Socrates And Thrasymachus In Plato's The Republic

Justice

In Plato’s The Republic, one argument that prevails, and that argument is “what is justice”? In this paper I will analyze the argument between Socrates and Thrasmachus in Book I Section III on the topic of justice. As Polemarchus concedes the argument to Socrates, Thrasymachus begins to criticize Socrates questions, and asks Socrates to answer them. This leads into Thrasymachus’s selfish definition of justice. Socrates attempts to disprove Thrasymachus’s argument with his statements, but due to irrelevant analogies and the inability to forge an antithesis, Socrates’ attempted refutation is unsuccessful.

The argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus calls out Socrates for just asking questions and not answering

For example, he talks about the kings in the city. He highlights the advantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus also entertains the idea of the cows and the shepherd, where the shepherd is looking to gain only something for himself. He doesn’t care about the cows.. Thrasymachus plays on the definition that an unjust person is much stronger and therefore he embodies a happier life. He’s happier just because he is more powerful. The opposition to this argument is that kings are not always happy. In 320 BC – 329 BC Artaxerxes V ruled as the self-proclaimed “King of Kings” over Persia. His life as a king started with assassination of his king, so he could take power. His tenure as king consisted of complete and total chaotic war. His reign was ended by his defeat. He ended by execution when his own army betrayed him and handed him over to Alexander the great. This is not a particularly happy life due to all of the chaos and events happening. His people were obviously not content with him as leader, or they wouldn’t have abandoned hm. Although I believe the argument to be wrong, Socrates does not disprove Thrasymachus’ s statements. Thrasymachus is a sophist, which means that he will argue, whether the argument is valid or not, just to win the argument. Due to this mindset of Thrasymachus, he is able to completely change his opinions and statements just to stump

He starts his new statements based on the prospect of mistaken rulers. Specifically how they do not act on their behalf. Socrates does this by asking “are the rulers in all cities infallible, or are they liable to error?” Thrasymachus, being a sophist, changes his earlier statement and answers by stating that rulers do have the capacity to make errors. Therefore, mistaken rulers may make laws and decisions that are damaging to themselves, and their people. At this point in the argument, Socrates might think he has rebutted his argument. At this point I believe the true argument is over. The main ideas of both characters have been exerted. All that is left is for Thrasymachus to scrounge together an irrelevant anti thesis to counter Socrates. The argument goes on as Thrasymachus is just trying to win the argument, and it truly goes on to show how much that Thrasymachus and Socrates do not like each other. Yet, as Thrasymachus is a professional rhetorician/sophist, he changes his view on mistaken rulers as he gives an example about a doctor who “makes an error in the treatment” and is no longer a doctor. In relation to a doctor, a ruler “never makes errors and unerringly decrees what is best for himself, and this his subjects must