The Republic And The Socratic Dialogue

In evaluating Socrates ' success in arguing against Thrasymachus ' account, it is imperative to begin by appreciating Socrates ' intentions and the place of Thrasymachus ' account within that goal. As the literary director of Republic, Plato is well-positioned to articulate any arguments contained in Republic to his advantage, and I suggest that he very much does. Further, although Socrates is but Plato 's literary vehicle in Republic, for the sake of clarity I shall attribute and refer to arguments and views expressed throughout as belonging to Socrates.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a

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 position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates

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

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 are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

Socrates’s image in the two works differ firstly in his attitude towards knowledge and towards himself. A typical statement of Socrates, both in the Euthyphro and in other Plato’s works, is that he has no clear knowledge. He is different from the public because he knows that he does not know. Neither does he claim to teach or corrupt the young (Euthyphro, p.2

Socrates’ three opponents in The Republic come in the form of Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Cephalus provides his opinion first, which is that justice is defined by, “truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed (The Republic, 331C).” Socrates quickly counters, and says that Cephalus’ interpretation of justice cannot be right, because, “if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

continuing the discussion. More importantly, Socrates instigates a formal problem for Euthyphro from a deceivingly simple question, "Is the

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

Throughout his life, Socrates engaged in critical thinking as a means to uncover the standards of holiness, all the while teaching his apprentices the importance of continual inquiry in accordance with obeying the laws. Socrates primarily focuses on defining that which is holy in The Euthyphro – a critical discussion that acts as a springboard for his philosophical defense of the importance of lifelong curiosity that leads to public inquiry in The Apology. Socrates continues his quest for enlightenment in The Crito, wherein he attempts to explain that while inquiry is necessary, public curiosity has its lawful price, thus those who inquire must both continue to do so and accept the lawful consequences

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

In the discussion of what is and is not just, Socrates first forms the opinion that justice is something

Plato starts the Republic with dialogue between Socartes and Cephalus on what the benefits are of having money (330d). Cephalus believes that the greatest good money has done for him is allowing him to pay off his debts, and preventing him from having to cheat or deceive others, money has ultimately allowed him to remain just (331b,c). That means Cephalus’s definition of justice is “speaking the truth and