2) Why not just start with Glaucon and Adeimantus's question?
The first book of The Republic is mostly a debate: Cephalus's "argument" is quickly dismissed, Polemarchus' "theory" is demolished, and Thrasymachus is debated at length (with little result). In the second book the debate is over - Glaucon and Adeimantus do not wish to engage in debate, rather, they seek the truth. In order to begin the search they try to make the best case possible for living an unjust life. Their goal is not to win an argument, but, to honestly investigate the question of whether living a just life is preferable to living an unjust life. However, as good as their method is it is only good for someone who believes their question is worth investigating. If you believe you already know what justice is you will not be interested in their question or at least you will not recognize the need for their question. This is why The Republic could not start with the question(s) of Glaucon and Adeimantus.
3) What is the significance of starting with Cephalus?
Cephalus is an old man. He believes living a just life is better than living an unjust life. However, he does not seem to know what justice is. At this point the reader should ask himself: do I want, or better can I want, to live a just life if I do not know what justice is? And, if I do not know what justice is can I say with certainty that living a just life is better than living an unjust life?
In other words, the discussion with Cephalus is meant to put the reader into a certain frame of mind - to begin reflecting on what is the best way of life. It is not until the end of one's life that one can truly judge whether he lived a good life or not. It is often hard for the young to think about ethical questions. By putting ourselves in Cephalus' shoes we hopefully can gain some of his perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment