Preview

What Was Socrates Failure

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1008 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
What Was Socrates Failure
Socrates' Failure

In producing a counter argument to Thrasymachus' claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger, Socrates bases his argument enourmously on sentimentality and prejudice. He assumes that the virtues which are supposedly functioning in the realm of ideas can also work propably in the World. For example, in Socrates' view, a doctor does not seek his own advantage, but the advantage of his patients. Yet, this view reflects the perfect ideal of a doctor in Socrates' belief of ideas in a dream world. With a modern perspective, one can fairly see that Socrates' refutation has some complexities which clash severely with the real experiences of the Ancient Greek. Socrates' image of the doctor ignores the inherent human desire
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
His views are rather romantic with a nostalgic perspective. Socrates is not skeptical unlike sophist philosophers of his age. He reasons, however, with a firm belief in his own conception of this world which is a projection of a higher world of ideas functioning in harmony. He believes that gods are just (Plato, 29). Homer's Iliad on the other hand states otherwise, portraying gods are cruel and jelous. Therefore, Socrates thinks within his own ideology. He tries to impose his ideology to Thrasymachus who never disagrees with him at all. For example, in Socrates' opinion, injustice causes civil strife, antagonism and disorder while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose. However, in a World which does not precisely regulate the terms of justice or injustice, Thrasymachus' view that justice always looks to the advantage of the stronger makes more sense. Thrasymachus' claims are based on his own experience of Ancient Greek life while Socrates' statements hardly related to the realities of the life surrounding him. He is blinded by what he firmly believes. He is trying to adjust the common realities of the society to his own ideology. Altough he is able to convince Thrasymachus at the end, what he does during this process is misleading. Thrasymachus seems to be an agent for Socrates to express his ideology in a dialogue for.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • Good Essays

    Gorgias had been arguing that rhetoric was almost synonymous with power, as a rhetor can convince anyone to do anything. This, to Gorgias and Polus, is true power and will lead to one’s happiness. However, from the measly two pages or so of argument, Socrates is able to prove sound doubt as to whether this is true or not. This is all to back up Socrates’ earlier claim that “both rhetors and tyrants have the smallest power in the cities” (466d4-5). By using the argument of justice, Socrates is able to prove that doing what is unjust is not good for anyone, especially the person committing the injustices.…

    • 1439 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus is a sophist who attacks Socrates at the beginning of his appearance. When we analyze his argument and his general way of carrying himself in debate, we can fully see the arrogance in his character. Thrasymachus ends his participation in the conversation by meanly congratulating Socrates on his "victory," and telling Socrates to "feast on his triumph" as if the argument on defining justice is some type of contest. His argument, the question of following the stronger, and the question of what justice is, might finally make sense, if we allow him to wrongfully mix two concepts of right and might. This is to say that Thrasymachus believes the mightier one gets the righter they are and the more just it is to follow…

    • 1372 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good 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

    The Republic Study Guide

    • 2098 Words
    • 8 Pages

    - He makes Thrasymachus admit that the view he is advancing promotes injustice as a virtue. In this view, life is seen as a continual competition to get more (more money, more power, etc.), and whoever is most successful in the competition has the…

    • 2098 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He believes that any knowledgeable person in a craft will not try to surpass his fellow craftsman. He asks, “Do you think that a musician… wants to outdo another musician…?” (349e) This is weak because it contradicts Socrates’s own argument by discussing the unjust man and his actions, which implies that there is indeed a possibility of unjust acts to get ahead in society. Thrasymachus explains that when people act justly it is a disadvantage to them because the unjust are at an advantage, even though his argument is complex it is more sensible than Socrates…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates meets with some of his friends and begins discussing the meaning of justice and whether the just life is better than the unjust life. First, they contemplate the meaning of justice. Cephalus stated that justice is as simple as telling the truth and returning what you receive, Polemarchus stated that justice is giving each his due, and Thrasymachus stated that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates proves each of them wrong and embarks on a discussion to find out what true justice is, and to find out whether the just man is truly happier than the unjust man, or vice versa.…

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between ¡§Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen¡¨ and ¡§Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,¡¨ will help to position Plato¡¦s Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.…

    • 1653 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 267 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus Arguments

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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…

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He must do this regardless of the opinion of the majority or possible consequences for himself; he must act only in accordance to the opinion of the few wise, knowledgeable men who understand what is justice, and the laws of the State. Unfortunately, in all of the dialogues the author of this essay has read5, Socrates never clearly explains what ‘the laws’ really are — they remain a sort of abstraction, a divine essence of justice. However, this does not invalidate our definition of a champion of…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Strepsiades Unjust Speech

    • 446 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Initially, in the play, Strepsiades is a man who lacks moral understandings of what is right or wrong. With the help of Socrates and the Thinkery, Strepsiades is able to get rid of the moderation and asceticism in his lifestyle, and is able to prosper from learning the just and unjust speech. Although, since Socrates only uses the practical wisdom of philosophy, he hinders Strepsiades’s knowledge of knowing the right and wrong. By just applying practical wisdom it adds justice to the unjust speech and does not create a balance for both speeches.…

    • 446 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates was a man of distinction and a man with strong ideas on how to make a more perfect society. Although a lot of his ideas conflict with his ability to be just or unjust it does not in his mind. Being just or unjust is a major topic in the book and there are many different ways of being both. Socrates used the terms, not necessarily the way we would normally use the term today, but parts of his depiction made sense. He said a lot of different things could be considered unjust. For example not doing what you were Destined to do or what you are best at is considered unjust in his mind.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When beginning a discussion, it helps to be prepared, to know both sides of the argument especially the side you are arguing because it can be hard to see where the debate will lead. Thrasymachus falls into this situation as he tries to make an argument but ends up unable to see where the discussion is being lead, this causes him to push examples without fully examining all the areas of weakness in his arguments, which leads to his failure. Justice is usually linked with people who are just, but by disconnecting them Thrasymachus is able to form an argument that examines justice with a darker connotation. Socrates holds more hopeful associations and supports the benefits of justice consistently through his argument. With his skill and strategy,…

    • 1530 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In his defense, Socrates focuses on his relationship to Athens as an asset to her prosperity. One of the ways he accomplishes this is by his skillful use of the Greek hero’s image. Using his and the hero’s common purpose, to educate, Socrates doubly reinforces his image as Athen’s benefactor, not her enemy as his accusers claim. The context of the trial allows us to see how Socrates addresses with the jury, therefore we do not have to solely take his word on his relationship with Athens, because we can see their interaction directly, which is, perhaps, even more revealing than his descriptions of…

    • 1593 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays