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‚
Premium Plato Philosophy Ethics
344C‚ is the beginning of a conversation mainly 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
Premium Plato Socrates Philosophy
matter‚ but how we ought to live." In his writings he has describes two contrasting views of the important issue that is ultimately asking the question‚ why be moral? Plato and Thrasymachus represent the different and some-what opposing ideas on this topic of morality and self interest. Thrasymachus believes that the right thing to do is act unjustly or unmorally because one should always proceed to act in one’s own self interest. He states‚ "Why should I be moral when it is not in my interest to
Premium Ethics Morality Philosophy
The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice‚ as well as its importance in society‚ is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society‚ Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue‚ Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice
Premium Justice Plato Virtue
Looking up in the Merriam Webster dictionary justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments". The fact that the word itself is being used for its definition explains how ambiguous the concept of justice can get. It is because of the very same reason that some time between the years of 470 to 399 BC a very well-known argument took place in Piraeus. The mentioned
Premium Justice Plato Political philosophy
What makes a good statement (or claim)? Jose Leon HUMN 210 Professor Miriam Abbott February 24th‚ 2013 1. You are given the following ten short claims to analyze. Identify which ones are good or bad statements. If they are bad statements‚ indicate why. a. Nobody in the world today is really good. b. The world is not flat. c. I will need an extended period of laborious cogitation to assimilate the missive. d. The number 2 is
Premium Earth English-language films The World Is Flat
Justice‚ he said‚ is nothing more than the advantage of the strong. Although Thrasymachus claims that this is a definition‚ it is not really intended as a definition of justice as much as it is the delegitimization of justice. He said that it does not pay to be just. behavior only works for the benefit of others‚ not to those who behave fairly. Thrasymachus assuming here that justice is not a reasonable restraint on our natural desire to have more. Justice is a convention imposed on us‚ and it does
Premium Ethics Morality Philosophy
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
Premium Political philosophy Ethics Morality
Following on from Thrasymachus’ attack on justice‚ book 2 begins with Glaucon and Adeimantus drawing agreement to this attack‚ seeking however‚ to establish a more robust approach to why morality is unprofitable- distancing thus from the social contract theory. Glaucon divides the notion of the goods into three classes; the first class explores the instrumental kind‚ where things are only desirable in virtue of the consequences (necessary evil)‚ this evident in his examples of physical training and
Premium Morality Ethics Political philosophy
Kukathas’s makes the claim that cultural rights are not necessary in order to protect the interest of a cultural groups because individual rights are sufficient in protecting a culture’s broader interest. Kukathas believes that it is unnecessary to change or abandon the established liberal language of individual rights (Kukathas 107)‚ as long as an individual has the autonomy to associate or disassociate with a group (120). A weakness in Kukathas’s argument is that in many cultural groups an individual
Premium Morality Ethics Human