Critism in Plato

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

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 example can be found when Thrasymachus presents the idea of the shepherd and the cowherds, where he states that the shepherd is looking to gain only something that will benefit him, and does not really care about the sheep, thus signifying self-interest (343b, 345c). I don’t believe this is the right definition of justice. A ruler that will appeal only to his authority should not create Justice, but it should be something that is unanimously done to favor both the just and the unjust person. Additionally, I don’t support Thrasymachus definition that an unjust person is stronger and has a happier life. In today’s context, we know when one is unjust and does unjust actions he

The debate moves on as Thrasymachus tries to define justice. Thrasymachus makes two critical points in his argument. He first says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thus the rulers govern on their own behalf. However Socrates shows that in fact the rulers are at the mercy of their subjects and make decisions that can be good or bad for the people and it is the right of the people to follow these actions or not. He states that "no knowledge considers or prescribes for the advantage of the stronger, but for that of the weaker, which it rules." [342d]

Plato is remembered as one of the worlds best known philosophers who along with his writings are widely studied. Plato was a student of the great Greek philosopher Socrates and later went on to be the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s writings such as “The Republic”, “Apology” and “Symposium” reveal a great amount of insight on what was central to his worldview. He was a true philosopher as he was constantly searching for wisdom and believed questioning every aspect of life would lead him to the knowledge he sought. He was disgusted with the common occurrence of Greeks not thinking for themselves but simply accepting the popular opinion also known as doxa. Plato believed that we ought to search for and meditate on the ideal versions of beauty, justice, wisdom, and other concepts which he referred to as the forms. His hostility towards doxa, theory of the forms, and perspective on reality were the central ideas that shaped Plato’s worldview and led him to be the great philosopher who is still revered today.

The Republic presents two very different views of justice as argued by two skilled thinkers. The beginning of the discussion starts off with Thrasymachus explaining what exactly he believes justice is; “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Although Thrasymachus’ definition is clear, Socrates attempts to spite him by using a wild comparison, by saying “If Polydamamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is.” (338c) This statement from Socrates disgusts Thrasymachus because Thrasymachus was simply referring to “stronger” in the sense of being a ruler, not strong in the sense of being physically larger. To counter Socrates, Thrasymachus explains how different societies are ruled throughout the world whether it be tyrannically, democratically, or otherwise, and how the rulers, those who are strongest, are the ones who make the laws and they do so to their advantage. Thrasymachus establishes this by saying how, “A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same.” (338e) It is clear from this line of reasoning that Thrasymachus has a solid position that justice is, rightly or wrongly, the enforcement of the rule of law as dictated by the “strong leaders” that make the law.

In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.

To start with, Thrasymachus argues that it is profitable to act unjustly and harmful to act justly. When Thrasymachus first defines justice as nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, he refers to the ruler, which is the stronger, and the ruled (Plato, 338c). In this context, he believes that the ruling party in any type of regime – tyranny, democracy, or aristocracy – makes laws to its own advantage and defines the acts to its disadvantage as unjust (338d – 339a). For the subjects it is just to obey the laws and serve the ruler’s interest, so if there is a conflict between the interests of the ruler and the subjects, the ruler seeks what benefits itself through laws

The main goal of life is for the soul to permanently leave the body. A person must constantly seek knowledge and not become preoccupied with the physical world.

First, throughout Book I, Plato seems to portray Thrasymachus as a vigorous character who wants to overcome and achieve rhetorical victory over Socrates. As Plato illustrates, “Even in the middle of our conversation Thrasymachus had repeatedly tried to take control of the discussion” (Plato, 336b) and as soon as Socrates ends his discussion in finding the true definition of justice with Polemarchus, “he gathered himself and sprang at us, like a wild beast at its prey” and enters into the discussion (Rep. 336b). However, unlike his zeal to achieve victory over Socrates, Thrasymachus is continuously rebutted by Socrates which views Thrasymachus’ arguments inconsistent and self-contradictory for his definition of justice. Initiating his discussion with Socrates, Thrasymachus brings up his account of justice. Thrasymachus insists, “I say that justice is simply what is good for the stronger” (Rep. 338c). Also, later on in his discussion with Socrates, he provides another claim for his view of justice, that “justice and the

Society tends to live day to day without much question of their own existence. Humans are born into the world and without second thought begin to live their lives, but there comes a time when individuals begin to question the reason for their being. In Richard Taylor’s, “The Meaning of Life”, Taylor explores the thought that our existence, when viewed externally without our prejudices, is fundamentally pointless. A thorough analysis of Taylor’s ideas will be given to understand the reasoning behind his thoughts, his argument will then be defended from counter arguments that state that the meaning behind any entity’s life could have any alternative meaning.

Firstly, we must understand why justice is so important for this argument to hold any weight. Justice is something that has been talked about in many philosophical discussions but the first in depth conversation is from Plato’s Republic. In book one three different definitions are analyzed. The first is where you speak truthly and give back what you take from others, secondly Thrasymachus’s definition is that justice is to the advantage of the stronger. The definition that ends their conversation is that justice is better than being preyed on by others although not as good as always taking advantage of people. The reason why this conversation is discussed so in depth is because justice is seen as a virtue by Plato. This is on an individual level and a governmental level, as Thrasymachus discusses it. Plato believes that “justice in the city is the same thing as justice in the individual”. Given that information it’s obvious that justice is an overarching theme of the developing of the perfect republic in the book. Its viewed by Plato that justice is a “master virtue in its own sense” because if you and your city are just than everything else will be working together too. This is an elevated way of viewing justice and since its spoken about so much in the book it’s very important to hear Thrasymachus’s opposing argument to it.

In other words, justice is always a matter of subordinating your own interests to the interests of someone in authority over you. So, when the ruled act to benefit the rulers, they are acting justly, but the rulers themselves are not subordinating their interests to anyone else, so they are acting unjustly. You see, if rulers were to act in the interest of the ruled, they would be subordinating their interests to those of the ruled, and so would in effect be putting the ruled in the position of authority and so would not themselves be genuine rulers anymore. Hence one cannot genuinely exercise the art of rulership without ipso facto behaving unjustly. Like Callicles, Thrasymachus believes that only an idiot would sacrifice his own interests to those of others, so Thrasymachus rejects justice as a con

At the beginning of the debate on what “justice” is; Thrasymachus shoves himself into the dialogue to say that justice “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 14 [I]). In the state, a ruler is considered the stronger, therefore what is advantageous to them is just. The laws made to be beneficial to the ruler are just, so it is just for their subjects to follow these rules and if they disobey it is considered unjust. This can be said since we can assume that the ruler is the strongest in any situation. When asked if rulers can make mistakes, Thrasymachus agrees.

Thrasymachus represents and argues for the ideas of the ethical egoist, which are founded on the concept of pursuing self-interest alone while simply disregarding the interests of others. Thus, ethical egoists wish to completely do away with justice and other similar concepts of moral standards. Thrasymachus believes that "justice is simply the advantage of the stronger" (The Republic, Book I, 338c). He believes that the entire idea of justice is a convention created by powerful men and used as an excuse to exercise power and force weaker men to obey their laws. When men are forced to obey laws, they are then obeying the wishes of the powerful. Therefore, the ethical egoist does not believe that being just is worthwhile because it only works toward the advantage of other people―those people that are most powerful―and thus adhering to justice is not beneficial to us. He believes that a ration and good man will ignore justice entirely.

Plato’s response would be neutral to bullying. Plato considered the nature and value of justice and the other virtues, as they appear both in the structure of society as a whole and in the personality of an individual human being. In book one of Plato’s republic, it addresses what we owe our enemy and friend. He would not disapprove of bullying because he thought we owe good to our friends and bad to enemies. Plato links pleasure with illusion and this link explains his rejection of the view that all desires are rational desires for the good. Plato’s response to bullying seems more hopeless in the way of trying to stop it from happening. I think he would expect bullying to always happen so he would not try to stop it. I disagree by being a Christian and believing that you owe mercy to all people, even to your enemies, or in this case, a bully.