Essay on Thrasymachus and Socrates

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

In sections (352d-354b) of the book, “The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, Socrates begins by arguing with Thrasymachus that the just life is the happiest and best (352e). He provides rhetorical appeal of logos and compelling arguments that all living things have a function. Socrates establishes a well-rounded statement to counter argue against Thrasymachus by including multiple statements on how the just life has virtue, while as unjust brings the opposite of happiness. He pieces together to puzzle that blocks Thrasymachus from understanding the correct rationality for the attributes that we possess.

Before analysing the strengths and weaknesses of Thrasymachus’s argument we must look at a key fault in his definition, which is he doesn’t give one. Instead of defining justice he ends up describing it. Thrasymachus says that justice is in “the advantage of the established ruling body” but does not define what justice is. The conversation

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

Thrasymachus, angry at the discussion between Polemarchus and Socrates, claimed that he gave a better definition of justice. Justice, he says, “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (book 1, p. 338c). However, Socrates did not clearly understand his idea of justice, Thrasymachus then goes on to explain his statement by asking whether or not Socrates is aware of tyrannical, democratic and aristocratic governments in some cities, he asks: “Don’t you know that some cities are ruled by a tyranny, some by a democracy, and some by an aristocracy?” (book 1, p. 338d), this acts as a leading question for what Thrasymachus later further explain his idea of justice, he explains:

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.

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.

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.

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

Polemarchus then conveys his view of justice. He says that justice is doing good to friends and evil to enemies (332d). Socrates replies that a just man would never do evil, even against his enemies. When something inflicts harm on a horse, this causes the horse to deteriorate from its excellence (335b). When a man is harmed the man deteriorates from what it is to be a good man (335c). Therefore, a just man would be unable to be unjust to any human, as it would be unjust regardless. Therefore, it is only an unjust man that could be unjust (335e). Next, Thrasymachus attempts to define what justice is (after receiving his fee) (336d). He defines justice as whatever is in the interest of the stronger party (338c). Each government, whether it's

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 Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

In the opening two books of the Republic, Thrasymachus, along with Glaucon and Adeimantus, proposes fascinating arguments against the definition of justice. According to Thraysmachus, Justice, by its nature, is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Despite Socrates’s strong disagreement, many just and unjust incidents in Amazing Grace serve as great examples to support Thrasymachus’s view. In the following paragraphs, I am going to first summarize the arguments from Thrasymachus and Glaucon, and then analyze how the examples from Amazing Grace validate the traditional definition of justice.

Another objection, brought about by a radical and different theory of Justice is brought up by Plato in a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus. In this argument Thrasymachus defines justice as in the interest of the stronger. This basically means that justice belongs in the hands of the rulers, and that the rulers are whoever is stronger, therefore getting to a ruling position. Laws are then made, based on the ruling party’s interest, and only theirs. Those who violate such created laws, will get punished for breaking the law and so on and so forth. Socrates completely disagrees with this theory of justice and gives the analogy of a physician who is studying and exercising his power is in fact doing so in the interest of his patients, not himself. In

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