Thrasymachus And Socrates Essay

904 words - 4 pages

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
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.
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 that injustice is stronger than justice, and that it leads to a happier life (351b). He then proceeds to use the example of the tyrant who was made powerful and was happy with injustice. It is evident that Thrasymachus was not convinced by Socrates’ argument, notwithstanding his agreement with Socrates’ points. In a nutshell, Thrasymachus does not tell us what justice really is in an explicit form. He rates justice on whom it harms or whom it empowers (i.e.: the rulers, the poor, the good man…).

When Thrasymachus speaks of justice, he is speaking of justice between the rulers and those who are being ruled. All of the examples Thrasymachus presents to support his claim and definition of justice support the above said notion. For example, when the discussion about the advantage of the stronger, Thrasymachus provides an example of the ruling regimes in the city and those who obey them (338d). Another...

Find Another Essay On Thrasymachus and Socrates

plato Essay

1198 words - 5 pages others. Typically Socrates inquires along with others with a equal respect for one another to preserve dialog and discussion from being limited by language power struggles from ones character. Some do not bring such civilized notions, however, and may even be considered wild. We can see an example of this through Plato's description of Thrasymachus, one antagonist of Justice, as coiled up like a wild beast crouching and approaching Socrates as if

Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature Essay

1340 words - 5 pages dictatorial laws… Each government makes it clear that what is right and moral for its subjects is what is to its own advantage." (Republic 338e) Thrasymachus says obedience to the government in power is "right". (Republic 339e) Below is a list of his preferred definitions to the debated terms of the dialogue. However, Thrasymachus is not consistent in holding to these definitions because Socrates coerces him into using Socrates' own definitions

Justice in Plato's "The Republic"

713 words - 3 pages Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we

Socrates and Imitation

666 words - 3 pages actions should be imitated. During the discussion with Thrasymachus in Book I Plato uses the different forms of narrative to the same effect Socrates describes in Book III while discussing imitation. While outlining the education of the guardians Socrates explains the difference between narrative alone and narrative through imitation. He tells Adeimantus that narrative through imitation is when dialogue is used and the poet “speaks as if he were

Plato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus' Account

6506 words - 26 pages stronger and rules."(4) Injustice, we are told "is the opposite, and it rules the truly simple and just." So the life of injustice in its essence will be a self-seeking activity and the tyrant, who can pursue this life most perfectly on a grand scale, is in the position to frame social interaction in a way that is wholly self-advantageous. Thus, Thrasymachus can say to Socrates and company: injustice, when it comes into being on a sufficient scale


1154 words - 5 pages discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus on justice in order to understand some of Plato's views.Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Book I, 338c). This bold ignorant statement causes Socrates to spring in and draws Thrasymachus into a debate on what true justice entails. Thrasymachus expands his statement with the example of tyranny; the tyrant, the strongest, is able to enforce all their wants

The Republic by Plato

2082 words - 8 pages In Plato’s Republic Book 1, Thrasymachus argues that morality is the advantage of the stronger. To support his view, Thrasymachus first claims that the governments, which are the stronger parties, always pass laws based on their own interest, and then argues that subjects must always obey these laws, therefore morality is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates gives two sets of counter arguments. First, by differentiating apparent

The Republic of Plato, the Socratic thought process

1131 words - 5 pages , Thrasymachus? You surely don't assert such a thing as this: if Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantages for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is."Thrasymachus responds in disgust. He was of the opinion that Socrates was deceitful in this dialogue since he answered questions with more questions. Thrasymachus was certain he knew more about justice than Socrates

What is justice in Book 1 of Plato's "Republic"?

1122 words - 4 pages defend his definition of what is just. This is where the Sophist Thrasymachus enters the conversation. He disrespects the Socrates' method, and is eventually drawn into the argument. Thrasymachus says justice is the interest of the stronger and wealthier. Everything else is camouflage. A spirited argument follows, with Socrates using many of his verbal tricks. Thrasymachus appeals to Socrates by saying people who can get away with so-called

The Ethical Egoist in Plato's Republic

1140 words - 5 pages Republic puts Socrates discussing justice within a group of companions. Their conversation begins by discussing and arguing the various definitions of justice and what it is. Soon, a man by the name of Thrasymachus boldly enters the conversation. Thrasymachus is a sophist and an ethical egoist. Thus, the topic of conversation quickly transitions from discussing the definition of justice to whether or not justice is important or necessary at all

Present and Discuss the Views submitted by Socrates and Thrasymachius in the First Book of Platos Republic

2201 words - 9 pages In the first book of the Republic Socrates and Thrasymachus argue about the nature of justice. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. He also claims that Socrates’ arguments against that position stem from a naive set of beliefs about the real intentions of rulers, and an uncritical approach to the way words acquire their meaning. Present the arguments on both sides. Who do you think is right? Justify your position

Similar Essays

Socrates And Thrasymachus In Republic Essay

2195 words - 9 pages 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

Thrasymachus’ View Of Justice And Socrates’ Re

1103 words - 4 pages such an arduous task Socrates must disprove Thrasymachus definition of justice. In Book I Thrasymachus states that, ?Justice is the advantage of the stronger? (338c). He explicates this statement by pointing out that in all forms of government, whether it is a democracy, tyranny, or aristocracy, the leader is the cornerstone and landmark of the state. With this authority and power comes the ability to enact legislation that has a vested personal

The Ethical Egoist: What's The Problem

1033 words - 5 pages In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates tries to explain the value of justice to man. Other educated Athenians challenge him, however Socrates pokes holes in all of their statements. Socrates argues that there are many problems with their views on social philosophy, especially when it comes to Thrasymachus’ idea of ethical egoism. Plato delivers his view of justice through Socrates when he responds to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Cephalus on the issue

Justice In Book I Of The Republic

883 words - 4 pages advantage of the just man. In fact, he states “that injustice, when practiced on a large enough scale, is stronger and freer and more successful than justice” (344 c) and is “good policy” (348 d).      By the end of Book I, Socrates has Thrasymachus agreeing with his view that “the just man is happy and the unjust man miserable” (353 e), indicating that Thrasymachus has taken back many of his previous statements. This