Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

1337 Words6 Pages
In “The Republic of Plato,” translated by Allan Bloom, we see that the term justice is refuted a lot between Thrasymachus and Socrates. Thrasymachus and Socrates are determined to find the true definition of justice and to whom is the just actually good for. For starters, Thrasymachus is convinced he already knows the definition of justice and who the just is good for but, Socrates finds numerous faults with his definition along the way. According to Thrasymachus justice is nothing more than “the advantage of the stronger” (337c). Thrasymachus’ definition of justice is purely “the advantage of the stronger,” meaning the powerful get what they want, while the weak benefit from the people in power (337c). One fault Socrates finds with Thrasymachus’…show more content…
Thrasymachus refutes back to what Socrates had said earlier about rulers making mistakes. Thrasymachus says, “Do you call a man who makes mistakes about the sick a doctor because of the very mistake he is making?” (340d). Thrasymachus is trying to say; just because a ruler or a doctor makes a mistake it does not make everything okay, because a good ruler or a good doctor makes no mistakes. “By making no mistakes, he the ruler or doctor sets down what is best for himself. And this must be done by the man who is ruled” (341a). Once again Thrasymachus has made it unclear to Socrates, what he means by who the advantage belongs to. Socrates says to Thrasymachus, “Make it clear whether you meant by the ruler and stronger the man who is such only in common parlance or the man who is such in precise speech, whose advantage you said a moment ago it will be for the weaker to serve because he is stronger?” (341b). Thrasymachus once again says, it is the ruler who has the advantage over those ruled. Another example used to hash out the argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus is sailing. Socrates says, just because a man sails in a ship makes him no sailor, because it is up to the art of skill that makes him a sailor (341d). There for now at least, they both have reached it is up to the art of skill that makes something an advantage for the ruler and the ruled. Having the art,…show more content…
The example of shepherds and sheep, cowherds and cows are used to illustrate this idea (343b). Socrates asks Thrasymachus, “Do you think that the rulers in cities, those who truly rule, rule willingly?” (345e). Socrates wants to get across to Thrasymachus that people in a city do not want a ruler who wants to rule, because they will be evil and let the power corrupt them and the city. Thrasymachus is not convinced by anything Socrates is saying. Thrasymachus does not see the component of morality to play a part of what is just. Socrates makes another example to show how it is not just “the advantage of the stronger”. It is to everyone’s advantage that they are gifted with a skill and have a purpose to fulfill their task. Everyone in a town thrives off each other and is able to benefit from one another. It is not about one person getting all the advantage over another. Socrates makes this point when he says, “Then whatever benefit all the craftsmen derive in common is plainly derived from their additional use of some one common thing that is the same for all” (346c). Therefore Socrates tells Thrasymachus, “it is plain by now that no art or kind of rule provides for its own benefit, no one rules willingly to fix other people’s problems” (346e). Lastly, Socrates attempts to tell Thrasymachus about the wages of the best men. The wages of best men

More about Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

Open Document