Plato's Replubic, Book II (sample)
A brief dialogue between two primary characters in Plato's \"Republic\", Book II, with small amounts of narration.
Voice AgeMiddle Aged (35-54)
AccentsNorth American (General)
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
Hackett Publishing Presents Republic by Plato, translated by G. M. A Group narrated by Justin White. Book two. When I said this, I thought I had done with the discussion, but it turned out to have been on Lee. A prelude glue Con showed his characteristic courage on this occasion to and refused to accept through Simic ***** abandonment of the argument. Socrates, he said, Do you want to seem to have persuaded us that it is better in every way to be just than unjust? Or do you want truly to convince us of this? I want truly to convince you I said, If I can, well, then you certainly aren't doing what you want. Tell me, do you think there is a kind of good we welcome? Not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake. Joy, for example, and all the harmless pleasures that have no results beyond the joy of having them. Certainly, I think there are such things and is there a kind of good we like for its own sake and also for the sake of what comes from it knowing, for example, and seeing and being healthy. We welcome such things, I suppose, on both counts. Yes. And do you also see a third kind of good, such as physical training, medical treatment when sick medicine itself and the other ways of making money? We'd say that these are onerous but beneficial to us, and we wouldn't choose them for their own sakes. But for the sake of the rewards and other things that come from them, there is also this third kind. But what of it? Where do you put justice? I myself put it among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness, both because of itself and because of what comes from it. That isn't most people's opinion. They'd say that justice belongs to the onerous kind and is to be practiced for the sake of the rewards and popularity that come from a reputation for justice but is to be avoided because of itself as something burdensome. I know that's the general opinion person. Mikus faulted justice on these grounds a moment ago and praised injustice, but it seems that I'm a slow learner. Come then, and listen to me as well and see whether you still have that problem for. I think that Three Sinica's gave up before he had to charmed by you as if he were a snake. But I'm not yet satisfied by the argument on either side. I want to know what justice and injustice are and what power each itself has when it's by itself in the soul. I want to leave out of account, their rewards and what comes from each of them. So if you agree, I'll renew the argument of Three Sinica's. First. I'll state what kind of thing people consider justice to be and what its origins are. Second, I'll argue that all who practice it do so unwillingly as something necessary, not as something good. Third, I'll argue that they have good reason to act as they do for the life of an unjust person. Is, they say, much better than that of a just one. It isn't Socrates that I believe any of that myself. I'm perplexed indeed, and my ears are deaf and listening to Three Sinica's and countless others. But I've yet to hear anyone defend justice in the way I want, proving that it is better than injustice. I want to hear it praised by itself, and I think that I'm most likely to hear this from you. Therefore, I'm going to speak at length in praise of the unjust life. And in doing so, I'll show you the way I want to hear you praising justice and denouncing injustice. But see whether you want me to do that or not. I want that most of all indeed. What subject could someone with any understanding enjoy discussing mawr often?