Thrasymachus

Defining Morality? In the book the Republic by Plato, the matter of morality is discussed in the first chapter. The opening follows the discussion between Socrates and three different individuals: Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus. Socrates questions the meaning of morality and thus everyone gives their own definition to his question. Socrates does not give everyone his answer to what does it mean to be moral but instead uses a technique called the Socratic method. The Socratic Method focuses

Thrasymachus goes on to say that when the rulers do this they are not doing it unintentionally because rulers do not make mistakes, therefore, the laws actually are in some way in their interest. Socrates then says that the role of a ruler is to rule so they must have interest for their subjects. Which goes back to what he was saying before about the rulers as lawmakers making laws in the interest of their subjects. Thrasymachus then says that some people who

Jennifer Dunn PHIL 100: Individual and Community Final Paper Plato’s Republic is a dialogue … Some people believe that its main purpose is to allow Socrates to propose plans for his ideal state, a utopia of sorts. But actually, Plato uses Socrates’ proposal of this ideal society as a framework for promoting his own philosophical ideas. These ideas range from the concept of the soul to the importance of education, but one crucial, overarching theme is the definition of justice and why it is important

conversation in Books 1 and 2. Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus explore the definition of justice in the individual and state through a series of debates and discussions, with each of them arguing which is most advantageous, justice or injustice. For the majority of Books I and II Socrates defends his claim that justice is not only a good thing in and of itself, but also favorable for the state and individual for its consequences. Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus offer counterclaims

Polomarchus worked diligently to vindicate his father’s beliefs by refining Cephulus’s understanding of justice. Soon, Polomarchus came to the conclusion that, “justice is helping friends and harming enemies (334b).” However, Socrates quickly recognized this definition to be inherently problematic. In order to implement this form of justice one must differentiate friends and enemies. In addition our assessment of friends and enemies, will largely be based on our various, but equally bias opinions

argument for the “balanced soul” as a motivation for just acts is defined in relation to the contrasting arguments of his contemporaries, such as Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. This ideological view of the “virtuous soul” does not provide a practical explanation for the motivation of a “just act” in a hierarchical society. The argument of Thrasymachus defines justice as being the advantage of the stronger, which defines the motivation for a just act that only applies to those that can practice

Given historical facts about that period, Thrasymachus viewed justice as a tool, or to be more precise, a tool in the hands of the powerful and few. In his metaphors, Thrasymachus implies that justice is merely instrumental “The shepherd truly thinks of fleecing his sheep” 343b. Implying that justice is all about benefit of the powerful. On this part of the meaning of justice Socrates offers a completely different view. He contradicted Thrasymachus’ views by stating that what is in the interest

In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Adiemantus delve into one of the worlds’ most deeply debatable topic. Their story begins as they are on their way home from Glaucons’ party and through a series of events come into an in depth discussion about the meaning of justice and the reason to be just. Each presented their definition for justice, and at one point Thrasymachus says, “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.”1 It is my opinion

The subject matter of the "Republic" is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the "republic" contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground

was found to be effective, but only in an ineffective way. Socrates’ use of different literary devices, such as; logical fallacies, tone/humor, and the art of rhetoric, to help explain the effectiveness of the dialect between the main characters Thrasymachus and Socrates in The Republic. Socrates used a combination of logical fallacies in many of his arguments, which are valid in structure, yet unsound, they seem sound enough to steer his opponent in the wrong direction leading him to a victorious