Thrasymachus And Socrates Analysis
This section of the text, 336B to 344C, is the beginning of a conversation mainly between Thrasymachus and Socrates on the topic of justice and what is just. Although it is mainly a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus, it also includes several other people who happen to be present during the conversation of the two. This text begins with Thrasymachus eagerly and angrily, jumping into the conversation between Socrates and others on the topic of justice. Thrasymachus immediately attacks Socrates verbally on his manner of teaching others. Stating that Socrates is merely babbling nonsense, Thrasymachus believes that if Socrates actually knows what justice is, he should simply state it and not go through repetitive questioning and counter exampling.
…show more content…
Coming from the fact that Thrasymachus wants an answer from Socrates, he immediately asks Socrates to answer the question himself, stating that we will not accept otherwise.
After a bit of conversation, Socrates is able to get Thrasymachus to give his answer to the question, “what is just?” Although Thrasymachus earlier stated that he will not answer first, it becomes obvious that he believes that he has the correct answer to the question. Stating that “just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” Thrasymachus is immediately asked to clarify himself by Socrates. Basically, what Thrasymachus is saying is that the governing rule of a certain land is what is just to that land; furthermore, these governing laws are set by the seemingly stronger. In this case, Thrasymachus refers to the stronger as those who have more political power, rather than those who are physically stronger. He begins to support his idea of what just is by citing different forms of government and stating that the laws that the politically empowered people make, are what just is. He basically sums himself up by saying that what is to the advantage to these governing bodies is indeed what is
just. After a short explanation by Thrasymachus, Socrates begins his usually picking apart of his response. Socrates immediately shows Thrasymachus and inconsistency in his account of what just is. Socrates is able to get Thrasymachus to agree to the fact that rulers are not infallible, and may some times create laws which are not to their advantage. Socrates then asks Thrasymachus if this is what he means, that just is what is both to the advantage and disadvantage of a ruler. Socrates and Thrasymachus further get into conversation about exactly what a ruler is. Socrates begins bringing other professions in, such as doctors and captains of ships. It becomes obvious that he is doing so in order to bring out the point that the job of the ruler is indeed the interest of the ruled, just as the job of the captain is the interest of the sailors on board, rather than the interest of themselves. By bringing this point to Thrasymachus, it is pretty obvious that the original answer from Thrasymachus is completely opposite from what is commonly thought to be true. Thrasymachus responds to this with another view of justice through several examples. He basically goes on some what of a rant which has the basic idea that those who are unjust are those that are most happy, and have the most. He specifically uses the example of an unjust partner in a business, stating that the unjust partner will always have more than the just partner.
Coming from the fact that Thrasymachus wants an answer from Socrates, he immediately asks Socrates to answer the question himself, stating that we will not accept otherwise.
After a bit of conversation, Socrates is able to get Thrasymachus to give his answer to the question, “what is just?” Although Thrasymachus earlier stated that he will not answer first, it becomes obvious that he believes that he has the correct answer to the question. Stating that “just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” Thrasymachus is immediately asked to clarify himself by Socrates. Basically, what Thrasymachus is saying is that the governing rule of a certain land is what is just to that land; furthermore, these governing laws are set by the seemingly stronger. In this case, Thrasymachus refers to the stronger as those who have more political power, rather than those who are physically stronger. He begins to support his idea of what just is by citing different forms of government and stating that the laws that the politically empowered people make, are what just is. He basically sums himself up by saying that what is to the advantage to these governing bodies is indeed what is
just. After a short explanation by Thrasymachus, Socrates begins his usually picking apart of his response. Socrates immediately shows Thrasymachus and inconsistency in his account of what just is. Socrates is able to get Thrasymachus to agree to the fact that rulers are not infallible, and may some times create laws which are not to their advantage. Socrates then asks Thrasymachus if this is what he means, that just is what is both to the advantage and disadvantage of a ruler. Socrates and Thrasymachus further get into conversation about exactly what a ruler is. Socrates begins bringing other professions in, such as doctors and captains of ships. It becomes obvious that he is doing so in order to bring out the point that the job of the ruler is indeed the interest of the ruled, just as the job of the captain is the interest of the sailors on board, rather than the interest of themselves. By bringing this point to Thrasymachus, it is pretty obvious that the original answer from Thrasymachus is completely opposite from what is commonly thought to be true. Thrasymachus responds to this with another view of justice through several examples. He basically goes on some what of a rant which has the basic idea that those who are unjust are those that are most happy, and have the most. He specifically uses the example of an unjust partner in a business, stating that the unjust partner will always have more than the just partner.