Thrasymuchus and Socrates

375 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Socrates arguments against thrasymachus in the republic

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.

Show More
Related

  • Socrates and Plato in Phaedo

    936 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice

    1494 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Socrates and Socrates: A Philosophical Pair for the Ages

    2098 Words  | 5 Pages

    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-...

    Read More

  • Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

    651 Words  | 2 Pages

    'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the 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 the 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.'" Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature

    1305 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Use Of Justice In The Book One Of Republic Socrates

    944 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient. By entering into the dialogue in an aggressive way, Thrasymachus says that he can better explain the issue of justice. The right thing to do here is disregard justice. He blames Socrates for saying nonsense and for just questioning individuals' answers. Thrasymachus

    Read More

  • Defense of Socrates

    1586 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Plato's Gorgias And Discourse

    797 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice Essay

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.

    Read More

  • Socrates and Agathon

    562 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

    678 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus 'Pursuit Of Happiness In Socrates'

    444 Words  | 1 Pages

    ‘(Will) the city that thus shows itself superior to another…have this power without justice?” (351b) “do you think that a…group that attempted any action in common, could accomplish anything if they wronged one another?” (351c) Thrasymachus agrees that it could not and that injustice causes division and strife that prevents unity. Socrates goes on to point out that an individual member of this community that behaved in an unjust way would be divided against himself and therefore not able to achieve much. “utter rascals completely unjust are completely incapable of effective action"(352c). He continues by stating that a just man is able to accomplish things and achieves the “the right conduct of life.”

    Read More

  • Socrates 'Thrasymachus' View Of Justice

    1288 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates agrees with justice as interest but finds fault when his interlocutor says it’s the interest of the stronger party; Socrates thinks that rulers don’t always command things that are to their interest, at times they mistake their interest and take decisions that are injurious o their interest. Therefore justice ceases to be the interest of the stronger from the moment Thrasymachus agrees that subjects are at times commanded to do things which are not in favour of the rulers (however mistakenly). Socrates further counters that justice is the reverse, it is when rulers rule for interest of their subjects and not the other way round. To him, a an ideal state cannot be built on injustice and to the interest of the rulers. Rather, an ideal state is one that is ruled to the interest of the subjects. True forms of government should attend to the interests of the weaker and not the stronger and superior parties. Rulers are paid in money, honour or penalty for refusing because they are supposed to work for the interest of others they rule not their own, that’s the reason they are compensated in any of these three ways because no one would rule without compensation since true rulership is

    Read More

More about Thrasymuchus and Socrates

Open Document