Injustice In Socrates 'Thrasymachus'

912 Words4 Pages
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
Open Document