Thrasymachus Argument Essay

Sean Cooperrider

Critical Thinking

Professor Starke

October 31, 2015

Paper Proposal

I will be focusing on book one of Plato: The Republic, and discussing one of his arguments that he presents which is the discredit of Thrasymachus’ definition of what just is. The argument I will be talking about is “what is justice?” Socrates keeps giving counter examples whenever Thrasymachus says something he believes just to be and always seems to discredit the thought of what the definition could be.

Socrates describes some things behind what he believes the meaning of the word just is. He loves to give counter examples to disprove thoughts of what they believe it is to be just. Just is translated as “right” or “righteous” (331c). Socrates believes that

Although to disagree with Socrates and all that was stated in Plato: The Republic, would be absurd. Of all the things Socrates stated, none seemed to be out of place. He also used counter examples to further his point of view and assumptions of what is just. He didn’t give any of his own thought of what it is to be just is which was a little weird because he always acted as if he was the only one to know the actual definition behind what it is to be just. Socrates gave many arguments about what is just versus what is unjust. This enabled him to fully support each point of his critiques that he presented whenever a statement about what just is was presented. I would have to agree with all of the counter examples he gave and I think they are good reasons to disprove what Thrasymachus believed just to be. Even though he still lacks whether it is more profitable to be just or unjust. He backs up his arguments with moral reasoning as well as logical reasoning. Thrasymachus starts his argument with a question and then Socrates would give an counter example that would better help disprove Thrasymachus’s point of view on what is just. Socrates often states, after he finishes an argument, ‘so we all agree’, which is directed towards Thrasymachus. He is not mistaken with any of his arguments and his point of view is fairly accurate. Socrates’ main goal was to us his arguments to disprove Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, basically by just giving counter examples to disprove Thrasymachus’ definition. I believe he did an exceptional job at discrediting Thrasymachus’ definition although Thrasymachus still thinks his definition is the right one. He did the best he could to defend his point of view, but all in all, when someone believes something, it’s hard to persuade them to believe something else. At the end, he says