Thrasymachus Vs Plato

662 Words3 Pages
. In The Republic, Plato uses Socrates against Thrasymachus, to express opposing views of justice. Thrasymachus insists that the strong use of brute force establishes what is just and what is unjust. So, this suggests that justice can be something made. Socrates, on the contrary, states that justice is something found. According to Thrasymachus, an individual should pursue justice if justice is a greater good for him or her, because it is a rational choice. Thrasymachus says, “Justice profits not the just, but the unjust who take advantage of them” (Plato 343). Consequently, political rulers “establish” justice as a tool to exploit the ruled for their own profit. Plato, most probably expressing his position through Socrates, claims that justice…show more content…
Thrasymachus's theory would only serve gang leaders as an excuse to lead aggressive way of life. Meanwhile, Plato's view of justice can serve as a base for an anti-gang coalition. Such coalition will foster understanding of hard impacts of social injustice and will encourage a search of alternatives to gang life. Justice is then perceived as something discovered through the ability to balance reason, spirit, and ambition; at-risk teenagers realize that justice comes through partnerships with others, and not through force. Plato's Republic impractical, but it is still one of the “great books” of Western philosophy. Plato is an ironic author and provokes much dispute. On the one hand, the expressed thoughts may develop rather authoritarian position. On the other hand, the book is a masterpiece of rhetoric, psychology, political analysis, and spiritual insights. Different generations may find the book useful when trying to design the perfect…show more content…
Plato points that human nature is inherently corruptible by great power. In his Apology, Socrates is presented as the one explaining why he has devoted his life to challenging the most powerful individuals. Socrates doesn't express any regrets for his conduct, he says, “I am not going to alter my conduct, not even if I have to die a hundred deaths” (Plato 30). This creates definite contradiction between The Apology and The Crito. In The Apology he claims he would willingly disobey the Athenians if they ordered him to be silent. However, the principle of obedience that Socrates uses in The Crito seems to be different. Socrates imagines a hypothetical situation, in which he accepts Crito's arguments and unlawfully escapes from prison by bribing the jail officer. Here he demonstrates that he is not ready to break the law and suggests that he can either obey the law or persuade the lawmakers to change them. In this situation Plato demonstrates his conviction that laws are established to be obeyed by everybody – simple citizens and their rulers – for maintaining the order that leads to the greater good. Such ideas make Plato's works relevant to current social and political
Show More
Related

  • Thrasymachus Vs Plato

    488 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Plato’s Republic, Book 1, Thrasymachus has a conversation with Socrates [messenger for Plato’s views] in which they try to define justice. Thrasymachus is frustrated with Socrates because he does not give his own definition, but instead pokes holes in other people’s theories about justice. Both Thrasymachus and Socrates [messenger for Plato’s views] offer different definitions of justice, although Socrates’ definition is not explicitly stated. Thrasymachus’ view of justice differs from Plato’s

    Read More

More about Thrasymachus Vs Plato

Open Document