Thrasymachus Vs Socrates Justice

The Republic is a text that encompasses many subjects, such as education, philosophy as well as politics. While this tome delves deep into these important subjects the main question has remained the same for centuries, “What is justice?” In book 1 there are three interlocutors that assert that they have the knowledge of what justice means; however it is Thrasymachus that is the main interlocutor of the first book of the Republic. Thrasymachus claims that he knows the true foundation of what justice is: “justice is nothing other than what’s advantageous to the stronger”. (338c) Socrates examines Thrasymachus claim and takes his time to explicate Thrasymachus’ premises. Socrates uses these premises’ construction to deconstruct Thrasymachus’ argument.

Thus, Thrasymachus concludes that if a subject obeys the laws issued by the rulers, even if those laws go against the rulers, the subjects would be acting justly and unjustly simply by obeying the laws of the ruler (339d) . Socrates pulls the argument back to his side when he asserts, “doesn’t it turn out necessarily in exactly this way, that it’s just to do the opposite of what you say? For what’s disadvantageous to the stronger is without doubt commanded to the weaker to do?” (339e) Socrates concludes from Thrasymachus’ argument that it is just to do the exact opposite of what Thrasymachus presumes. Socrates uses his intelligence to flush out Thrasymachus’ viewpoint to where Thrasymachus must be able to see the error in his

Thrasymachus believes that he is only elucidating his viewpoint but Socrates is able to turn his views over, and pick out the fallacies. Socrates is not trying to make a fool out of him; on the contrary, he is “trying to help Thrasymachus enter a state of productive confusion in which he will discover that he does not know what he things he does, and then want to learn about what he does not know”. While the dialogue with Thrasymachus in the first book of “The Republic” ends with his silence, we are left with the notion that Thrasymachus’ silence adds as much, if not more, to the dialogue, than his partaking in the dialogue. Although Thrasymachus is silent for the rest of The Republic, his view is still very much present throughout the rest of the Republic. Thrasymachus’ challenge of the definition of justice stays with the reader for the rest of The