![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKSOWG9HWB1r9jOhNcz9b1foIuoT7ru3Xd3aKoFpVl5v7QgDw04P0LSrn6cpRDml30lkyKw-lAGHakEnfmj2YpZob-A3844EnDXLhkeMsIKS36ZktRRfaAMc2UMDNJTY5NFgMEKK5VhX8/s200/Plat%25C3%25B3n_Academia_de_Atenas.png)
Our reading selection focused on Socrates's discussion about justice with Glaucon and Adeimantus from Books II and IV of the "Republic," and hinges on a proof of the proposition that it is good to be just both for its own sake and for what comes of it. Here's Glaucon:
If life doesn't seem livable with the body's nature corrupted, not even with every sort of food and drink and every sort of rule, will it then be livable when the nature of the very thing by which we live is confused and corrupted, even if a man does whatever else he might want except that which will rid him of vice and injustice and will enable him to acquire justice and virtue? [Emphasis added]
Socrates has led the discussion to the point where to think otherwise would be considered, in his words, "ridiculous." Did Socrates set out to argue this point, or did he become convinced of it during the course of the discussion? It's a tough call in the Platonic dialogues.
We're left with a defense of "justice" (or "virtue," or "goodness," or whatever you choose to call it) arrived at through dialogue. It is an appeal to maintain order in one's soul ("the very thing by which we live") by means of the guidance of reason.
Shown above: Sculpture of Plato at the modern Academy in Athens. Below: Our group after its Socratic experience on the 26th of November.