Thrasymachus Socrates Analysis

When engaged in conversation with Thrasymachus Socrates uses the “Socratic Method” in a different way then he did with Polemarchus and Glaucon, but this does not take away from the Socratic method. Thrasymachus argues that Justice is not universally beneficial. This is in part due to his role as an immoralist whose belief is that it is better to look out for your own interest then to follow the rules of right or wrong. Justice, he says, is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger (15). This definition is not imposed as an explanation; rather it is a delegitimization of justice. Justice, as Thrasymachus believes, is a convention that is imposed on us, and is not beneficial to adhere to. The Socratic method of inquiry is appropriate in investigating concepts such as justice. This is effectively put to use in book one through

In Thrasymachus view, life is seen a competition to acquire more goods, more power, and more money, and whoever acquires the most of these resources has the greatest amount of virtue (16). Socrates then employs the craftsman model to prove that all arts are implemented with an ideal view, which pertains to the benefit of the subject rather than to the benefit of the artisan (24). The doctor employs his medical art for the betterment of the patient; the pilot navigates for the safety of the ship and the sailors (27). This proves that ruling is an art, which is exercised with a view to the subjects’ benefit. Injustice therefore cannot be a virtue because it is contrary to wisdom, and wisdom is understood as a virtue. Injustice is contrary to wisdom because the wise man, the man who is skilled in some art, never seeks to beat out those who possess the same art (29). The mathematician, for instance, is not in competition with other mathematicians. Therefore, wisdom is a virtue and injustice is a good that works together synonymously