A comparison of the unjust speech from The Clouds and the ideas of thrasymachus in book 1 of The Republic - Essay Example

A Comparison of the Unjust Speech from The Clouds and the ideas of Thrasymachus in Book of The Republic The argument of Just and Unjust in The Clouds, a comedy by Aristophanes culminates with Unjust apparently winning the day. In Book 1 of The Republic Thrasymachus claims that injustice, if on a grand enough scale, is stronger, freer and generally more powerful than justice. It thus seems that the two Greek works come to different conclusions regarding the efficacy and desirability of justice and injustice, although the details and manners in which they do so are contrasting. In the first book of The Republic, Thrasymachus Criticizes Socrates' claim that justice is an important good. Thrasymachus makes three main claims about the nature of justice: 1. Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (338c) 2. Justice is obedience to laws (339b) 3. Justice is nothing but the advantage of another (343c) (Plato 1991) Taking each in turn, the first argument suggests that Thrasymachus is a supporter of natural right, and thus claims that it is "just" (in natural terms) for the strong to rule over the weak. If this is the case, a consideration of the second argument reveals a tension and contradiction within Thrasymachus thinking. For it is rather unclear why somebody who always follows laws must always do what is in the interests of the politically stronger - unless one assumes that Thrasymachus is claiming that all laws are made in the interests of the strong, which he does not. The second argument casts Thrasymachus as something of a relativist who makes the simple argument that justice is nothing beyond obedience to existing laws. The third argument fits uneasily with the other two, because within it Thrasymachus is arguing that justice is not desirable because it leads to the advantage of another, and thus the disadvantage of the self. The self, according to Thrasymachus should look out for itself most of all. Once again, how obedience to either the powerful or to the law as written necessarily correlates with adherence to the other is not entirely clear. It can thus be stated that Thrasymachus loses the argument because the rationale and logic behind it are flawed. Moving to the argument between the Just and the Unjust in The Clouds, the first difference is that this is much longer, more complex, and Unjust uses rhetorical techniques that almost guarantee his victory. In the opening exchange between the two Unjust indulges in an important departure from the argument that Thrasymachus has used in The Republic. Instead of arguing about the nature of what justice "is" or "is not", the Unjust claims that he will defeat the Just in their argument through "arguing there is no such thing as justice" (1150) (Aristophanes 1993). Arguing that it does not exist is easier and more powerful than trying to define justice in a way that shows that it is unfair, impractical or immoral. Unjust tricks Just onto uncertain ground as he asks him ", well, if it does, where is it" to which Just replies, "with the gods", falling into the trap. Immediately Unjust retorts with "if Justice does exist, how come Zeus hasn't been destroyed for chaining up his father" Just has no answer to this, and has to resort to saying that what Unjust has just said makes him want to vomit. Essentially, in many ways, the argument is lost at this point, for if the stories of the Greek gods are to be taken literally, or even as metaphoric representations of the truth, they do seem to suggest that "Justice", in the sense envisioned by Just, does not in fact exist. In the legends of the Greek gods, starting with Zeus and going down the hierarchy, "justice" would seem to be defined by power, violence, envy, jealousy, caprice and sheer luck. It is not "justice" by any sense of the word. Unjust has asked an unanswerable question, a brilliant rhetorical technique, and Just knows it. The argument soon descends into verbal abuse, and the Chorus feel the need to interpose themselves to make the two sides more organized. Thus they suggest that "you present opposing arguments and then decide which school he should attend" (Aristophanes 1993) Immediately Unjust gives Just the first turn in the rhetorical competition, saying that "I'll grant him that right . . . once he's said his piece, I'll shoot it down with brand-new expressions and some fresh ideas" (Aristophanes 1993). Unjust gives Just the apparent advantage, but knows that in fact he has it because of his improvisational and tactical ability as has been shown in the earlier exchange. It is in a sense easier to shoot down a clear and cohesive argument for Unjust than to present one himself. But Just, logical and coherent as he is, is rather nave, and agrees to the arrangement. As if on cue Just paints a rather bland, bleak view of the "golden days" in which "children made no noise" and "groups of youngsters form the same part of town went in straight lines". The young are utterly obedient and live apparently loveless, barren lives of adherence to the law and customs. The problem that Just faces is that the world he paints is not very attractive, even while it may reflect the basic tenets of a "justice" that seems to relate to all three of the definitions of justice that Thrasymachus made in The Republic. However, the world that is thus produced is not exactly a very promising one. Unjust merely dismisses the argument of the Just with "antiquated rubbish", to which Just carries on dutifully explaining why it would be better if the men avoided wrapping "themselves in cloaks" and holding their shields over themselves to preserve their modesty, and to avoid running "off to dancing girls" and "shun the public baths". Just brings up all those aspects of 'modern' life that he wishes the men to avoid that are in fact the most attractive. This is hardly a good rhetorical device, and it is one that Unjust allows Just to continue with until he essentially has created enough rope to hand himself wiThrasymachus The Unjust makes odd interjections while the Just continues with his wishful thinking for when "you'll spend time in the gymnasium - your body will be sleek - in fine condition", as opposed to "hanging round the market" (Aristophanes 1993) and essentially having fun. Unlike Unjust, the character of Just believes so much in what he is saying that he does not take his 'audience' into account. This is one of the worst mistakes in rhetoric. Once Just has finished his argument, and the Chorus seem to be giving him the advantage within the contest of ideas, Unjust picks on what would appear to be a rather irrelevant detail of the Just's ideas and turn it to his advantage. Thus Just argued that young men should not take hot baths, and Unjust asks him who was the bravest man in history. The answer of course is Hercules, and Unjust immediately asks "where'd you ever see cold water in a bath of Hercules But who was a more manly man than him" Once again Unjust makes an argument that is based on the details of Just, and then uses a reduction ad absurdum rhetorical device to undercut the whole of Just's argument. Whether Hercules took cold or hot baths proves nothing about the efficacy and virtue of Just's vision of the world, but this does not matter, because Unjust seems to have undone his argument. Soon however, Unjust moves in a logical fashion through each of Just's main points, each time cutting off the edges of the logic and making the whole structure collapse. Thus he asks "where have you witnessed self-restraint bring any benefit to anyone" to which Just can only reply, rather pathetically, "Peleus won a sword for his restraint" (Aristophanes 1993), offering another gaping opening for Unjust to enter and destroy his argument. Ultimately it is the fact that the majority of the audience have "gigantic assholes" (Aristophanes 2003)(and thus that they live the life recommended by the Unjust) that gives the final nail to Just's coffin. Ultimately Unjust dominates, not because he has the better argument, but because he uses better rhetorical technique to appeal to the baser instincts and characteristics of the Chorus in particular and the audience in general. The Unjust wins the argument because he does not occur about the strict logic of his arguments, but rather the rhetorical flourishes and attractions of his language. He charms, while Thrasymachus lectures. That is why the former wins his debate and the latter loses. ______________________________________ Works Cited Aristophanes, The Clouds, Trans. Jeffrey Henderson. Focus Books, New York: 1993. Plato, The Republic. Trans. Allan Bloom, Harper Collins, New York: 1991. Read More