Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
Socrates allows Thrasymachus to entertain his ideas in a public setting, but questions his position on the fallibility and infallibility of rulers. Thrasymachus is in favor of the strong ruling as opposed to the weak, while Socrates believes that those with the proper knowledge and capabilities should rule over the general population. Through asking the correct questions, Socrates was able to deconstruct the argument that Thrasymachus believed was untouchable. Thrasymachus could have answered Socrates in a more successful way by putting more thought into his answers, and by treating Socrates with more respect. Due to Thrasymachus’ incapability of completing the aforementioned, Socrates has the stronger argument because he demonstrates that
By comparing himself to them he says that he does not have any interest in corrupting youth, because money are meaningless. Furthermore, Socrates asked audience to prove his corruption, but there was no one who could gave any examples (33d-34b). Socrates was a victim of society, who did not understand the idea of education by questioning. To conclude with, Socrates was not liked among citizens, because he used his knowledge to show the weaknesses and simplicity of peoples thinking and their vanity of life. His all accusations were related to the issues of morality which never was defined by one explanation.
In the Republic, Thrasymachus has rather compelling definition of justice. He says that it is “...nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” From this definition Thrasymachus constructs a corollary: the stronger use injustice so injustice itself is more powerful than justice. Is justice simply whatever the current rulers decide it should be, whether in a democratic, tyrannical or oligarchical system? Or is there something more to it, as Socrates argues? One of the potentially faulty arguments Socrates uses to ponder Thrasymachus’ definition of justice involves considering injustice within a single person.
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) In other words, one should never do an injustice. And likewise, “one should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.”(49d) It is from this argument that Socrates outlines why he must not escape, for it would be to wrong the city that made him.
Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent. The system is not just if people do not focus on the evidence, but rather, they focus on their opinions on the defendant. If the system is not just, then the conclusion is not just. Therefore, Socrates should not accept the conclusions of trial with jurors that did not follow the rules of
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.
In this paper, I argue Socrates's statement is stronger than Jeremiah's in almost every aspect and provide the justification for this claim. In the Apology, Socrates is put on trial and ultimately found guilty of two charges: (1) corruption of the youth, and (2)
Socrates last speech Socrates was one of the greatest ancient Athenian philosopher and one of the founders of Western philosophy; he was very famous for creating an argument about ethical concepts and questioning about supernatural powers. Most of Socrates works was collected and wrote by his students like Plato. Socrates was put on a trial as he was charged by his accusers because he was responsible for corrupting the youth. Plus, his impious acts because he does not believe in the gods that the city acknowledges as he introduced new deities and new ideas about gods. During the trial Socrates divided the audience into two groups his accusers and his supporters, and he said different words for each of them.
And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city. 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.