Philosophy 101 Example of an A- paper October 22nd, 2015 Book IV Summary Essay The Republic​, written by Plato, focuses on the creation of a “just” city, and the application of this definition of justice to the individual person in 10 short “books”, though they are really more like chapters. In this essay, I am going to be looking at what I found most interesting about the fourth book of ​The Republic​, which was how he attempted to apply the “political justice” definition of justice to the individual person. Through the first four books of ​The Republic​, Socrates attempts to establish an agreeable definition of justice. When asked to define justice himself, Socrates decides to first look how how a city that is completely “just” would be laid out. Socrates defines three “roles” of people in the city-the producers​, those who produce tangible things such as food, clothes, and shelter, the ​auxiliaries​, those who protect the city and make sure that justice is upheld, and the ​rulers​, those who are in charge of the city. The main point, and in my opinion the most interesting part, of book four of ​The Republic​, in my point of view, was how Socrates tried to apply the “political justice” model of justice to the individual, by relating the 3 “roles” of people in the city to 3 parts of the soul. Socrates attempts to apply this social definition of justice to an individual person by trying to find three parts of the soul, which can be related to the three roles in the city, or more directly, the virtues that Socrates tried to find in the city initially. Socrates attempted to find the virtues of ​wisdom​, which he found in the rulers, ​courage​, which he found in the auxiliaries, ​moderation​, which he found in the producers, and justice​ in his “just city”. By the method of deduction, since there was only 1 virtue that he didn’t find, Socrates deduced that ​justice​ must be the harmonization between the three other virtues. This means that one virtue can not over power another; each virtue needs to work together, balanced. This was extremely interesting because it still seemed like a very broad definition, and he still didn’t give an actual definition as to what justice actually was. The three parts of the soul that Socrates mentions are a rational part of the soul that desires truth and justice, a spirited part of the soul that desires honor, and a final part of the soul that desires everything else (money, food, drink..etc). By defining these three parts of the soul, we can then deduce that the definition of justice could be defined as the harmonization between the three parts. First, Socrates compared the rational part of the soul to the role of the ruler in the city - truth and justice should rule the other parts. The next part of the soul, the spirited, is similar to the role of the auxiliaries, governing the other desires of the individual. Finally, the last part of the soul is simil.

1. Philosophy 101
Example of an
A- paper
October 22nd, 2015
Book IV Summary Essay
The Republic, written by Plato, focuses on the creation of a
“just” city, and the application of
this definition of justice to the individual person in 10 short
“books”, though they are really more like
chapters. In this essay, I am going to be looking at what I found
most interesting about the fourth
book of The Republic, which was how he attempted to apply the
“political justice” definition of justice
to the individual person.
Through the first four books of The Republic, Socrates attempts
to establish an agreeable
definition of justice. When asked to define justice himself,
Socrates decides to first look how how a
city that is completely “just” would be laid out. Socrates
defines three “roles” of people in the city-the
producers, those who produce tangible things such as food,
clothes, and shelter, the auxiliaries, those
who protect the city and make sure that justice is upheld, and
the rulers, those who are in charge of

2. the city.
The main point, and in my opinion the most interesting part, of
book four of The Republic, in
my point of view, was how Socrates tried to apply the “political
justice” model of justice to the
individual, by relating the 3 “roles” of people in the city to 3
parts of the soul. Socrates attempts to
apply this social definition of justice to an individual person by
trying to find three parts of the soul,
which can be related to the three roles in the city, or more
directly, the virtues that Socrates tried to
find in the city initially. Socrates attempted to find the virtues
of wisdom, which he found in the
rulers, courage, which he found in the auxiliaries, moderation,
which he found in the producers, and
justice in his “just city”. By the method of deduction, since
there was only 1 virtue that he didn’t find,
Socrates deduced that justice must be the harmonization
between the three other virtues. This means
that one virtue can not over power another; each virtue needs to
work together, balanced. This was
extremely interesting because it still seemed like a very broad
definition, and he still didn’t give an
actual definition as to what justice actually was.
The three parts of the soul that Socrates mentions are a rational
part of the soul that desires
truth and justice, a spirited part of the soul that desires honor,

3. and a final part of the soul that desires
everything else (money, food, drink..etc). By defining these
three parts of the soul, we can then
deduce that the definition of justice could be defined as the
harmonization between the three parts.
First, Socrates compared the rational part of the soul to the role
of the ruler in the city - truth and
justice should rule the other parts. The next part of the soul, the
spirited, is similar to the role of the
auxiliaries, governing the other desires of the individual.
Finally, the last part of the soul is similar to
the producers, who desire money, property and other
possessions and must be ruled by the
auxiliaries and rulers. Just like the city, the rational part of the
soul should rule the others.
Using this definition of individual justice, using the three parts
of the soul, Socrates is also able
to establish a definition for the opposite of justice, injustice.
Socrates states "He doesn't let each part
in him mind other people's business or the three classes in the
soul meddle with each other, but
really sets his own house in good order and rules himself; he
arranges himself, becomes his own
friend, and harmonizes the three parts, exactly like three notes

4. in a harmonic scale, lowest, highest
and middle. (443d)" This means that injustice in an individual is
the disharmony between the different
parts of the soul. From this, we can finally interpret a definition
of justice from this. Socrates’
definition of justice can be interpreted as the state in which
each part fulfills its own role, without
interfering with others.
Earlier in the book, there was an argument that men do not seek
justice since they are not
externally rewarded for these “just” actions. The men discussing
justice with Plato believed that
injustice occurs because they receive benefits from these
actions. With our definition of justice being
the harmonization of the soul, it seems that we have no
disregarded this statement, and that we can
now see what the rewards of being “just” are. Plato says, further
in his conclusion of justice in one’s
soul, “...when he does anything, whether acquiring wealth,
taking care of his body, engaging in
politics, or in private contracts--in all of these, he believes that
the action is just and fine that

5. preserves this inner harmony and helps achieve it, and calls it
so, and regards as wisdom the
knowledge that oversees such actions. (443e)” Socrates seems
to use this to show that justice in one’s
soul is it’s own reward.
While reading books 2 and 3 of The Republic, I honestly could
not foresee how Socrates would
tie in this definition of justice in a perfect city into the justice
of a single person. This is one of the
major reasons why I found this section of the book to be the
most interesting. I thought that the
comparison of the three sections of the soul with the three roles
in people in the city was extremely
clever.
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Philosophy 101
Plato’s Republic
Book VI

6. The Republic is a book that showed Plato’s views of justice
and questions of justice. It is concerning the definition of
justice in 10 short “book”. In this paper, I am going to read
Book VI, and argue that men and women are not essentially the
same.
The issue about equality of men and women arose from the
deeply rooted hierarchical structure that was present in the
Greek society. The running of the society prompted the
philosophers to give their views. Plato asserts that in the
society, women were not only denied public roles in the polis
but they were secluded and hidden in their homes to manage
their households. Customs and laws labeled women as
properties under the authority of their husbands and fathers. It
is also attested that not only are women considered inferior in
the Greek society alone but other societies as well. Plato
believed that the women had similar capabilities to men.
From the way the society is run, Plato argues that given
the same education and skills as men, women can perform roles
equal to men. Looking at his arguments keenly, Plato seems to
contradict himself by saying that though both sexes are of the
same nature, women are physically weaker than men. It is from
this notion that the question arises whether men and women are
essentially the same.
Men and women cannot be essentially the same. First, the
difference comes from their creational nature. Though given the
same education and skills, women are subordinated by their
reproductive nature and responsibilities. Their child bearing
and rearing nature makes them not to be essentially the same as
men.
Secondly, while Plato asserts that men and women are
essentially the same, he fails to recognize the individual
perspectives. It is the view of this paper that men and women
are different and therefore cannot be equally the same. Given
the same opportunities, some women can perform roles in the
same capacity as men, while others cannot depend on their
individual variability and different innate qualities.

7. Finally, men and women are not essentially the same
because of their physical capacity. Physically, men are stronger
than women and therefore can perform tasks that require
stamina better than women. This argument is even supported
from Plato’s point of view that agrees that women are weaker
than men.
In conclusion, there exist several reasons that make the
two sexes to be different from one another. Human beings vary
in their nature, even though they are exposed to the same
opportunities, their innate qualities and nature brings out a
difference. People vary in thoughts, beliefs and ideas and
therefore cannot be essentially the same.
PAPER WRITING LECTURE/HANDOUT
I. Why you need to learn this format
The brain is hardwired to make sense out of what it is presented
with, hence it will fill in stuff it knows needs to be there. That
means when you read your own writing, it will make perfect
sense to you because your brain knows what you were thinking
when you wrote, so it will automatically fill in anything that
needs to be there in order for what you have said to make sense.
Someone who does not know what you were thinking when you
wrote cannot do that. This formula helps to make sure you say
what you need to say in order to be comprehensible to someone
else.
II. About this format
You are learning to write an argument, not a short story or

8. literary essay. Clarity and persuasiveness are more important
than literary eloquence or style. Once you have mastered this
form, then you can begin to depart from it if you want. You can
do this ONLY after you have truly mastered it though.
III. The format itself
1. Intro
Just state the issue and your position on the issue.
Your position should ideally
be expressed in a sentence that begins: “I am going to
argue that…”
2. Background
How does this question come up, or why is this a
question? This is also where
you define any technical terms you will be using. DO
NOT PUT DEFINITIONS IN
THE INTRO!
3. Argument
This is where you begin to try to convince your
reader that what you identified
in the intro as your position is correct (do NOT do
that in either the intro or the
background section. Make sure your points are clearly
stated. Whenever possible,
use examples to illustrate them. Also, make sure you
provide evidence that supports
your points. Assume, from the beginning, that your
reader does not agree with you.
After all, you wouldn’t try to convince someone of

9. something he already
believed. Present lots of strong evidence!
4. Conclusion
Remind the reader of what it was you set out to do in
the paper. Sometimes people will get
sidetracked by some minor point and think that they
disagree with and think they disagree
with your whole argument. The conclusion helps to
prevent that. The wording of the conclusion
should be very similar to the wording of the
introduction, not identical, but similar.
DON’T MAKE NEW POINTS IN THE
CONCLUSION!
IV. Learning the Format
Step 1. Look at your paper. Don’t read it, just look at the shape
of it. Does it have the sections identified above? The first
paragraph should be very short. The background can be shorter
or longer, depending on the paper topic and what you want to do
with it. It might be one paragraph, but it could also be two or
even three paragraphs. Generally, the longer the background,
the shorter the argument. Sometimes you can present the
background information in such a way that the argument almost
makes itself, so you really need only a paragraph for it. In
general, though, you’ll have one or two paragraphs of
background and then two to four paragraphs of argument for
these 600-800-word papers. Again, look at the paper. The
conclusion should be really short, just like the intro. I can often
tell how good a paper is just by looking at the paragraph
divisions. If the first page is one long intro paragraph, then I
know the paper has problems. Ditto for the conclusion. If the
last page is one long paragraph, it’s pretty clear that the author

10. has not organized his or her thoughts well.
Step 2. That is the first step, just looking at the paper. The next
step is to give it to someone else to read. Give them only a few
minutes to read it, then take it back from them. After you have
taken your paper bask, ask the person who read it to summarize
it for you. If they can’t do that, then you haven’t done a good
job of following the form described above. Don’t assume you
have chosen a stupid person. Anyone should be able to
summarize such a short argument if you have presented it
clearly. If your reader can’t summarize your argument, then go
back and fix it until you’ve got a version that people can
summarize.
Step 3. The last step is to give your paper to someone else to
read and see if they agree with your position. Look for a reader
who does not agree with it. That is, tell people your position
before you give them your paper. If someone says they agree
with you, then don’t give it to them to read. Find someone who
doesn’t agree with you. Have that person read it and then ask
them after they have finished if they now agree with you. If
they don’t, get them to tell you why not. That is, get them to
tell you what it was in your argument that failed to convince
them. Maybe they didn’t like the examples you used to illustrate
your point (maybe they didn’t like that you didn’t have any
examples!). Maybe they thought of very strong
counterarguments you hadn’t addressed (you don’t always have
to address counterarguments, you have to do that only when
they are particularly strong). Find out what you need to do to
make your argument more convincing to them and then do it.
V. General remarks:
Please always have some kind of title.

11. Don’t assume your reader is in the class. You are writing for the
average person, the person on the street, so to speak.
Write like you speak. If you wouldn’t say something, don’t
write it! You will get into trouble, and probably not make much
sense, if you try to adopt a manner of expressing yourself in
your writing that does not come naturally to you. I’m not
looking for Shakespeare here. I’m looking for writing that is
clear and persuasive.
Don’t say anything you don’t need to say. For example: “There
are many different opinions in the world about what the
meaning of life is.” You don’t need “in the world” so take it
out! Don’t include material that is not directly related to the
paper topic just because it was in the reading. For example:
Don’t talk about virtue in Aristotle if the paper topic is whether
we all want the same thing out of life. You don’t need to talk
about virtue in Aristotle in order to be able to answer that
questions persuasively, so don’t talk about it!