Arguments On Thrasymachus 'Lear In Socrates'

1029 Words5 Pages
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 '. As seen, he 's still standing on his point of view regardless of his approval to Socrates 's argument. He just continues to give examples to support his view without any real purpose behind that. He opposes Socrates 's argument saying the injustice makes a good life and, moreover, craftsmen are actually interested in their selves and not their subject. Thrasymachus declares that shepherds fatten their sheep for own interest in mind, not the sheep (343b).…show more content…
However, we can find in his next objections aspects that may be controversial. Socrates begins saying that whether a just man would act to overcome another just man. Both had the same opinion that just man may consider it right to overcome an unjust man. Proceeding, what the unjust man will do is overcome and benefit from everyone and anyone. In this situation, Socrates would relate the unjust/just men with the craftsmen. In his application of craftsman analogy to this case, he tries to say that those trying to overcome men similar to them are considered to be bad craftsmen. He supports this by giving an example of doctors where he wouldn 't try to surpass another physician, instead would like to surpass the

More about Arguments On Thrasymachus 'Lear In Socrates'

Open Document