Telemachus And Socrates

In Plato’s Republic, Plato analyzes Socrates’ accounts about society, justice, and moralism. In an effort to answer two important questions—what is justice and why should we be just—Socrates engages in a dialogue with various individuals. Polemarchus and Cephalus each offer similar statements as to what they believe justice to be. Polemarchus states that justice is living up to your legal obligations: “to owe something good to their friends, never something bad” (332a). In a clever manner, Socrates refutes his friends by exposing possible contradictions within their arguments. For example, Socrates states “ justice is to give each what is appropriate to him” (332c), meaning that even though it is justified for someone to return a madman’s weapon

Frustrated by Socrates lack of a clear, precise definition of justice and his constant quarrel with others over their opinion of justice, Thrasymachus claims he has an explanation of justice “that is different from all these and better than any of them” (337c). Responding sarcastically, Socrates instructs Thrasymachus to share his definition of what he believes justice to be since he is a “wise fellow” (337b). Socrates analyzes each premise of Thrasymachus claim of justice and in the end provides many argumentations as to what he believes justice to be. Specifically, Socrates functionality argument challenges Thrasymachus’ claim of justice the best; however, editing the third premise of Socrates’ functionality argument can make his argument more sound, ultimately, refuting Thrasymachus’ claim of justice and

Thrasymachus point he is trying to get across to Socrates is the life of an unjust person better than that of a just person. In more depth of Thrasymachus’ theory, unjust people have a much stronger psychological egoism, which entails their unjust actions are aimed to satisfy their own self-interested desires, whether that is politically, physically, or monetarily. Their self-interested desires, adding onto Thrasymachus’s theory, are to receive power by any means necessary to become stronger over the weak. This theory suggests that there is no possible way for a just person to live well. A just person receiving his income in an honorable way will never be able to match the wealth and happiness of a person who stole. This will result in the just person living in misery, for his life can only exceed to the minimum standard of living. Just individuals serve for the stronger because they enable themselves to be stolen from which makes the unjust people stronger, and the just miserable. The reason why not all individuals commit crimes which are advantageous, is “not the fear of doing injustice but of suffering” (344c) the consequences of committing crimes. Injustice is more relevant to please individual desires to satisfy our psychological