a disagreement between Socrates and Thrasymachus about the nature of justice. The disaccord between their views of the subject is extremely pronounced‚ but there are certain underlying agreements which guide the course of the debate. One way to evaluate the validity of the arguments involved is to examine whether the assumptions at the root of the argument are in accord with this common ground. By my reading of the dialogue‚ Socrates’ reply to the first part of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice
Premium Justice Argument Political philosophy
is‚ and those who believe justice is part of a higher “moral code” independent of the ruler. Thrasymachus and Hobbes believe that the powerful dictate law and order. On the other hand‚ Aristotle‚ Polemarchus‚ Socrates‚ and Plato believe that justice cannot be influenced by those of the ruler. I believe the best account of political justice is a combination of a few thinkers including those of Thrasymachus‚ Aristotle‚ and Plato. This account would borrow Thrasymachus’s idea that those who have power
Premium Political philosophy Plato Justice
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
Premium Plato Socrates Philosophy
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
Premium
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. In other words‚ justice is what benefits the rulers and is advocated by the laws they have set within their state. He believes that in any state‚ whether it be a monarchy‚ aristocracy‚ democracy or a tyranny‚ justice is not necessarily beneficial to the ruled‚ but only to the ones who are in rule. Furthermore‚ he states that true justice is not profitable to the one who is just and does just deeds but is not recognized for it. He believes
Premium Plato Justice Virtue
house of Polemarchus‚ Socrates and his colleague‚ Thrasymachus share their wisdom on the definition of justice. The scene is set for a mighty debate that will be discussed for centuries after this event. Thrasymachus‚ unsatisfied with Socrates’s rebuttal to Polemarchus’s definition of justice‚ pounces at the opportunity to have the upper hand on the great philosopher‚ and prove himself the wiser. Socrates‚ who just bested Cephalus and Polemarchus decides to entertain Thrasymachus and hear his interpretation
Premium Plato Philosophy Aristotle
Analysis of Thrasymachus Throughout "The Republic" there exist different characters that each holds a unique importance towards the development of certain philosophies‚ in this case‚ the meaning of "justice". Thrasymachus is such a character‚ which could be considered a cynic by some; he plays an imperative role in the quest for the meaning of justice in the first book of "The Republic". While Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of
Premium Plato Philosophy Justice
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
Premium Plato Philosophy Socrates
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
Premium Plato Socrates Philosophy
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
Premium Plato Philosophy Ethics