Thrasymachus Arguments

I believe that after thinking hard about the arguments I could say that Socrates has won. When I say the word “won” I use it loosely because in all reality it was hard for me to agree with Thrasymachus. As hard as it was it to agree with the one it was also hard to agree with Socrates because he really doesn’t give the strongest arguments against Thrasymachus claim. He also never really gives his opinion or definition on what he thinks justice is. The first reason why I would say Socrates won is because I feel like Thrasymachus definition is too broad I also believe that there is no just not one definition which is the advantage of the stronger. If justice meant the advantage of the stronger than when thinking about justice in the world now it would literally make no sense. The reason why I feel the need to connect the times is because now in the 21st century justice means a lot of different things. In the past, during the times the book took place in things were a lot different.
He tries to hear him out about why he thinks that way but for some reason he just could not understand him. Throughout the book Socrates and Thrasymachus goes through trying to answer the questions that comes up. Earlier in this essay I mentioned the second question that came up about an unjust man. Socrates wanted Thrasymachus to explain exactly why he felt the way he felt about defining justice so he could eventually make his claim against him. Although it was tough for me to take a stand because the arguments on neither side were a strong as they could have been. I think it is safer for me to say Socrates has won the argument because it is tough to agree with Thrasymachus. I do agree with the claims Socrates made about justice being a virtue of the