Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
socrates arguments against thrasymachus in republic
socrates vs thrasymachus
socrates vs thrasymachus
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: socrates arguments against thrasymachus in republic
Socrates and Thrasymachus in Republic
Socrates and Thrasymachus have a dialogue in Chapter 2 of Republic which progresses from a discussion of the definition of morality, to an understanding of the expertise of ruling, and eventually to a debate on the state of human nature. The Thrasymachian view of human nature has interesting implications in regards to Thomas Nagel’s ideal of egalitarianism, and Barbara Ehrenreich’s discontentment with the economic disparity in our democratic society. Although Thrasymachus is thwarted in conversation, Glaucon finds the outcome not entirely conclusive and directs Socrates to proving that morality, in and of itself, is a worthwhile pursuit.
Thrasymachus opens the discussion with Socrates claiming, “morality is the advantage of the stronger party.” (Republic 338c) By this he means ‘moral’ actions are those in accordance with the laws of the stronger party. He explicates his position by saying, “each government passes laws with a view to its own advantage: a democracy makes democratic laws, a dictatorship makes dictatorial laws… In so doing, each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage.” (Republic 338e) In this example Thrasymachus claims that “morality is the advantage of the current government.” (Republic 339a) In giving this claim Thrasymachus implies that:
1. Morality is not objective.
2. Morality is defined as compliance with the laws given by the governing party.
3. The governing party creates laws based on what (it thinks!) will serve its own advantage.
4. The governing party creates morality for its subjects with the purpose of serving its own advantage.
Thrasymachus defines ‘right’ as acti...
... middle of paper ...
...count for the lack of success of egalitarian societies that Nagel proposes, and the economic disparity that Ehrenreich addresses. Socrates must respond to both Thrasymachus and Glaucon’s reiteration by showing that a moral life is good in and of itself, rather than for its consequences. The dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus, and later with Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus prompts Plato to write the rest of Republic in explanation of what a moral community is, and how such a blueprint can be applied to a moral individual.
Works Cited
1. Plato (trans. Robin Waterfield). Republic, Oxford University Press Inc., New York. 1998 edition.
2. Nagel, Thomas. “Equality and Partiality,” in Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy, ed. Steven Cahn (Oxford University Press, 2002).
3. Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed. Henry Holt & Company 2001.
Cohen, Ronnie. “Calif. Deputy Waited Seconds Before Shooting Boy With Toy Rifle: Lawsuit.” Reuters [San Francisco] 7 Jan. 2014: n. pag. Print.
...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 his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
In Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus is arguing with Socrates about “what is justice?” Thrasymachus argues that might makes right. He believes that justice is made only by those in power, to serve those in power. The morality of the “lesser” people is a reflection of what the powerful people have set as the laws to follow. In that sense, might makes right. The people with the most power set the rules, and the citizens follow them, making it right. He also believes that the God’s do not care about humans because they do not enforce justices. Socrates does not follow the “might makes right” belief. Socrates argues that there are times that the people in charge make rules that do not benefit them. Then Thrasymachus says a “true ruler” would not
...ndividual and the community, as in his system the individual could choose whether or not he or she would want to be a part of the community. While his tactics were active and occasionally violent, it is hard to neglect the fact that he fought for equality and liberty. Those two ideas were a split from the system at the time, as many people weren’t equal, nor did they have liberty. Modernism covers a broad scope, but it could be boiled down to a shift from the old to the new, which Bakunin helped usher in.
Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.
Color Vision Development in Infants: The Responsibility of Cone Types and Wavelength in Order of Color Development
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
“One of the best known and most influential philosophers of all time, Plato has been admired for thousands of years as a teacher, writer, and student. His works, thoughts, and theories have remained influential for more than 2000 years” (“Plato”). One of these great works by Plato that still remain an essential part of western philosophy today is, The Republic. Ten books are compiled to altogether make the dialog known as The Republic. The Republic consists of many major ideas and it becomes a dubious task to list and remember them all. Just alone in the first five books of the dialogue, many ideas begin to emerge and take shape. Three major ideas of The Republic; Books 1-5 by Plato, are: the question of what causes the inclination of a group,
...litical figure came close to challenging Socrates' unique philosophical plan. In the Republic, Socrates' ideas of how ignorant a democracy is, is portrayed in the Apology when Socrates' proclamation resulted in death. A democracy is supposed to be about individuality and freedom, however it was contradicted when Socrates was put to death because he had ideas for a better system of ruling. He wanted a ruler to be somebody who would see truth, not shunning certain ideas and keeping others solely because it is not understood. These ideas are portrayed in both excerpts.
The second book of the Republic shows the repressive quality of Plato’s society. Plato, talking through Socrates, wants
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.
Justice and morality can be viewed hand in hand as justice is based off a foundation of moral beliefs involving ethics, fairness and the law. The nature of justice and morality and how they are related has been debated heavily throughout philosophical history. When analyzing Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals, and Thrasymachus in Plato’s, Republic it is evident that they have similarities and differences when one compares their individual accounts on the nature and genesis of justice and morality. Such similarities are their views on the nature of society and humans are naturally unequal. In addition, both philosophers agree with the statement that there can be no common good amongst society and that all moral values are socially created. On the other hand, although Nietzsche and Thrasymachus have these resemblances between their accounts, they each have unique personal differences which set them apart from each other.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.