Humanities Homework Help
Humanities Homework Help. 1 page journal on republic book 1and Discussion Reply to peer for Week 1 and Week 2.
Journal needs to be about
identify a key topic or concept from the previous week and develop some arguments, questions, or reflections that occurred to you in thinking about that topic or concept. Citations of readings assigned in this course will be mandatory for all journal assignments. These are supposed to be reading journals, so it should not be an undue burden to provide quotations from the readings you are reflecting on and discussing.
Journal is regarding Republic book 1, journal needs to be times new roman font single spaced 1 PAGE.
Peer RESPONSE is 300 words each for reply back.
1st student reply:
Hayleigh Dunn
Week 1 Response
In the beginning reading of Plato’s Republic, there is an ongoing debate on what “justice” truly means to a society. Socrates begins by defining the just man as “the man who aids a friend and harm their enemies.” Polemarchus agrees that harm is due to the enemy, just as assistance is given to the friend. Thrasymachus intervenes to address the egocentric means behind the upper classes whom create rules and regulations to demarcate “justice”. Thrasymachus proposes that even the upper class make mistakes, like the lower classes who are law bidden, thus are bound to make these regulations out to their perception of right and wrong. He also expounds on the concept that just because the upper class believes in handling a person’s disposition(s) a certain way, does not make it correct. With the skill and knowledge required behind the lawmaker (upper class), he proposes that they remain (intheir own eyes) faultless. This argument is compelling, although the law was not originally created to benefit only one class, it truly has been another source of power to the already-powerful community. Socrates continues with the conception that maybe it isn’t the creation of the law to benefit the lawmaker, but it is the convenience of the regulating of these mandates, and even what may be for the betterment of the disagreeing communities. He compares the practice of being a physician to the practice of issuing rules, defining the body as an art, and that the practice of healing the body is for the healthiness of the patient. With this comparison, the practice of creating laws is to assist the powerless in the wellness of their own and their peers. It can be concluded that although both Socrates and Thrasymachus believe that the ruling of the stronger class is not always agreed upon by the law abiding class, it may be the unforseen better legislative to follow. Both theories are interesting in defining not only what justice means to a society, but also the means of human nature. Thrasymachus holds a more distrusting appeal to not only Socrates throughout the text, but also the higher powered communities. These acts of skepticism portray Thrasymachus as one kind of person in society, while Socrates responds to each claim unbothered, depicting another kind of person. We are all different in the way that we think, feel, and act. With that being said, both arguments are true, but to only the people in these societies that they represent. Some may be self centered, and untrustworthy, while others exhibit acts of wellness for the right purposes. Ultimately, justice is unique to the person you are asking, and it is complicated to abide by everyone’s opinion on justice.
2nd student reply
Samantha Spencer
Week 2 Response
I find myself in the middle between this debate because while both Thrasymachus and Plato both make good points, they both also have some weaknesses in both of their arguments, they could make stronger. With Plato’s side of the debate, Plato is mostly showing the point of view that he agrees with by answering questions instead of giving the reasons for his point of view on justice. While Thrasymachus is using great examples about specific types of governments and the rules that those governments have in place that people follow, he could give some more examples of how those rules that are in place are helping the people that live there. In Thrasymachus and Plato’s arguments, I can see weak spots that can be improved to be a better point of view for them. I find myself wondering how they can enhance their points of view. I agree with Thrasymachus and Plato. I also can’t entirely agree with them because, throughout their discussion, they are repeating some of the things that they have already made clear. Their points of view are different but are at the same time relatively the same kind of the point of view. Throughout the argument that Plato and Thrasymachus have, they are coming up with topics to use for their point of view that supports the other person’s point of view better than their own. Reading through their argument and seeing them give each other’s more topics for the other person’s side of the idea makes me go back through the debate I have in my life. Discussions I had with people that are close to me and makes me wonder if I ever used points for my argument that we’re better for the person I was arguing with over something. Looking through the debates that I have had, I realize that most of them that I had were unnecessary to have, but through those arguments that I had, I was always giving points that improved the other person’s point of view. When looking at Thrasymachus and Plato’s debate, I realized that most of the time, without even realizing it, their points of view were very close to what the other was saying. The main reason that I am in the middle of both Thrasymachus and Plato’s discussion is because I feel that deep down, they were very close to the same point of view that the other had. The more that their argument went on, the more I realized I will always be in the middle of agreeing with them and disagreeing with Thrasymachus and Plato because of the strengths and weaknesses and how close they were to each other’s points of view that they were. While reading the passage, I found myself understanding why to disagree with Thrasymachus and Plato and why to agree with them. Since I know where both of them are coming from, I find myself conflicted about where I should stand and if I should disagree with one of them or agree with one of them. For this argument, this is why I am still in the middle and am not leaning toward one of Thrasymachus and Plato’s point of view in their debate.
"Our Prices Start at $11.99. As Our First Client, Use Coupon Code GET15 to claim 15% Discount This Month!!"
