Thrasymachus Argument Analysis

Improved Essays
In The Republic, as recorded by Plato, a teacher named Thrasymachus argues with a philosopher named Socrates that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Later, he declares that a person who is good at their job, for example a good teacher, will exhibit both knowledge and care for the person they assist. These statements are contradicting. A good, strong teacher would show care for his students, and refrain from taking advantage of them. Thrasymachus’s definition of justice cannot be true if his statement of a good teacher is true. One statement must be false. However, Socrates does more. Although Socrates logically shuts down Thrasymachus’s argument by proving the statements contradict, he also attacks the man’s ethics as a teacher which

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Anyone familiar with the Socratic elenchus would anticipate a response from Socrates explaining why it is critical for Thrasymachus to be properly involved in the conversation, and not merely a puppet who agrees with every point. John Beversluis refers to this as the “existential dimension” in which Socrates “examines his interlocutors’ lives as well as their theses”. Yet Socrates does no such thing, instead deciding to proceed with the discussion whether Thrasymachus believes him or not. There are two ways to look at this, firstly, we can again give Socrates the benefit of the doubt. Thrasymachus has shown himself to be a Jeremy Clarkson-esque, stubborn, bullish man who is willing to lash out when he is in an uncomfortable spot.…

    • 2199 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is now clear that Thrasymachus has engaged in intellectual dishonesty as well as hubristic argumentation. Thrasymachus is demonstrably a sophist because he is motivated purely by self-interest. Plato portrays the clear self-interest of Thrasymachus a few paragraphs above his, Thrasymachus’, first definition of Justice. After claiming to Glaucon and his fellow interlocutors that he is “one who does know,” Thrasymachus says, “You amuse me, but in addition to learning, you must pay a fine.” (337D)…

    • 133 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    thrasymachus uses the example of a tyrant by showing how they make laws in their best interest and the weak must be obedient to all of the laws or they will be punished. Thrasymachus goes on to explain that most people are good in appearance because they are afraid of the punishment. The more intelligent and strong will disobey the laws and have the courage to wrong others causing the weak to suffer. Believing that the unjust life is better, Thrasymachus says the unjust man can easily benefit himself by not paying his taxes and steal from the weak. Thrasymachus claims that of one steals it will be big to aid himself.…

    • 130 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Socrates and Thrasymachus’ Conception on Justice In Friedrich Nietzsche’s work, The Genealogy of Morality, he states that the existence of laws establishes what is just and unjust within a given society (Nietzsche 1280; sec 12). Thus, there does not seem to be anything explicitly virtuous for justice. In reference to the Republic, I will argue Socrates and Thrasymachus have different views on justice and will ultimately disagree with each other on Nietzsche 's conception of justice. Nietzsche’s entire work is trying to dissect morality from its origins.…

    • 1228 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Glaucon Vs Socrates

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In conclusion, this paper presented the nature of justice, Glaucon’s argument for injustice, Socrates arguments for justice and a subjective elaboration on justice. The nature of justice is the best and worst of justice. Glaucon conclusion that that unjust is better than just, because of the instant awards and perks. Socrates felt that justice would need to be found within the individual.…

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    By appearing earnestly truthful and purely motivated, his audience and opponents will have an easier time accepting the rest of his argument – especially the reason for why Socrates engages in his inquiries. The reason for his practice is presented in the Apology as an “investigation in the service of the god” in which he finds “that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable” (Apology 22a). Assuming this is true, then it makes a great deal of sense as to why Socrates would engage with Thrasymachus. From his presence in Cephalus’s house, one can discern that Thrasymachus is a relatively influential man, since he is clearly not a slave, or else he would not speak so freely, nor would he have demanded a fee. He is known by name amongst the other attendants, as well, furthering the claim that he is of a high reputation.…

    • 1453 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Continuing with their debate, Thrasymachus becomes upset and suddenly exclaims that Socrates only questions (336c, p12). Socrates does not know an answer according to Thrasymachus (338b). Socrates is the one with the right answer. Thrasymachus belittles Socrates…

    • 1375 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While attempting to find the correct meaning of the word justice, Socrates refutes several of Thrasymachus's arguments pertaining to his personal perception of the definition. Furthermore, Socrates counters Thrasymachus's belief that one should be unjust, with the conviction that justice is a trait which one should possess. This particular area of the discussion shows a contrast between the ideas of Socrates and Thrasymachus regarding the term. One of Thrasymachus's arguments that Socrates takes issue with is that in which he states that unjust rulers and cities are the strongest, making justice something that the less powerful and the unwise should aspire to obtain.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this reading, Glaucon, a ‘just’ man and apprentice to Socrates, becomes disappointed with Thrasymachus’ abrupt and willingness in defeat. Glaucon, plays devil’s advocate and challenges his successor; Socrates, to a friendly debate. To start the debate of why the ‘just’ man is the best, rather than, ‘unjust’. Glaucon also discusses the best/worst life and how justice is a compromise.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sitting in a room hearing a lecture, there are two types of people. On type is the one that just listens and agrees, they don’t really think too hard on what is being taught. They don’t contradict what is being said. Then there is the second kind of person who listens and asks questions, someone who contradicts and comes up with scenarios about how that wouldn’t work. In Plato, that is Glaucon.…

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to the Oxford dictionary harm is defined as “Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted”. Based on this definition the general understanding of harm in modern day society is to intentionally, and physically hurt someone. Therefore, when a police officer is shot in the line of duty – paralyzing him – is an example of harm in terms of the modern definition. However, this is the exact fact that Socrates definition contradicts.…

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thrasymachus Vs Socrates

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages

    If a doctor is a treater of the sick in the precise sense, and not a money maker, then he is doing what is best for his subjects, and not himself. But Socrates contradicts what Thrasymachus’ definition is because he states that a ruler does what is advantageous for his subjects, rather where Thrasymachus said that it was just for the ruler to do what was advantageous for himself. Socrates makes another example and says, “Doesn’t it follow that medicine does not consider what is advantageous…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon is unsatisfied with the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates regarding Justice. Thrasymachus believes Justice is for the common good, it is not for the good for an individual, that any compromise is involved. Glaucon renews Thrasymachus’ argument, he divides the good into three classes: things good in themselves, things good both in themselves and for their consequences, and things good only for their consequences. Socrates places justice in the class of things good in themselves and for their consequences without any hesitation. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove by exploring that Justice is best, not a compromise.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thrasymachus defines justice as what is advantageous to the stronger. This assumes a hierarchical society is always established. Those at the top of the hierarchy are thus able to decide what is and isn’t just by shaping other’s perception and standards of justice through laws or other means, including social norms. Justice for Thrasymachus, holds an instrumental utility for the people in power. The definition he poses doesn’t define justice as a tangible concept but a key characteristic of justice and how it is played out in a society.…

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Justice: a set of values deemed "just" that are often used to establish law codes or serve as the basis for governments. And yet, despite its ability to invoke a moral high ground, the concept of justice may often go unexamined. However, in Book I of Plato's Republic, Polemarchus is forced to not only articulate a concise definition of justice, but is also forced to come to its defense in response to an inquisitive Socrates. Through the conversation between Polemarchus and Socrates, Plato forces the reader to question the traditional Greek perspective on justice and attempt to develop a new definition. Central to comprehending the conversation between Polemarchus and Socrates lies in understanding Polemarchus' notion of justice.…

    • 1132 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays