The Republic

Today, we discussed the third reading: "The Republic". We started by giving a synopsis of our selection and dividing it into its major parts. The article on "The Republic" in Wikipedia provides the subdivisions of Cornford, Hildebrandt and Voegelin - they were very similar to our own divisions:

Prologue

I.1. 327a—328b. Descent to the Piraeus

I.2—I.5. 328b—331d. Cephalus. Justice of the Older Generation

I.6—1.9. 331e—336a. Polemarchus. Justice of the Middle Generation

I.10—1.24. 336b—354c. Thrasymachus. Justice of the Sophist

Introduction

II.1—II.10. 357a—369b. The Question: Is Justice Better than Injustice?

We, similarly, viewed the contents of Book I as a kind of prologue to the rest of the book. We gave the first three interlocutors the following characterizations:

Cephalus - the seasoned elder who claims living a just life is best but is not capable/willing/interested to give a clear definition of justice.

Polemarchus - brash youth who has not taken the time to develop his thoughts - he does not give his own opinion just the one that sounds nice to him: the opinion of Simonides.

Thrasymachus - the devil's advocate - he seems more interested in arguing than finding the truth. However, we at times share his frustration with Socrates who often seems more interested in arguing with and breaking down his opponent than actually saying something.

We also discussed the following three questions:

1) Why begin with these three interlocutors?

2) Why not just start with Glaucon and Adeimantus's question?

3) What is the significance of starting with Cephalus?

I hope in the next few posts to briefly discuss each question. If I missed any please make mention of it in the comment section.