlighting the limitations of the analogy and the lack of a conclusive answer to the initial questions posed by Glaucon and Adeimantus. The essay notes that the arguments ultimately fail to clearly resolve the challenges and do not provide a definitive claim regarding the successful city that Socrates has claimed as a result of justice. The essay cites various references to support its arguments.

The Republic

Table of Contents
ESSAY.............................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

ESSAY
Republic is a book written by Western philosophers over justice or injustice, moral or
immoral and in this Glaucon defines that “Justice is not a thing which is to be practices for own
sake but something in which an individual get involves to get out of fear and weakness”.
Glaucon challenges consists of three main point in which first point challenges over the
conception of justice and it origin which is presented by the Socrates and making it more
difficult to disapprove. The second point state that the justice was only an instrumental good.
The final point he provide also holds main thesis where Glucon's challenge state that the unjust
life of an individual is better than the just one.
The Glaucon's challenge which he present over Socrates like a trap where if one get
agrees with a statement then he/she would have to get agree with rest of the arguments. The
arguments provided by the Glaucon are in a manner that it is a manner of asking Socrates to
define justice in some another way (Fanning, 2018). Further expanding his argument, Glaucon
divide good things in three classes such as things an individual have a desire for just because of
its outcome, things which an individual want desire for his/her own benefit only as well as things
which a person want just for their own sake and final thing which they get from this thing
(Glaucon). This is mainly mentioned by the Glaucon to defend against the statement of Socrates
and for showing that justice is just not a thing which is desired by people rather it is also consider
to stand at high class among things of desire which involves the desire of both i.e. for own sake
and its consequences. The challenge that Glaucon's give to the Socrates regarding the definition
he presented within the Republic for the justice was accepted by him in order to prove the
Glaucon wrong (Kuo and Ranis, 2019). In order to continue with this challenge the Socrates
present his views that just city always viewed to be most successful as compare to unjust city
(SOCRATES). He further explains that there is a kind of intelligible relation that is present
among things which make a particular city successful and attributes that make an individual get
succeed i.e. justice (Pegg, 2019). At this time Socrates wants to present that the justice should be
equal for the two i.e. person as well as city as the each part of f-ness has belonging from the
whole f ness . But on the other side the Philosopher want to exercise the F-ness of a city as a
algorithmic for positioning F-ness within a person. At this Plato right over thinking that there is
some kind of relation between the structural feature as well as values of society and
psychological feature as well as value of person. But it also holds up much controversy about

whether this relations is really that much strong that it can prolong all claims which Socrates
created within the Republic. But this discussion performed by the Socrates not become able to
clearly answer the challenges that Glaucon and Adeimantus has asked to the Socrates as the
answer provided does not depend logically on any kind of strong claim which is mentioned on
the ground of analogy between the person as well as cities (Fanning, 2018). Instead it more
depend over the glib regarding the justice as a kind of personal glib as well as virtue reason that
ground a person ever remain happy while being rightful as compare to one who found unjust. So
these arguments end up without clearing the challenging questions made by Glaucon and
Adeimantus and also not able to make a remark over the successful city which Socrates has
claimed as a result of justice (Pegg, 2019). Hence it can be said that the Socrates and Plato has
accepted the definition as well as element presented by the Glaucon.

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Fanning, B., 2018. Racism and social change in the Republic of Ireland.
Kuo, S. W. and Ranis, G., 2019. The Taiwan Success Story: Rapid Growith With Improved
Distribution In The Republic Of China, 1952-1979. Routledge.
Pegg, S., 2019. International society and the de facto state. Routledge.
Glaucon, The Republic (ed. and transl.) C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company Inc., 2004) p. 120, paragraph 434c line 1 to 580d line 5
SOCRATES, The Republic (ed. and transl.) C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company Inc., 2004) p. 120, paragraph 435b line 3.