Burçin Aydoğdu

Politeia (Πολιτεία in Hellenic) as a fundamental concept of legal philosophy and political philosophy can be interpreted in various meanings such as state, constitution, republic, citizenship etc. Though the fact that this term has a broad scale of meaning might, prima facie, seem confusing, such nature of the concept can, in light of its hermeneutics, hold light to ancient conception of law, ethics and politics. To this end, this study aims a thorough analysis of the concept by handling every meaning attached to the term Politeia in ancient texts that survive today, and suggesting possible hermeneutic connections between those meanings. It is expected that this method would not only clarify the entire possible meanings of the term Politeia, but would help understanding ancient legal and political conceptions of the ancient times.

The debate on justice between Socrates and Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias presents a clash of perspectives. Callicles contends that justice arises naturally from the dominance of the stronger over the weaker, reflecting the primal order of nature. In contrast, Socrates advocates for a conception of justice grounded in virtue, emphasizing harmony and self-discipline as the foundation of a just society. Al-Farabi, a later interpreter of Plato’s works, offers a synthesis of these seemingly opposing views in his Ideal State, where he defines justice in two distinct senses. The first, natural sense of justice, aligns with Callicles’ perspective, while the second, civil sense of justice, corresponds to Socrates’ vision of justice as a product of societal conventions. This paper explores whether Al-Farabi reconciles these dual definitions of justice and examines the implications of his interpretation for understanding Plato’s evolving philosophical viewpoint.