Preview

Thrasymachus Vs Machiavelli

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
267 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Thrasymachus Vs Machiavelli
In Machiavelli’s Prince virtu is defined as a man that is characterized by strength, courage, skill, decisiveness, ability, and the ability to do whatever is necessary for the greater good of the state. On the other hand, in Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus believed that justice was best defined as that which is done to benefit the stronger, meaning that in a democracy democratic laws are just and in tyranny, tyrannical laws are just, and this applies to all other forms of government.
Both Thrasymachus and Machiavelli have overlapping points in them views of justice and virtu. In Thrasymachus’s definition of justice and Machiavelli’s definition of virtu some of the concepts that overlap are the willingness to do whatever necessary for the good

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    However, Machiavelli, no matter how extreme, violent at times, rigorous, and blunt he may come across, by setting examples and guides structured around the utilization of ruthlessness and egocentric cunning as the process of gaining political power, showed what a clear mind he had on what it takes to be an awe-inspiring leader, master of the art of winning a battle, and conquering lands. In this paper, by comparing the two, human nature and political potency, through the use of different ideologies of both, Plato and Machiavelli, corroborated that they were very powerful, unparalleled influences in the philosophy of human nature and the processes of political power as theorist of their…

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What is justice? Today, where it is common for people to only look out for themselves, justice is an extremely important tool. But what exactly is justice? What is right, what is wrong, and who decides that? To find an accurate definition, we as a society should not just focus on one opinion, but the views of many. Similar to how our society is today, the society in The Republic, lived the same, struggling to determine what the correct definition of justice was, and how to pursue the right answer. In the paper, I will be discussing all aspects of Plato’s Republic, including the Philosopher King and his nature, and justice in that time.…

    • 114 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this paper we will show that Glaucon and Thrasymachus' positions on justice are entirely different. We argue that Thrasymachus despite his slippage and confusion between a traditional and immoralist definition of justice, is really intending to illustrate a political system ruled by a rational-minded and exploitative tyrant. On the other hand Glaucon clearly presents justice as a necessary evil originating out of a social contract constructed by the weak of society. He then challenges Socrates to prove to him that the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.…

    • 1831 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Overall, Machiavelli shows that in order to be an effective prince, one must disregard the morality of one’s actions in certain times for the welfare of the state. This strong belief shows that Machiavelli’s best interests are in the state and not in the general population. Because he…

    • 358 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Republic Study Guide

    • 2098 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Thrasymachus: Justice is defined as might makes right. The advantage of the strong. He is saying that it does not pay to be just. Just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly. Thrasymachus assumes here that justice is the unnatural restraint on our natural desire to have more. Justice is a convention imposed on us, and it does not benefit us to adhere to it. The rational thing to do is ignore justice entirely.…

    • 2098 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What is justice is a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of Plato when he wrote The Republic to present day. In the book, Plato uses the dialectic, between Socrates and other Athenians like Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Glacuon, to try and find the definition of justice. Through the voice of Glaucon, Plato defines justice as a compromise of sorts between advantage and fear, and injustice as the things that we wouldn’t…

    • 962 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This paper argues that Socrates does not successfully refute Thrasymachus’s argument about justice in The Republic. In Book I, Socrates attempts to refute Thrasymachus point about the craftsmen analogy in regards to Thrasymachus’s argument. Socrates argues that every craft seeks the advantage of what it rules over and not its own advantage. (342c) He further goes into this idea of how competition doesn’t exist between people in the same craft.…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Introduction: Many people who have read The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli were appalled by Machiavelli’s fierce and authorative tone he used to assert his ideas, especially his concept of how the ends justify the means, which slowly made people begin to criticize him and his book as immoral, wicked, and evil. For this reason, Machiavelli began to be insulted as a ruthless and evil person, or in the adopted term, a Machiavellian. Machiavelli didn’t wish to care for morals or spiritual integrity; however, he didn’t arrange to establish the approach to wickedness. As a matter of fact, he argues that the concept the ends justify the means are meant to be followed, but only when necessary commands for it to happen.…

    • 2621 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The most famous humanist of this time, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, was the youngest son of the Count of…

    • 1929 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    After that outburst from Thrasymachus showing pride of himself I asked Socrates what was all that about. He tells me that first I have to know who is Thrasymachus, and how he is portrayed in “The Republic” written by Plato. He is portrayed as a sophist and cynic who argues that people are selfish. By this argument that Thrasymachus yelled to us that “justice is in the interest of the strong and the subjects obeying the interest of the strong” he claims that whoever is at the top of the hierarchy is ultimately the one who has the most power, and that the ruler comes up with this rules on a self-interest base. He claims that justice is mostly the interest of the strong, and those who have more authoritarian power are those who rule the justice system and the system in general. As he states “in all states alike “right” has the same meaning, namely what is for the interest of the party established in power, and that is the strongest” (Thrasymachus, 13). Ultimately, each leader makes…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What Was Socrates Failure

    • 1008 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The virtue in individuals does not always bring prosperity to the state on the whole. Not everyone is sensitive to the good of the others. Socrates' republic is, in this sense, utopic. Socrates states, "Anyone who intends to practise his craft well never does or orders but his best for himself " (Plato, 23). This belief does not match the modern experience nor does it match the experience of a Greek citizen in Ancient Greece. In reverse, Thrasymachus believes that justice is a means for the strong to exercise advantage. In a sense Thrasymachus associates the strenght of a citizen with his authority and position in the society. He famously states, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Plato, 14). Justice is a tool for the established order to preserve itself. The strong citizen with a sizeable authority makes use of justice in a manner to assert his private interests. Under the shadow of justice, he can easily practise injustice and impose it as justice to the others. Thats why the strong is in a position to employ justice and injustice at their own interest. For instance, since a ruler makes laws in a position to twist justice for his own benefit. Therefore, his prior concern is to preserve and enhance his own authority. In order to do that, he ignores the welfare of his subjects. He does not act always within a moral…

    • 1008 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thrasymachus argues for the view that justice is the advantage of the powerful – that it is “simply the interest of the stronger” (Plato’s The Republic, translated by Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott, page 35). Laws, he says, are specifically “designed to serve the interests of the ruling class” (36). Of course, the ruling class is the strongest class, so it follows that the laws serve the advantage of the strong. The citizens under the ruling class serve “interests [of their strong unjust ruler] and his happiness at the expense of their own” (41). Thrasymachus concludes that “the dynamics of justice, then, consistently operate to advantage the ruler but never the subjects” (41).…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus Vs Plato

    • 678 Words
    • 3 Pages

    What does it mean to be moral? This is the question that Plato has tried to answer in the passages from his famous work the Republic. He has attempted to explain how humans can define and live morally, a task that is truly complicated and uncertain. It is important to identify morality because it plays a crucial role in formulating ethical theories. As Socrates states, "we are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live."…

    • 678 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates

    • 839 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Question 2) In Book I of Republic, Thrasymachos’s states that unjust people are stronger and more powerful than just people. Thrasymachos believes that being just is not virtuous nor wise but that men act just only because they afraid of having injustices happening to them so they obey. Those who have power and control are those people who act unjust-they make laws and rules that benefit themselves, not the rest of the people. Socrates proves Thrasymachos otherwise by arguing that being just is virtuous, wise and profitable and being unjust does not make people stronger nor more powerful. Those in power or rulers make laws that are just for themselves but Thrasymachos agrees that sometimes rulers make mistakes and make laws that are unjust to them, therefore, making them just or advantageous for the people they rule. Therefore, unjust people would not be more powerful in this case. Additionally, Socrates goes on to reason with Thrasymachos that the individual in power commands advantages for his or her subject rather than their own personal advantage. Socrates makes a comparison to a doctor and a patient as well as a pilot and a sailor, where the doctor and pilot are commanding advantages for their subjects, the patient and sailor respectively. Thrasymachos argues that a just man will pay taxes on his estate and an unjust man will pay less taxes on the same size property, etc. Therefore, being unjust serves a greater purpose than being just. Socrates goes on to argue that no one chooses willingly to rule but they do so in exchange for wages because the ruler does not expect to make other gains in simply doing what is advantageous for the people being ruled. Work performed by people in power and in control is considered an art form that without being rewarded with wages solely serves that subject, or weaker person, receiving the benefit of the art. For example, a doctor practices the art of making others healthy. There are no advantages the doctor gains in…

    • 839 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    While in exile, Niccoló Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes wrote about their political views on how to inaugurate a sturdy government. During each of their lives, they both contributed political philosophies that had differences and similarities. In Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’s The Leviathan, their philosophies are portrayed on how to maintain a stable government. Hobbes is recognized as the founder of the most later Western political philosophy in response to the social contract theory he established in his 1651 book Leviathan. Machiavelli is also a founder of an important term that has a lot of meaning in history. He is the founder of “Machiavellianism”, the person considers their goals to be of prime importance and that any method may be used to achieve them.…

    • 1306 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays