ipl-logo

Injustice In Socrates 'Thrasymachus'

912 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Socrates' response to thrasymachus in the republic book 1

Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that justice is virtue and wisdom but, it is argued that this conclusion is a weak argument. The discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus can be separated into understanding why Thrasymachus believes injustice is wiser, than what the nature of both a just person and an unjust person is, and then knowing what the nature of those who are knowledgeable is. By applying the division fallacy and the no-sequitur fallacy it will be proven that Socrates conclusion is weak. Socrates argument, and thus his conclusion, is weak by applying formal logical. The claim that justice is wiser than injustice is derived from Socrates dispelling Thrasymachus’ claim. Originally Thrasymachus asserts that complete injustice is …show more content…

The way Socrates introduces knowledge is akin to the division fallacy. By defining that a knowledgeable person outdoes their opposites and not their likes; as well as agreeing that just people are the same is a wide jump. By assuming that the former is true, were lead to believe that the latter is also true. Though both are similar, we are guided to the conclusion that because both are similar, and that because what is right for one part it must logically be valid that it is right for all parts. This is logically …show more content…

Knowledge is both good and clever, and per Socrates, because both knowledge and justice are the same in one regard they are the same in being both good and clever. Though Socrates and Thrasymachus agree to this it can be stated that the division fallacy and the no-sequitur fallacies were made. By closing that what’s right about one part of Socrates argument, it must be applied to all that are of the like. Moreover, though its agreed that both the premises are true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Applying these formal logic, it is affirmed that Socrates’ argument for justice being wiser than injustice is

Show More
Related
1740 Words | 7 Pages

Aristophanes shows that Socrates teaches those who are not innocent to have unjust arguments using false claims. Strepsiades enrolls his son into Socrates' school so that he can learn these skills and win the case with his creditors. When the “unjust argument” and “just argument” argue,

Read More
643 Words | 3 Pages

In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.

Read More
2106 Words | 9 Pages

Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,

Read More
732 Words | 3 Pages

Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of

Read More
1280 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates & Snowden Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it.

Read More
370 Words | 2 Pages

Socrates thought that the discussion on justice had finished when he adequately answered Thrasymachus’argument, but Glaucon is not satisfied with the conclusion and adds his opinion to the conversation. Glaucon states that all goods can be separated into three classes: things people desire simply for its own sake, such as physical training and medical treatment; things people desire both for its own sake and because we get something out of it, such as happiness; the last class is the things we desire people like only because we get something out of it such as, knowledge and health. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that justice falls in the third class because we want something out of it. Glaucon states that most people place justice in the first

Read More
1314 Words | 6 Pages

His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for

Read More
1382 Words | 6 Pages

Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

According to Socrates there are two types of justice, the political justice and the justice of a particular man. As we know, city is bigger than a man. Socrates believes that it is easier to find justice at the political level which means in the city, thus he tries to define a just city from scrap, and will see in which stage justice enters. Also, Socrates tries to find justice in the city before finding justice in the individuals because individuals are not at all self-sufficient. We humans have similar needs such as food, clothing and shelter and in order to accomplish these goals human beings form unions, where each and every individual specializes in a field.

Read More
912 Words | 4 Pages

Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.

Read More
599 Words | 3 Pages

In the “The Republic” by Plato, Socrates is debating the matter of Justice and what it is in their society. This discussion is brought up when Socrates meets Polemarchus’ aged father Cephalus, who says that wealth wards off god’s wrath once he commits an act of injustice. Socrates then begins to bring up a thought provoking question based off of this opinion. If justice is nothing more than to speak the truth and pay off debts, then are there no other exceptions? Socrates asks “that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him?

Read More
943 Words | 4 Pages

In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

Read More
832 Words | 4 Pages

I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.

Read More
1151 Words | 5 Pages

In “Plato’s Gorgias” Socrates debates with fellow philosophers, Polus, Callicles, Chaerephon and Gorgias, of ancient Greece over rhetoric, justice, and power. During these debates, Socrates makes a claim to Polus that it is better to suffer injustices rather than to commit injustice because the positive and negative consequences that come along with committing and suffering injustices. This claim by Socrates that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice is pretty easy to comprehend once all the parts are analyzed. At first, this idea seems crazy that it is actually beneficial to suffer injustice and wrong-doing.

Read More

More about Injustice In Socrates 'Thrasymachus'

Related Topics

Open Document