Book I's main ideas are to get rid of common but false ideas about justice and to clear the air for a new theory. Socrates engages in a discussion with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus and Cephalus in which they discuss the true nature of justice. From the discussions, you can easily see the traditional view on justice that Socrates wants to get rid of. Traditionally, people regard justice as a cardinal virtue and one in which all people will be dealt with equally. Simply put, it's a set of rules that govern how a good person should conduct him or herself. However, as Socrates points out, it's not really clear why and how we all benefit from this idea of justice. Instead, Socrates wants people to examine the benefits of justice. Socrates feels that the quality of an individual's mind determines how they will act and inherently has a direct effect on true justice. Thus Book I's main theme is converting minds to this new theory.

In conclusion, I found Book I of the Plato's Republic very interesting and I liked a lot of the ideas on justice but as I said, differences in social classes need to be considered. I can't help but enjoy Socrates' argumentative style of proving points and disproving weak theories.

While I agree with Socrates that Celaphus' view on justice is somewhat shallow since his wealth allows him to be quite comfortable in his old age, I do think wealth is an important factor because a man's comfort level will inadvertently affect his nature and consequently his views on justice. I think we have great examples of this in our society today. While I don't know any statistics off the top of my head, I think it's a fair assumption to say that the majority of criminals come from a lower class background. Is this is because poor people are by nature unjust? Obviously not. I think this is where the comfort level comes into play and changes a man's beliefs on what is just and unjust, especially when justice stands in the way of food and a means of living.

My analysis on Book I is very straightforward. Socrates makes great points and arguments his ironic and sarcastic style of writing, while confusing at times, is very humorous, misleading and ultimately enlightening.

Socrates believes that justice cannot be defined in terms of social values and he proves it. Virtue is supposed to be a quality in all humans and justice is a part of virtue. Therefore justice can't be dependent on the type of characters involved in the behavior such as are they friends or enemies. On top of that, if justice is a virtue and its goal is something good, there must be a direct correlation between goodness and justice and unfortunately there is none in Polemarchus' theory. Once again Socrates disproves a theory on justice.

As expected Socrates jumps in to the battle and successfully challenges this by saying that a ruler should be working in the best interests of his people just like a captain is concerned about his crew and a physician his patients. As the debate continues Socrates continues t

Some common words found in the essay are:
According Celaphus', Socrates Celaphus', Book I's, Celaphus Socrates, Plato's Republic, Polemarchus Cephalus, Instead Socrates, definition justice, theory socrates, justice socrates, friends enemies, plato's republic, differences social, Book Plato's, book plato's republic, book plato's, wealth lead life, justice virtue, wealth lead, lead life, book i's main, differences social classes, true nature justice,
Approximate Word count = 1401
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)