Analysis of Thrasymachus
Throughout “The Republic” there exist different characters that each holds a unique importance towards the development of certain philosophies, in this case, the meaning of “justice”. Thrasymachus is such a character, which could be considered a cynic by some; he plays an imperative role in the quest for the meaning of justice in the first book of “The Republic”. While Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of justice, Thrasymachus presents himself annoyed with the dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, and furthermore demands an answer from Socrates in what he believes that justice is, instead of simply questioning the rhetoric of others. While Socrates in essence does not provide an answer, Thrasymachus confidently agrees to describe his position on the subject. In actuality, Thrasymachus not only provides his own definition of justice, but yet questions the actual value of being a just person in a society or culture by presenting an argument against the just life. Furthermore it is interesting what Thrasymachus reveals about himself in being inconsistent concerning his eagerness to speak out against justice and his argument about justice.
Thrasymachus’ view of justice is that justice is the advantage of the stronger. By this Thrasymachus means that from place to place certain forms of government rule, for example, tyranny, aristocracies, and democracies; and whoever are in power or the strongest make the laws and perpetually make the laws to their own financial and political advantage. Therefore just rulers rule to the benefit of the strongest, specifically themselves.
"Don’t you know,” he said, that some cities are ruled by tyrannically, some democratically, and some aristocratically?”. . . . “And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage; a democracy sets down democratic laws, a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same. And they declare that what they have set down-their own advantage- is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of the unjust deeds. This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body. It surely is master; so the man who reasons rightly concludes that everywhere justice is...
... middle of paper ...
...t of Socrates, than actually contributing to the discussion and actually finding the true meaning of justice.
I believe that Thrasymachus is an imperative character in “The Republic”. Even if his views are somewhat cynical, he is necessary in the evolution of the discussion concerning justice. Thrasymachus is the cause for the biggest turning point in Book one, where the theme of the dialogue changes from the meaning of justice, to the value of actually living a just life. And even though Socrates is pleased that Thrasymachus has calmed down and quieted a bit by his arguments, he in the end has to recognize the discontent with the discussion. In his eagerness to defend the advantages of the just life, he was unable to provide a definition for justice, thus how could he recommend the just life without having an accurate representation of what it exactly is to live the just life. Even with this inconclusiveness, I as a reader and a student of this book, find it as a necessary introduction and stage in process of finding the meaning of justice and furthermore find myself satisfied with what Thrasymachus, Socrates and the other gave explored in this philosophical arena in Book one.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
Thrasymachus approaches Socrates, the main character of Republic and most of Plato's work, during a conversation on the topic of morality. The aggressive Thrasymachus interjects his own opinion; morality is "the advantage of the stronger." (Republic 338c) Upon clarification, Thrasymachus lays out his view of socially created moral relativism, as opposed to Socrates' moral objectivism. Thrasymachus illustrates his view by citing how different types of government create laws serving purposes specific to each government, "a democracy passing democratic laws, a dictatorship making dictatorial laws… In doing so each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage." (Republic 338e)
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
Cephalus is the first to give a definition of justice, which is, living up to your legal obligations and being honest. At first I thought this definition was somewhat accurate because if everyone met their legal obligations everything would be fine. Socrates refutes this definition by using the example of a madman. Basically, what happens if you owe a madman a weapon, but him having it is unjust and causes others harm? At this point, it would almost be better to be dishonest.
“Our Schools need to start teaching kids how to be healthy.”- Unknown. School lunches have created a chronic problem in a school setting, and since it hasn't been fixed, 6-11 year olds have had a 17% increased chance of becoming obese (Centers for Disease control and Prevention). Most school districts don't even bother changing the food restrictions just so they can please their students. Unhealthy school lunches are a huge problem among children in the United States, it can cause obesity, stress, and many other problems.
Physical Education should be mandatory in schools due to the increase of child obesity, the health of the students, and as a replacement
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Physical education has been taught in the United Sates since the nineteenth century, though some believe that physical education should not be mandated in a student’s education. Physical education is how schools teach students on the proper ways to stay physically fit, and forces students to get active during the school day. There are many academic benefits to students staying active during the school day. Physical education also helps students with far more than just staying in shape. It also helps promote a person’s general wellness. With that being said physical education is helping to create more well-rounded individuals. Some believe that physical education classes are not beneficial and students are better off learning
In conclusion, physical education is important and should be regulated in the weekly schedule of young students. In the overall study of the argument for and against physical education in the education system. I claim that physical education is necessary for stress, growth & development, and obesity. Therefore, it should be mandatory for students to take part in such activities. This will improve children’s health as well as develop
As stated by AusVELS (n.d.) the “Health and Physical Education domain provides students with the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary for the pursuit of lifelong involvement in physical activity, health and wellbeing.” In order to provide students with these skills, knowledge and behavior’s the teachers of physical education need to ensure they are developing a well balanced and high quality physical education program. Students from prep through to grade 12 should have the opportunity to participate in a quality physical education program. It is the responsibility of the physical education teachers to develop sound and quality physical education programs that are successful, engaging, inclusive, developmentally appropriate and instructionally powerful so that they are designed to teach students about the importance of leading and maintaining lifelong involvement in physical activity, as well as health and wellbeing (Lambert, 2000).
Most people recognize that physical education is important to stay healthy and live a balanced lifestyle. However, our culture’s focus on this truth is rapidly diminishing. Over hundreds of years ago, the ancient Greeks held physical education superior to many other things. According to Encyclopedia Americana (2014), the article about the history of physical education, states that the Greeks “strove for physical perfection and the total development of the body.” Years later, in 2008, a study done by the Center for Disease Control states that “only 19% of high school students were active for 20 min or more in physical education classes” (Osness, 2014, p. 1). The amount of physical activity has been rapidly diminishing over the years, causing severe health conditions and problems in the lives of many sedentary individuals. Being physically active used to be a focus in our nation, yet now it seems that society is discouraging physical activity. School systems are currently cutting physical education out of their curriculum, not requiring students to participate in these classes. It is important that physical education classes are mandatory especially at a high school level, because it benefits the students both academically and physically helping encourage lifelong fitness, cognitive skills, attitude, and academic performance.