The
argument in Books I and II is particularly convoluted; when
Socrates gets
going on his extended solo at around 368, things become easier to
follow, if
not easier to comprehend. Try to outline the course of the
discussion. What is Cephalus’s
position? What
is Socrates’s response? What is Polemarchus’s initial position? How is it
reformulated
in response to Socrates’s prods?
What are Socrates’s criticisms of this
position? What is Thrasymachus’s
initial position? How is it
reformulated? And so on. Don’t worry if you find yourself a
little
lost. Do the best you can. You should, in any case, be prepared
to
discuss the following issues:
What
different definitions of justice are proposed? Why is the notion
of
justice as a craft (techne)
key to the discussion? (Hint: Is justice a craft in the
same way
medicine is a craft?) What precisely is the question that Glaucon and Adeimantus
set for
Socrates at the beginning of Book II? Why is justice in Glaucon’s second class of goods (357–58)?
Is this how
we think of justice? How would you define justice?
What
kind of educational regime is this? What are its goals?
What are
its limits? What is missing from this discussion? How does
this
differ from a twenty-first-century education in the US? Why is
imitation
dangerous? Should a leader understand the people? What do
you think
about Socrates’s proposals at 405–10?
How
does the method of argument change from Book I to Book II? Where
does the
argument stand at the end of Book I? What does this suggest about
Plato’s
view of the Socratic method of Book I? What is the role of
analogy in the
discussion? Are these analogies always valid? What is the
role of
the distinction drawn between perception and reality? Where does
Socrates
make leaps that get his interlocutors in trouble?