In book two of Republic Socrates argues with Thrasymachus about whether it is better to be just or unjust. Around 365 b and c it is beginning to sound like it would be better to be a person who is unjust. This is because "The consequences of my being just are, unless I likewise seem so, not assets, they say, but liabilities, labor, and total loss, but if I am unjust and have procured myself a reputation for justice, a godlike life is promised. Then since it it the seeming, as the wise men show me, that masters the reality and is lord of happiness, to this I must devote myself without reserve." This means that it would be better only to seem just than to actually be so, and are 366 it says that the gods won't even mind if this is what you do. As long as you give them sacrifices after you commit an injustice, you're golden! In 366 d it is also said that the ones who actually do justice don't do it willingly. The only reason people commit justice is because they don't have the guts to commit the injustice. I think a lot of this is how our society looks at justice and the just person today. We see people who follow the rules as weak, dull, boring, or that they have a stick up their butt. It also seems to me like it is the people who try to do good without making a scene about it are the ones who are criticized or lose everthing. Joel Olsteen on the other hand has everything he could ever want. I don't know how the view of justice got to this, but apparently it has been a problem for a long time!
p.s. I commented on Gary Hamner's: Socrates' City
-Susan
No comments:
Post a Comment