In the beginning of this text, Socrates and his friend, Glaucon, came back from a festival and are on the way home. However on the way, they met Polemarchus and was persuaded to stay at his house. Throughout this whole stay, Socrates has been speaking with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus about the topic, justice. However, each person had different ideas about the definition of justice. Eventually, it caused some arguments. The initial person Socrates talked to about the definition of justice was Cephalus, the father of Polemarchus. However, before Socrates actually asked Cephalus about justice, he asked Cephalus if life is harder towards the end. Although many others complain about their old age considering they believe that all
…show more content…
For example, if a person were to do something helpful or good, he would receive goodness in return. Also, if a person were to act badly, punishments could be the harm that would be put onto him. Even though there are many situations in which Polemarchus’s idea of justice could’ve worked, Socrates was still able to find some discrepancies. For example, he believed man could be ignorant of human nature. As a result, they wouldn’t be able to differentiate between good or bad friends and bad or good enemies. Another inconsistency Socrates found was that causing harm to someone else in any way is not considered good or just. Even though Socrates heard Polemarchus’s definition of justice, he still believed that he needed to hear more from other …show more content…
He started getting tired of Socrates just listening to other people's’ perspectives instead of offering his own. However, Socrates was able to manipulate Thrasymachus to give his definition by saying that he could learn from him. Thrasymachus answered him by saying that “Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (10:8:21), more in terms of democracy, aristocracy, and tyranny. He added to his statement by saying that laws that were made for the ruler’s interest are just while those that are not made for the ruler are unjust. To counter his idea, Socrates started asking Thrasymachus if a physician was in it for the money or had the job solely for the purpose of helping his patients. However, the question that really challenged Thrasymachus’s idea was when Socrates asked, “And such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interest of the sailor who is under him, and not for his own or the ruler’s interest?” (14:4:8). Thrasymachus’s answer of “yes” contradicted his initial idea, which Socrates discovered. In the beginning, Thrasymachus told him that a ruler would look for things that would give him the advantage, but now he’s saying that the ruler would try to satisfy his subjects. After all of this conflict, Socrates wasn’t really able to conclude what the true definition of justice was, but he was able to make Thrasymachus agree that injustice can never be more
For example, if a person were to do something helpful or good, he would receive goodness in return. Also, if a person were to act badly, punishments could be the harm that would be put onto him. Even though there are many situations in which Polemarchus’s idea of justice could’ve worked, Socrates was still able to find some discrepancies. For example, he believed man could be ignorant of human nature. As a result, they wouldn’t be able to differentiate between good or bad friends and bad or good enemies. Another inconsistency Socrates found was that causing harm to someone else in any way is not considered good or just. Even though Socrates heard Polemarchus’s definition of justice, he still believed that he needed to hear more from other …show more content…
He started getting tired of Socrates just listening to other people's’ perspectives instead of offering his own. However, Socrates was able to manipulate Thrasymachus to give his definition by saying that he could learn from him. Thrasymachus answered him by saying that “Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (10:8:21), more in terms of democracy, aristocracy, and tyranny. He added to his statement by saying that laws that were made for the ruler’s interest are just while those that are not made for the ruler are unjust. To counter his idea, Socrates started asking Thrasymachus if a physician was in it for the money or had the job solely for the purpose of helping his patients. However, the question that really challenged Thrasymachus’s idea was when Socrates asked, “And such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interest of the sailor who is under him, and not for his own or the ruler’s interest?” (14:4:8). Thrasymachus’s answer of “yes” contradicted his initial idea, which Socrates discovered. In the beginning, Thrasymachus told him that a ruler would look for things that would give him the advantage, but now he’s saying that the ruler would try to satisfy his subjects. After all of this conflict, Socrates wasn’t really able to conclude what the true definition of justice was, but he was able to make Thrasymachus agree that injustice can never be more