Thrasymachus Essays

Compare and contrast Socrates' attitude about philosophy (Apology and Allegory of the Cave Readings) with the Good Brahmin's (Voltaire) attitude Introduction: Philosopher Socrates and Voltaire are forces whose attitudes about philosophy bear little resemblance in one aspect but differ in several aspects. Although Socrates had a distinct view of things pertaining to knowledge as well as Voltaire, comparing and contrasting the attitudes of these philosophers provide a unique opportunity to capture

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

Intro: (Thesis) Thrasymachus believes justice is having an advantage over another because of strength. Socrates soon brings out the fallacies in this argument by mentioning how rulers help their subjects, improve the art they specialize in, and how they should be reimbursed for the service they provide. Socrates successfully refutes Thrasymachus’ theory by bringing up these fallacies and showing that justice is not just the stronger surviving, there is a genuine good in people that prevents this

To begin, distinguishing justice as a virtue within the individual did not become set in stone until the first city, known as the “The Just City” was accomplished. Thrasymachus stated that, “Justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, pg. 15, 338c). He also said that anyone who establishes a rule often is more advantageous and therefore a more just person. However, Socrates disagrees with Thrsymachus saying that the people above should not necessarily be assumed just

Thrasymachus benefits from his own definition of justice, an opinion really, in that it allows Thrasymachus to see only part of the truth and go through his life with an unchanging view. It is in any person’s best interest to pursue an opinion that reinforces their own beliefs or validates choices that are beneficial to that individual. Since he can always point to commonly accepted examples of justice and injustice Thrasymachus can base his argument off of those examples and there will be few who

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

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

Within Plato’s Republic the ideal of Justice is greatly Debated, Socrates main conversationalist being Thrasymachus. In simplest terms Thrasymachus view on “justice” is that it is a “tool” for the most powerful. The powerful use “justice” in a way that allows them to keep power or gain power. Within Thrasymachus’ first argument he uses “justice” in the same regard as “laws”. Thrasymachus argues that a ruling group in all circumstances create laws that work with how they are operating as “a democracy

In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus presented several arguments in favor of the position that “Might makes right.” Presenting his first argument, he stated “Listen, then. I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger.” By the stronger, he meant the people who establish the rules in the country. Thrasymachus explained that any type of government, as it could be democracy or tyranny, has its own rules and the person who doesn’t obey to those rules will be considered unjust

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

Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where

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

Why Thrasymachus never agrees with Socrates I think that one reason that the Socrates and Thrasymachus talk past each other so much is that their views of justice are derived from their prior beliefs. Most of their prior beliefs are not explicitly discussed in the discussion – In fact, prior beliefs are usually left silent in debates, which causes misunderstanding when differing prior beliefs result in a difference in the beliefs being debated. Thrasymachus’ prior beliefs Although Thrasymachus

characters Polemarchus and Thrasymachus who hold two separate opinions on Justice. They both are made to give their own opinions on Justice by Socrates. Both standpoints accurately represent Justice in sirtain situations. The word justice can be represented in many ways because it holds a broad meaning. They are covering two completely different aspects of Justice. The first definition of Justice that is introduced Is by Thrasymachus. In the Republic, Thrasymachus and Polemarchus get into

Thrasymachus follows the principles of sophistry, an intellectual ideology that was most often related to the values of aristocratic warriors. Sophistry is also a term associated with fallacious reasoning and lack of moral consciousness. In The Republic, one of the sophists’ tenets was the framework of Thrasymachus’s notion of justice; this tenet concerns the relationship of what is according to nature and what is according to convention, or human custom (Duke). Unlike Sophocles, Thrasymachus

Thrasymachus’ View of the Nature of Justice In the Republic by Plato, Thrasymachus argues that justice is what the strongest define it as in order to benefit themselves. Thrasymachus is skeptical of commonly-held views of justice because he believes that a just person receives less and is unhappier than one who is unjust. According to Thrasymachus’ view, people should act unjustly, but have the reputation of one who is just. I agree partly with Thrasymachus’ view of justice because justice is often

allowed him “to tell the truth and pay one’s debts (331 b). But Socrates believes this is an inaccurate portrait of what justice is. The discussion that follows of the definition of justice is between the opposing views of Thrasymachus and Socrates. This paper will argue that Thrasymachus’ definition of justice is incoherent and invalid through the examination and explanation of Socrates’ rebuttals as well as the opposing arguments made by both men and provide commentary to support agreement or disagreement

Thrasymachus from Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli in his treatise, The Prince, take on the challenge to define justice and conclude that justice is nothing more than what power says it is. This idea is opposed by Aristotle who believes justice is independent of what the ruler says. In Politics, Aristotle argues that justice is truest in the form of a polity, which encompasses the virtues of commutative, retributive, and distributive justice. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice

In Book 1 of Plato 's Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus engage in a passionate, and often acrimonious, conversation regarding the relationship between a ruler and those he or she rules. Their conversation raises substantive questions about both the nature and purpose of government and the motivations and roles of those who govern. The following will address these questions by 1) explaining both Socrates ' and Thrasymachus ' understandings of the ruler-ruled relationship and 2) addressing the merits

In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on