NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... w on justice. But first Thrasymachus wants to be paid for his information. The young men, not wanting to be denied a good fight, agree to put up the money.
Like Polemarchus before him, Thrasymachus thinks that the notion of justice can be summed up in a few words. He says "the just is nothing else but the advantage of the stronger. " As is the philosopher's fashion, Socrates inquires into the meaning of Thrasymachus' definition. Thus begins a lively discussion, again exemplifying the Socratic method, on what is and is not to the advantage of the stronger. Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that the "stronger" are those who rule and establish law, and that being just is advantageous. But they disagree on to whom being just is advantageous. Is it to the just man himself?
Or is it to the ruler who determines what is and is not just? Thrasymachus puts forth an extreme form of the doctrine "might is right. " For him being just is obeying the laws of rulers. Further, he claims that rulers make laws for the purpose of increasing their own power and wealth. Just men, therefore, are weak and powerless in comparison to rulers. But Socrates soon has Thrasymachus agreeing that sometimes rulers make errors of judgment and that, in such circumstances, the rulers' advantage may be thwarted if their orders are obeyed.
Thrasymachus finds that he must qualify his claim: Rulers who make mistakes are not rulers, in the precise sense of the term. 2. At this point Thrasymachus unwittingly lets into the argument a thoroughly Socratic notion: Rulers of any kind- of states, of arts, of crafts- must be guided by knowledge. Rulers can be considered rulers only when they are performing their proper function. But what is their function? Is it not similar to the function of other useful arts? Doctors serve the sick; ship captains serve sailors; horse trainers serve horses.
Knowing how to serve well, Socrates implies, is the special knowledge of each profession. Rulers must know how to serve the interests of the entire state. Thus, like other professionals, rulers seek not their own advantage, but the advantage of those who need their help. 3. Flustered by the turn the discussion has taken, Thrasymachus insults Socrates (who, you can imagine, is smiling tolerantly, as one might smile at an angry, chastised child). Then he plunges into a speech, thinking, no doubt, that by drawing on his powers of persuasive rhetoric he can win the argument and the admiration of the attentive young men.
After all, Socrates' preceding argument was not an especially good one. But Thrasymachus' rhetoric does not help his cause. He makes a rather tactless comparison between shepherds who fatten sheep for their own appetites and rulers who fatten people for the same reason. And he raises a controversial issue that will guide much of the discussion of The Republic- the greatest happiness belongs to the wrongdoers (tyrants, for example), not to those who are wronged. 4.
Instead of immediately attacking this last statement, Socrates presents his belief that true rulers do not rule willingly. Again he compares the function of rulers to the functions of other professionals. He says that the aim of true rulers is to provide for the welfare of the state and that true rulers are more or less forced into leadership in order to avoid being ruled by people of less ability than themselves. Why should rulers want to rule? Is it not better to be provided for than to provide for others? Because leadership is such a demanding, often thankless task, rulers, like other craftsmen, deserve financial rewards for their services. - NOTE: In this section you should note the comparisons that Socrates introduces into the argument.
He compares the usefulness of rulers to the usefulness of doctors, merchants, ship captains, and horse breeders. This technique is sometimes called "argument from analogy. " Plato relies heavily on such arguments throughout The Republic. In part, Plato employs analogy to make the point that statesmanship is like any other useful art or craft because it takes special skill and knowledge. But also Plato uses argument from analogy to persuade you to accept his views. Thus argument from analogy is a technique of persuasive rhetoric. With all forms of persuasive rhetoric ("propaganda" is the pejorative word), you should maintain a critical outlook.
Comparisons of unlike things may be misleading, may be unfair and, more significantly, may cause you to accept as true a statement that is false. And yet arguments from analogy often - INJUSTICE IS MORE PROFITABLE THAN JUSTICE (347 e- 354 c) - Now Socrates turns to the question of whether justice is good or bad. Logically speaking, Socrates has misplaced priorities: He is trying to determine the value of justice before he has defined justice. But he wants to maintain the interest of his audience. Young men, he knows, often grow weary of prolonged analytical discussions. In the three stands of the following argument, Socrates attempts to refute Thrasymachus' claims that 1.
being unjust is wise and good (348 c- 350 c); 2. injustice is power (350 d- 352 c); and 3. the unjust are happier than the just (352 d- 354 c). - 1. Socrates wins the first point through a chain of complicated, if not incorrect, reasoning. Using argument from analogy, he compares the art of living well with the musician's art. The musician has knowledge of music and in this way is better than the unmusical person.
The musician, however, does not want to be superior to or "get the better" of others who share his knowledge; rather, he wants only to be superior to the unmusical person. The same is true of the just man; he wants to outdo the unjust man but not those of his kind, the just. On the other hand, the unjust man wants to be superior both to those like and unlike himself. The unjust man is incredibly selfish and seeks only his own advantage. Socrates says that people who are good and wise do not want to be superior to or get the better of those who are like themselves.
Thrasymachus agrees. Thus he is trapped into conceding that the unjust person cannot be good and wise. A strange argument, but a happy conclusion. 2. With little difficulty, and certainly with reasoning more comprehensible than in the preceding argument, Socrates shows that injustice cannot be power because there is no loyalty among the unjust, no honor among thieves. Thrasymachus has to agree, based on his earlier statements, that unjust people are immensely selfish and so do not readily band together to achieve common goals. Continual dissension and hostility create chaos, not the powerful achievement gained by people working together harmoniously. 3.
In the previous arguments Socrates demonstrated that justice is a virtue, a human excellence. He now has to show that human action in accordance with excellence brings happiness. Again Socrates uses analogies: The excellence of eyes is to see, of ears to hear. Excellence in these things, as in all others, means doing well in performing one's function. People who do well are blessed and happy. Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates's tate ments so far.
Then Socrates reminds him that he had earlier conceded that justice is an excellence of character. Therefore, it must follow that the just person is the happy person. Socrates concludes by summing up all three strands of the argument: Injustice is never more profitable than justice no matter how, dear Thrasymachus, you argue. Yet, although Thrasymachus has been soundly refuted, Socrates realizes that his argument is incomplete. The crucial issue- what is the nature of justice- has not been resolved. Justice is an excellence of human character and a source of happiness.
But knowing these things is just a beginning. What is the just life? More investigation is needed. And so, on to Book II.
Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: young men, unjust man, thrasymachus, rulers, socrates
Research essay sample on Unjust Man Young Men
