Thrasymuchus and Socrates
Thrasymuchus was very hostile against Socrates in Book I. Every attempt that was made to prove Thrasymuchus wrong was badgered by bad comments of Socrates trying to manipulate him and the others. Socrates from the beginning on 336b was asking questions all the way to 347e building up his defense to Thrasymuchus statement that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" (Pg. 338 Para. C). Socrates disagrees with Thrasymuchus and he states, "Surely, then, no doctor, insofar as he is a doctor, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his patient?" (Pg. 342 Para. D). Thrasymuchus and Socrates agreed to all these professions and what was considered a leader and what wasn't considered a leader. Socrates goes on with this, "… that a ship's captain or ruler won't seek and order to what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to a sailor …" (Pg. 342 Para. E). Specifically there in those two statements Socrates has already shot down the idea of Thrasymuchus, but here is an example that Thrasymuchus gives to defend himself earlier in the reading:
And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with others. And they declare what they have made—what is to their own advantage—to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger. (Pg. 338 Para. E)
At first you could easily agree with Thrasymuchus about his views and the stronger. Socrates fortunately pulls his idea apart and examines the different parts of it. To finally come to a conclusion that yes the stronger do rule over the weaker but not everything they rule on is for their own advantage, but the advantage of the weaker. That is why they are ruled, because they need a control.
In my opinion I agree with Socrates and Thrasymuchus at the same time. Back in their days there are many times where rulers took advantage of their power, and heavily exploiting the people and what there worth so they could live the good life.
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
He says justice is what is good for the stronger (Bloom 338c).he considers that when the superior are truly strong then justice is worthy. It is best when the weak follow the laws set by the strong to fulfill their benefits only. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (Bloom 339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (Bloom 341). On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate. Based on this, it can be said that what is good for the stronger is too good for the weaker. Then Thrasymachus quickly responds because Socrates asks him if he is sure in what he is saying. To prove his stand he talks about ‘ruling a city' where the one in power will put rules to his/her own benefit. In turn, those who obey the rules will be acting for the sake of
...ity is created by those in power, and thus, there is no absolute true morality, he concludes that the best way to satisfy his human desire is to acquire as much power as possible, and take from others as much as he can. Because his view of morality is not fixed but created by those in power, he defines words like "moral", "just", and "right" based on one's compliance with the rules of the ruling party. He claims that acting "morally" serves the ruling party because the ruling party designed the legal structure for its own benefit. Socrates raises some criticisms, especially the criticism showing that people behaving immorally would not be able to act in concert with others and would fall out with others, which are compelling and discredit Thrasymachus' position. From this it is conclusive that Thrasymachus has not entirely captured the essence of human nature.
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.
Callicles, a character from Plato's work argued with Socrates that he believed stronger people had the right to oppress the weaker ones. He said that nature itself proves this fact. He gave an example of animals to illustrate his point. According to him, strong animals always prey on the weaker ones, this is how the food chain works. The lion attacks a cat and a cat preys after a mouse, this shows that the weaker ones tend to preyed on by the stronger animal. Callicles thinks that it is okay to oppress people when you have the power. He considers oppressing people a far better thing than being oppressed.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
A) Plato’s Symposium is a story about a party in which the guests were so sick from continuous parties that instead of drinking at this one party they decide to give stories about love. With the permission of Phaedrus, Socrates has an interesting discussion Agathon instead of a monologue-styled story. Socrates actually starts by giving Agathon a series of questions about love. Socrates goes on to ask Agathon if a father must be father to something in order to be called a father. Then Socrates asks Agathon whether the same principle applies to mothers and brothers; one must be a brother or mother to someone or something else. Agathon agrees with all of these examples, but then Socrates asks “Does Love love nothing or something?”, and Agathon replies “He loves something, of course.” With love established to love something or someone, Socrates then asks Agathon that “when you love something, do you desire it?” Agathon answers yes. Once again Socrates asks another question concerning that if you desire and love something then it is something you don’t necessarily have. Agathon answers back that it is highly probable. Socrates says “Never mind probability,”and believes that it would be a surprising for a person not lacking a quality, to desire that quality. From there both Agathon and Socrates agree that if someone was tall then that person would not desire to be tall. Then Socrates continues to state that people who are healthy still desire to be healthy in the future, and in c...
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.
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.
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
Injustice does not only pay at the level of pick pocketing but pays more at the level of the state where rulers