The Socratic dialogue is a cooperation based system for discovering the answer to a quandry. Relying on a question and answer format, the method normally utilizes a proof by reduction in a cyclical manner in order to slowly narrow down the possibilities until a “truth”, or solution, has been discovered. While seemingly reasonable at a glance, as two individuals are working together to solve a mutual problem, numerous issues have surfaced in relation to the nature of the method. Throughout Book I of Plato’s Republic, the Socratic dialogue is utilized heavily in Socrates’ search for the definition of justice within his discussions with both Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, and both cases illustrate the need of a critical, yet cooperative engagement.
…show more content…
Thrasymachus states that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger and follows by raising many common complaints of the dialogue structure, primarily focusing on the fact that Socrates is given the advantage of being able to attack a thesis without needing to defend one himself. Despite his reluctance, however, Socrates and the crowd eventually force Thrasymachus to partake in the discussion and defend his definition. Throughout the resulting conversation, despite Socrates attempting to point flaws through his common use of questions, Thrasymachus refuses to budge from his initial statement: “...and therefore, as I said at first and now repeat, justice is the interest of the stronger.” Despite Socrates getting Thrasymachus to agree to statements that directly contradict this position, Thrasymachus makes every effort to not move from his spot. Thrasymachus is broken later on in the book, but this is only due to the fact that he is held hostage until he consents, at which point he becomes like Polemarchus and simply agrees to every assertion until he is allowed to leave. Much like Polemarchus’ lack of critical feedback, Thrasymachus refusing to cooperate leads to a dismantling of the productivity of the
Thrasymachus states that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger and follows by raising many common complaints of the dialogue structure, primarily focusing on the fact that Socrates is given the advantage of being able to attack a thesis without needing to defend one himself. Despite his reluctance, however, Socrates and the crowd eventually force Thrasymachus to partake in the discussion and defend his definition. Throughout the resulting conversation, despite Socrates attempting to point flaws through his common use of questions, Thrasymachus refuses to budge from his initial statement: “...and therefore, as I said at first and now repeat, justice is the interest of the stronger.” Despite Socrates getting Thrasymachus to agree to statements that directly contradict this position, Thrasymachus makes every effort to not move from his spot. Thrasymachus is broken later on in the book, but this is only due to the fact that he is held hostage until he consents, at which point he becomes like Polemarchus and simply agrees to every assertion until he is allowed to leave. Much like Polemarchus’ lack of critical feedback, Thrasymachus refusing to cooperate leads to a dismantling of the productivity of the