Depiction Of Struggle And Division

In the Republic of Plato Socrates presents four potential regimes that a society could bases its structure around. These four regimes are Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy (and Anarchy), and Tyranny. Within each one of these regimes Socrates goes into great detail on how each term would be valued and categorized in their society. These regimes all could be understood in the order in which there presented in desirability falling one into the other. Each description leads into the other regime in order of how they would best operate as a society.

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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

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.

Socrates responds to Thrasymachus’ argument that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger by saying that justice is actually what is advantageous for the weaker. He gives an example of a horse trainer. The horse trainer is obviously the superior of the two and in charge of the horse but it does what is advantageous to the horse not himself. The same goes for a doctor who does what is good for his patients and a captain does what is advantageous for his sailors.

As previously mentioned the notion that the strongest might be in control of what is considered justice and what is considered just, begins not with Thrasymachus but with Cephalus. Williams credits Cephalus for contributing this definition of justice to the conversation: justice means returning what you owe and being honest. Socrates effectively defeats this definition by proposing the question of what should one do when they owe a mad man a weapon, as returning the weapon would be seen as an unjust action.(Plato,331c) Socrates, however, also hints that Cephalus riches allow him to speak of justice in such basic terms: “The possession of money contributes a great deal to not cheating or lying to any man against one’s will, and, moreover, to

The republic is a wonderful classic book. Book 1 has three levels of mythos (image), Eragon and logos (discussion). The narrator Socrates reveal the events that take place in cephalus house at the Piraeus (the port of Athens) on the festival day of god (artemis). Socrates has done many adventures, explorations and democrats that is essential to give power that drove Athens to empire and democracy. In book Socrates makes a tour of contemporary definitions of justice and shows the problem with each. Socrates discuss the meaning of justice with cephalus , polemarchus , and thrasymachus . Now we will talk about cephalus , the old rich man and he was economic dealings with no rights. He think that justice is telling the truth and paying your faith , so he is trapped by Socrates example of giving a sword back to a friend temporarily mad with anger then polemarchus join the discussion said that justice is doing good for friends and harm to enemies . Socrates objected about polemarchus definition if person will also be good at useless things and at being unjust. We often do not know who are our friend and enemies are. Socrates at the end of that justice does not seem to be treat anyone badly not enemies only.

The Republic is divided into many books. Book 1 is set typically in the form of an early dialogue. The central theme of our study begins in Book 2 wherein Socrates attempts to hash out an elaborate positive theory of justice which continues till the end of The Republic. In particular, in Book VIII, Socrates prepares to discuss four types of unjust constitutions, namely, timocracy, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. These arguments are

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.

In Book I, Thrasymachus straightforwardly states that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Plato, 338c). He then defends his account in two arguments. The first argument is that the people who have more power get to decide the rules, and those in decision are simply ruling to their own advantages. This statement is supported by the example of ruling a city. According to Thrasymachus, cities are ruled differently by their natures. Democracy rules in a democratic fashion, meaning the laws favor the majority of the people; tyranny makes tyrannical laws, which favor the tyranny; and so on with the other ones. Nonetheless, what in common is that no matter what the laws are, the rulers declare what they have made to be just for their subjects, which in fact is to their own advantages. Since acting in accordance to the laws is just, those who behave in a

When it comes to a novel that defines human struggles in the most realistic way possible, which one comes to mind? For me, it would be War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy. This novel is set in an early 19th century Russia, highlighting the interactions of several aristocratic Russian families against the backdrop of Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia and the burning of Moscow. There are several themes interwoven in the plot that speak to the dynamics of human life. The main themes of War and Peace are the irrational nature of human behaviour, family, and the search for a purpose.