So I have finally finished the Republic (astoundingly) and I can honestly say that this was one of the most challenging pieces of text that I have ever encountered throughout my academic years. I an currently enrolled in a compelling philosophy class, and I was very excited about getting the opportunity to read this text from such a famous philosopher, despite being warned by many people that this would be a difficult book to grasp. The book is written in dialogue form and deals with the difficult task of defining what justice is. Plato helps explain what justice is by creating a theoretical city. He then continues to describe what an ideal or just city would look like. Plato classifies justice as being structural. He states that each citizen needs to contribute to society by doing tasks that they are best at. Society is then separated into three categories: workers, warriors or guards, and then rulers.
According to Plato, a city that is set up in such as way would be a just city. The rulers would basically control the entire city and make laws. While the workers would just worry about themselves and would have to be content with what the rulers say. I personally disagree completely with what Plato has to say. In my opinion justice means fairness and Plato’s views are definitely not fair. I don’t agree with how rulers decide the laws and nobody else gets a chance to have a say. I also don’t like how he separates people into three different categories, I feel like humans are so much more diverse than that. People don’t just have to stick to one job that they are good at. I feel like one of the most important things in life is to grow and learn. However, people would not be able to do so and progress if all they do is the same job over and over again. What happens if you really hate that job, but you cant do anything else because your not allowed to. How is that justice? Clearly, Plato and I have a very different opinion as to what justice is.