Bothered by Socrates’ logic, Thrasymachus presents a revised version of his previous argument. Thrasymachus says that injustice is stronger than justice and that it most definitely results in a happier life. The example he uses (of a powerful dictator who is made happy through injustice is a reference to his earlier example that justice is used to the advantage of the stronger). Thrasymachus has not greatly changed the principle of his argument, just using alternate examples. Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad.
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best. His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point. Socrates argues that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly. This argument consists of the following: 1. The function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else.
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
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.
According to Chambers (2009) his belief was that the strongest objection to rhetoric is not that appeals to passion over reason, but that it is nomological rather than dialogical (p.324). To further simplify, Plato was not opposed to people expressing themselves passionately but opposed one to illustrate the deliberation process through passion as a form of misguiding or redirected
Socrates applies this to just and unjust actions and refers to the not just life, but the good life. This does not have anything to do with the majority rule but with the one truth. (Crito,48a). Socrates agrees that if we can prove it is just to escape then he will. (Crito,48c.)
A. S. Ferguson (1922) suggests that the parable is indicative of how leaders “without a strong philosophical mind-set” manipulate the human population for their advantage. Thus, Plato bypasses Ferguson’s argument when he advocates the “philosopher-king” – the Aristocratic ruler. Surely, a “lawless” tyrant (Plato, 380 BCE) such as Gyges would be whiling to use propaganda in order to regulate the knowledge of a population. Famously, scientia potentia est -“knowledge is power” (Hobbes, 1651) – hence, by restricting the knowledge of a population one is eroding their power and protecting oneself (stated above). Rather ironically, in his description of “The Republic”, Plato describes the “old quarrel between philosophy and poetry”, leading to a total ban on the arts
In Plato’s dialogue Republic, Book X, the main topic discussed is what type of republic would produce the best people and the best way of life. By having this written in dialogue format, readers are given the ability to think, with the speakers, about these ideas being put forth. The main idea Socrates discusses and believes in is that art should be banned from the republic because it’s imagery is imitated, unreal, and by the end of the dialogue he calls it out to be the works of wizards. To understand Socrates ideas of this topic, we must first understand the classification of objects and producers. According to him, the three types of producers are gods, craftspeople, and imitators (artists).