Thrasymachus And The Noble Lie

Only a fully formed human being with a capacity for reason can understand the Noble Lie and be persuaded by it." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Yes, I agree with this statement in the sense that a reasonable human being should always work towards exploring his own mind as opposed to thinking through other people’s mind. For example, Thrasymachus justifies this statement when he says, “What folly. Socrates, has taken possession of you all? And why, sillybillies, do you knock under to one another? I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honor to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer.” The duty of knowing something places great
responsibility on an individual.
The concept of understanding to the extent of forming your own opinion about issues in life as opposed of talking in other people’s words, which you cannot justify. Only a fully formed human being with a capacity for reason has the audacity to refute comfort zone and introduced new thoughts based on what justice is supposed to define. Thrasymachus comes out in the text as fully formed human being able to discern that what Socrates and Polemarchus are discussing to be what justice is a mere collection of lies and confusions (Plato 10).
Justice is not “it is just to do good to our friends and harm to our enemies.” This misplaced notion about justice and it is immoral to see respected members of the society falling flat to the wrong definition of justice. If Socrates engages in such pointless debates without coming up with a clear answer to settle the debate, then he is persuaded in the wrong direction and cuts below logic in terms of fully formed human being with capacity to reason. There is a big conspiracy in Athena about justice that seeks to persuade people in the wrong direction. To therefore, counter the big lie, Athena needs only fully formed human beings in their right thinking stature to argue their thoughts out, state, and define what justice is based on facts instead of opinions. Justice is about fairness. Whether someone is a friend or an enemy fairness should be the guiding principle in determining the fate of justice. The kind of justice that Socrates and Polemarchus are discussing only qualifies as selective justice poised to divide and deny others justice (Plato 6).
The society does not need selective justice where friend is rewarded and enemy discarded simply because he or she is an enemy.
Society need only a fully formed human being with a capacity to reason to boldly condemn lies and evil and be persuaded with them as the right norm of life simply because they were sophisticatedly infused in the society by those deemed to be correct and right. Thrasymachus comes out as an only a fully formed human being with a capacity to reason and understands the noble lie and does not want to be persuaded with it. He is willing to challenge the lie and its proponents at any cost when majority of the people are willing to listen and buy into the lie even further. He says, “And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me.” (Plato
1).
Selective justice based on what is written down is always a big compromise to facts and societal structure in general. Suppose law will be defined and be exercised in terms of what is written, then it is likely that justice will be served at all. Socrates and Polemarchus way of justice only benefits the few and leaves out a huge chunk of the community. This kind of justice is synonymous to common law in the 19th century that only catered for few in the society and left out many people who did not receive justice simply because their nature of consequence was not available in the common laws. That is not justice. It is discrimination in the justice system and only a fully formed human being with a capacity for reason can understand such sophisticated lies and challenge them for the sake of others. A fully formed human being demands for accuracy and clarity of thought not mere formless opinions in the case of commoners who prevented Thrasymachus from intervening in the discussion simply because they wanted to see how the debate would conclude (Plato 4).
Only a fully formed human being with a capacity for reason risks his life for the sake of truth.
A reasonable human being would easily tell a lie from the truth and seek to fight for the truth that is hushed a midst lies. A fully formed human being seeks accuracy and independent mind. Why did the rest of the company only be interested in listening and not offering their side of the story? The simple answer to this question is because they could not see the noble lie due to lack of fully formed reasoning capacity. “Several times in the course of the discussion Thrasymachus had made an attempt to get the argument into his own hands.” However, stupidity and compliance to normality whether right or wrong made the company put off Thrasymachus even if he had genuine views that could change the course of the debate and help unearth hidden agendas in the discussion about justice. It is only after damage has been done that he is allowed to speak. Thrasymachus is the only person in the whole company that had a developed capacity for reason, understood the noble lie, refused to be persuaded with it, and instead offered his way of thinking that, “I must have clearness and accuracy.” (Plato
15).
Only a fully formed human being with capacity for reason can understand the noble lie and be persuaded by it, for analysis interests. A fully formed human being with a capacity for reason wants to discover the hidden malice and motives. The noble lie is smartly presented and therefore needs a person with higher intelligence to understand how deeply rooted it is in the society and design methods to uproot it and restore a sense of order and truth. Through change of time, people have continuously bought in the lie without questioning. This further complicates the quest for a fully formed human being with capacity for reason to dissuade the people that what they are accustomed to as the right is literary wrong. A noble lie tantamount to gospel and commoners are comfortable with it rather than accept new divergent views to what they know. For these reasons, it is only a fully formed human being with capacity for reason can understand the noble lie, be persuaded by it as the worst mode of life, and thus necessitate need for change (Plato 20).
A fully formed human being answers the question of what is justice and does not commit mistakes simply because he is seeking for a piece of gold. “How characteristic of Socrates!” seeking simplicity and messing out everybody is not the right way of knowing the truth. Define justice and not discuss justice is the correct way to dissuade the noble lie (Plato 16).