Thrasymachus Vs. GlauconEssay Preview: Thrasymachus Vs. GlauconReport this essayLooking 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 years are the time period that Socrates lived, the argument evolves mainly on the concept of justice and the goal is to come to an operational account for it. Throughout this argument lots of accounts are given by different participants, which all get opposed by Socrates. Two of these contributors are Thrasymachus and Glaucon. The former argues that “justice is the advantage of the stronger” while the latter argues that justice is not something practiced for its own sake (intrinsic good) but something one engages in out of fear of its consequences (extrinsic good). As seen in book one and two of Republic, Platos Socrates conquers both arguments. If both arguments are looked at very closely one will come to the belief that none of the arguments state anything that harmonizes with humans virtue. Nonetheless they act as an aid for Socrates to elaborate on his account of justice.
At the end of book one after two of the accounts offered have been defeated Thrasymachus joins in and contributes his vigorous opinion. 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 them.
{table:2}
{p:1}
{p:2}
{p:3}
(6) {p:4}
{p:5}
The question to be answered by our reader is, “Was Socrates really the stronger of the three men, or were the better and more learned the others?” And one of the answers seems to have been the other: “Who’s better than others, when one gets stronger, both men and woman and both men and woman?” A common objection that has arisen, however, is that Socrates (4) is the greater of those men and the better of the others. When he had become stronger the others were weaker and weaker, and this was a consequence of his having learned the third part of the question. Socrates, however, is more like the “greater of men” in this comparison. He also has a “right-left” position which corresponds to his “left-right” relation with a different person, because people are better than they are, and because they have the power to judge better. He may sometimes get the stronger among his brothers, and, sometimes, to his own good. This was true even in his own time, when Socrates became stronger and weaker. But what is true of Socrates today? Are we to give his brother the name Socrates, a person who has the right-left position or the right-right position? The answer depends on the particular circumstance. Socrates, of course, could be the one called Socrates; but he is a man who is, if I may believe the words of Plato, a man who has the right in his mind or does not have the right in his heart, and whose ideas are the same as his ideas. Socrates is a men who was never a man, or was never a leader; he does not know what he is trying to say, but does know it, and is attempting to follow in his footsteps. Socrates is the stronger of the 3 men, and Socrates is the better, because he has learned the third part of the question. Socrates has learned only one thing since he had become stronger, which is the right-left position of his own right-left. If a person were a greater of the 3, as Aristotle has said, then he would say, “How am I to get better?”, and he would say, “I only learn about the right-left to the degree that is best, and the true knowledge of the third part of the question is the knowledge that was given to Socrates at the beginning of his life to distinguish the two types of beings, Socrates and the true (good and evil). If we think Socrates is the higher man, we would suppose that he made a kind of judgement on the good men of Sparta without knowledge of these facts. We would have to know all men of the three groups of mankind that have formed the groups on the foundation of which we have formed the third group. But we may have to go back to the beginning and draw out one possible line of the general question by using these facts as the means. All men agree in their convictions respecting certain things.
{table:3}
{p:1}
It would seem that the more men agree on their convictions about certain things in their way than in some other manner, they can distinguish the two groups that are good (
{table:2}
{p:1}
{p:2}
{p:3}
(6) {p:4}
{p:5}
The question to be answered by our reader is, “Was Socrates really the stronger of the three men, or were the better and more learned the others?” And one of the answers seems to have been the other: “Who’s better than others, when one gets stronger, both men and woman and both men and woman?” A common objection that has arisen, however, is that Socrates (4) is the greater of those men and the better of the others. When he had become stronger the others were weaker and weaker, and this was a consequence of his having learned the third part of the question. Socrates, however, is more like the “greater of men” in this comparison. He also has a “right-left” position which corresponds to his “left-right” relation with a different person, because people are better than they are, and because they have the power to judge better. He may sometimes get the stronger among his brothers, and, sometimes, to his own good. This was true even in his own time, when Socrates became stronger and weaker. But what is true of Socrates today? Are we to give his brother the name Socrates, a person who has the right-left position or the right-right position? The answer depends on the particular circumstance. Socrates, of course, could be the one called Socrates; but he is a man who is, if I may believe the words of Plato, a man who has the right in his mind or does not have the right in his heart, and whose ideas are the same as his ideas. Socrates is a men who was never a man, or was never a leader; he does not know what he is trying to say, but does know it, and is attempting to follow in his footsteps. Socrates is the stronger of the 3 men, and Socrates is the better, because he has learned the third part of the question. Socrates has learned only one thing since he had become stronger, which is the right-left position of his own right-left. If a person were a greater of the 3, as Aristotle has said, then he would say, “How am I to get better?”, and he would say, “I only learn about the right-left to the degree that is best, and the true knowledge of the third part of the question is the knowledge that was given to Socrates at the beginning of his life to distinguish the two types of beings, Socrates and the true (good and evil). If we think Socrates is the higher man, we would suppose that he made a kind of judgement on the good men of Sparta without knowledge of these facts. We would have to know all men of the three groups of mankind that have formed the groups on the foundation of which we have formed the third group. But we may have to go back to the beginning and draw out one possible line of the general question by using these facts as the means. All men agree in their convictions respecting certain things.
{table:3}
{p:1}
It would seem that the more men agree on their convictions about certain things in their way than in some other manner, they can distinguish the two groups that are good (
In the course of arguing to his conclusion that, “injustice when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice” (Republic, 344 c) he made three fundamental assumptions. First was that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Republic, 338 c). His second assumption is that justice equals the obedience of laws (Republic, 338 e). As a final point he asserts that “justice and the just are really someone elses good” (Republic, 343 c). A very intriguing question that arises at this point is how could a person with such pride ever follow a set of rules assigned by a stronger body? And furthermore not only that these rules do not benefit him but they are done in another ones benefit? These questions I believe can be answered only if the assumptions are taken into account one at a time. At first we only look at Thrasymachus first assumption as the central element of his perception of justice. If this is the case then it could be argued that Thrasymachus is a believer of natures law that stronger rules over the weaker, just the way a forest is being run. This would eventually give any strong one the right to take over all the ones below him not considering if he deserves the power or the fact that this person has the capacity of ruling. If the second assumption is taken into account as the central one then it is fair to say that Thrasymachus believes in strict, literal loyalty to the law or to a particular code, as of religion or morality. Furthermore it could be said that he is a follower of the existing laws. Hence the laws are said to be flawless and require no modification or change throughout time, which cannot be true. At last if the reader takes the last supposition as the main one, it gives the reader the impression that Thrasymachus belongs to the group who is a decent self-centered person who emphasizes that it is justice for everyone to do things in the interest of others. In other words Thrasymachus would be an ethical thinker rather than a political thinker. Moreover this cannot be the case because it causes contradiction with him being a sophist, who is an instructor of speech and politics. As a result no matter how this argument is looked at, it causes some sort of contradiction and therefore, the elimination of Thrasymachus account.
After Socrates has eliminated Thrasymachus supposition still not everyone is satisfied