Choose any 1 of the topics below :
1. Thrasymachus maintains that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger, that is, those in power determine what is right and wrong according to what they perceive to be to their advantage. Socrates gets Thrasymachus to agree that ruling is an art, and that, as in all arts, the practitioner or craftsman is in first instance concerned with making the subject matter of the art (craft) the best it can be. Did Thrasymachus concede too much to Socrates? Can you construct a stronger argument in support of Thrasymachus’ position?
2. Plato’s treatment of women in The Republic is subject to varying interpretations. There are those who think he is a radical egalitarian when it comes to women in the polis. Others think he remains a conservative, unwilling to abandon traditional views of their character and role in society. Do you think Plato is radical or conservative in his views on women?
3. The Republic ostensibly is a book on politics in which Plato sketches the outline of an ideal political regime. But much of the dialogue aims at persuading Socrates’ conversation partners that a life of virtue—the cultivation of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice—is what all individuals should aim at. Is The Republic really about politics or is it about morality and the responsibility of individuals to choose to live a good life?
4. Plato has a quarrel with poetry (dramatic story telling, both tragic and comedic). In his ideal city he would have poets strictly censored. But it seems he is not entirely convinced by his own argument. In the end, he issues the following invitation: “All the same, let it be said that, if the imitative poetry that aims at pleasure has any argument to show it has a place in a well-governed city, we would gladly welcome it back, since we are well aware of being charmed by it ourselves.” What is Plato’s problem with poetry? Can you provide an argument in defence of the pleasures of poetry (story-telling)?
5. When speaking of his ideal city, Plato makes a curious admission: “…there may perhaps be a model of it in the heavens for anyone who wishes to look at and to found on the basis of what he sees. It makes no difference at all whether it exists anywhere or ever will. You see, he [a philosopher] would take part in the politics of it alone, and of no other.” If the ideal city can never be made real, what is the point of labouring over its construction in words?