Socrates Arguments example essay topic

The Myth of Er and the Myth of Metals found in Plato's Republic play an integral role in the comprehension and progression of the narrative's debate. The myths are not mere stories; rather, they provide validity, clarification, and concrete analysis to the arguments between Socrates and his interlocutors. Their purpose is to characterize and stress the points that Socrates aims to present. Thus, the myths' goal of enhancing and enriching the dialogue makes them indispensable for the preservation of ideals set forth in the Republic.

How is it possible that these simple stories sit at the core of such a greater work? To answer this question we must examine the context in which we find these myths and the contents of their accounts. Socrates: "We take ourselves, then, to be fashioning the happy city" (420: b). The actors in the Republic are determined to resolve the uncertainties of the principles of justice. Socrates endeavors to prove that justice is "among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness" (358: a). Through deduction and logic, his line of reasoning leads him to discuss the founding of a city.

This ideal city, or kallipolis, is a means of representing the theories of justice and other human qualities through analysis of the methods of rule and composition of the city. As the above quote indicates, the best approach to produce justice in a city is to make its inhabitants happy. In order for this idyllic city-state to function, its citizens must adhere to a strict set of guidelines. For example, Socrates insists that people may perform only a solitary task, "for we agreed... that it's impossible for a single person to practice many crafts or professions". (374: a).

"Social obedience" is the fundamental basis for the success of the kallipolis. By the term social obedience I refer to the citizens' willingness to acquiesce to the rulers of the state, as well as the citizens compliance to their role in society. Because social obedience incorporates accepting ones lot in life, Socrates rigid caste system becomes a precept that is the foundation of societal affairs. Plato's proposal is a system of social class with little allowance for social mobility.

How can we expect persons of lower status to be content with their societal position and to be persuaded against rebelling against the system? This seemingly insurmountable predicament threatens the validity of Socrates arguments. If this requisite principle of conformity cannot be adhered to, then Socrates' city cannot survive and his contentions regarding justice will have become futile. It is now clear how the myths become the thrust of Socrates' claim. The parables provide a visual representation of the abstract arguments that have insofar been proposed. Let us look at the context in which we find these myths and the support they bring to the argument.

The actors in the republic understand that it will be difficult to convince citizens to submit to such a way of life. "I'll first try to persuade the rulers and the soldiers and then the rest of the city" (414: d), that the distinct social classes are unique to each person and an inherent part of their nature. This is how Socrates begins his myth. He knows the power of this rhetorical device and uses it to contrive a parable describing life.

The myth of metals discusses the principle of familial association. Socrates stating, "All of you in the city are brothers", creates a synthetic rapport between all citizens of the city. By opening with this equality, Socrates can then discuss the inevitable fate that each of them must submit to. Some people will be "gold", while others will be of the lesser quality of "bronze" and "iron". Consequently, Socrates believes that through the use of this myth, those who had been discontent with their social status will be more satisfied and eager to live with the responsibility that has been born within them. The employment of the myth of metals is essential because it instills a deep and rational explanation of the way life is meant to be lived in the kallipolis, thus leading to contentment and happiness amongst the citizenry.

The same argument is applicable to the myth of Er- people sense that there is life after death in order for their to be a motivation to be good and just in their current world. Only those who are involved in "practicing justice with every reason in every way" will "do well and be happy" (621: c, d). This is ones goal in life. Er's encounter in the world beyond gives a graphic account of the afterlife and recounts the reward for those who are just in their lifetime.

This myth provides an incentive to be just. Without the myth there could be no proof of what occurs and thereby citizens would be less likely to adhere to an honorable way of life. Are these myths true or are they fabrications of Plato's imagination? I am hesitant to argue that these stories are "true", as Socrates himself insists that "noble falsehood" is sometimes required to persuade people into belief (414: c). But scholar Daryl H. Rice questions "Plato's bold and explicit call for the use of lies" in his book A Guide to Plato's Republic by asking, "Is there not a whopping paradox in the fact that this supposed lover of truth prescribes the use of deliberately manufactured falsehoods in his ideal city?" (Rice, 54). How does one reconcile the fact that Socrates is promulgating the use of untruths in his arguments, while at the same time speaking of the importance of truth and justice?

We have to understand Plato's goal. Is it important to Plato that these stories are true in order to advance his position? NO! Rather, it is important that they are believed to be true in order to demonstrate the powerful message that these myths relate.

Is it possible that Er was actually taken to see what happens in the after world? Sure, it could have happened. Are people really from different social standings as a result of the types of metals they are composed of? It's possible. The importance is not in the storytelling, as much as is the objective that Plato wants the reader to reach. We have to see that there is a deeper meaning behind all of these myths that must be ascertained.

Socrates says, "I don't think you need to examine the simile in detail... but you already understand what I mean" (489: a). These minute details are trivial as opposed to the meaning, which contain the crux of Socrates arguments. It is quite noticeable that the use of myth as a means of argument is contrary to the Socratic method. Instead of barraging an opponent with an endless array of mind games and questions, Socrates has changed to the much softer method of storytelling. Has Socrates become a gentle soul in his old age? What is his reasoning for picking up this delicate style of debate?

It is to stress the importance of the lessons he wishes to teach. He is quite aware that "It would certainly take a lot of persuasion to get people to believe" (414: c), all the more so he must make sure that the people understand. Since many ordinary citizens are "inexperienced in answering and asking questions, they " re led astray" (487: b). For fear of alienating the citizens, Socrates does not want to risk the possibility that people will become confounded when it comes to Socrates teachings; therefore he presents the message of the myths in a clearer allegorical sense that makes them easier to understand.

If citizens do not grasp the concepts of the myths then Socrates arguments would be declaimed in vain. The myths once again become the focal point of the argument, as they serve as a transition between bewilderment and comprehension. The use of these symbolic myths is effective in educating the younger generation as well. The lessons must be executed in a manner that is in accordance with the state doctrine. "The young can't distinguish what is allegorical from what isn't" (378: d). Therefore it is imperative that their schooling comes to them in the form of a narrative.

The "memories they absorb are hard to erase and apt to become unalterable" (378: d) At this point in the young generations life, it extremely important that the parables illustrate the correct way to live. The myths are employed to instruct the youth of the proper ways of conduct, the responsibilities that must be taken, and the way of life that they are expected to respect. The myths are the sole method of instruction in this situation and therefore allow the continuity of the kallipolis by the younger generation. There are scholars who take the significance of the myths extremely seriously and claim that Plato's intentions are "part of a purely human discourse".

They aren't purely for clarification but are an intrinsic part of the ensuing debate. Lars Albinus, noted Platonic scholar, states that it is "difficult to distinguish myth from argument" in many Platonic writings. He contests that the myths hold equal credence with respect to any of the arguments made in the Republic". [The myths] are representations in the sense that they are a part of a 'non-mythical' framework; they do not stand alone, but are inserted in the overall speech-practice".

They therefore should not be differentiated from the main dialogue and should actually hold as much authority as any of the other arguments enjoy (Osten feld, 91-94). The myths fortify Socrates teachings with the corroboration necessary to persuade his audience. Through their mode of clarification, the myths offer a better understanding of Socrates contention to all minded people. This makes them a fundamental and inclusive element of the Republic. Without the clarification, Socrates arguments would remain static and withdrawn from potential citizens and shared only amongst Socrates' intimate group of interlocutors.

The many functions that these myths serve-be it clarification, edification, or justification, prove that they are vital components of Plato's Republic. By: Jeffrey O kun.