Analysis of the Discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus from Republic Book 1 - Essay Example

Analysis of the discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus from Republic Book In The Republic Book Socrates and his friend Glaucon were returning home from a festival and compelled to divert their way to the house of Cephalus upon repeated requests by his son, Polemarchus who was extremely eager about being in the company of Socrates. The keenness of Polemarchus was evoked by the natural gift and power of Socrates to speak on different topics and his logic or reasoning behind his thinking. Initially, Socrates met Cephalus, father of Polemarchus and both of them engage in a conversation on aging. However, Cephalus had to leave suddenly for offering sacrifices and the conversation was taken over by his son. The discussion that began with aging, wealth and its acquisition took a different turn when Socrates starts speaking about justice and disproves the ideas of Polemarchus by citing several instances. During the course of the conversation with Polemarchus about justice, Thrasymachus, had made several attempts to challenge Socrates. As a matter of fact, Thrasymachus was extremely annoyed with Socrates’ definition and understanding of justice and was almost fuming, which is clearly unraveled in this line “he came at us like a wild beast seeking to devour us” (Plato, 188) His anger found a way in the very next moment when he blurted at all the men: “What folly, Socrates has taken possession of you all? And why sillybillies, do you knock under to one another? I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honor to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy” (Plato, 188) The manner in which Thrasymachus revolted towards the company was initiated by the attitude of Polemarchus who gives in to the reasoning and definition of justice as offered by Socrates. Thrasymachus intervened to offer a better definition of justice and accused Socrates of asking measly questions rather than seeking a definite answer for reaching a consensus. In reply to the antagonism and resentment of Thrasymachus, Socrates unveiled, in what the former stated as “ironical style”. This is succeeded by the speech of Socrates when he made a genuine attempt to pacify Thrasymachus by replying “do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth”. Thrasymachus’ idea is that justice is a dictum that favors those who are physically powerful and not those who follow it. He expanded his thoughts by saying that justice is a mere imposition on people and it does not make sense to remain just under any circumstances. The way in which Thrasymachus expressed his ideas intend to compel Socrates to validate or rationalize his definition and discussion of justice with Polemarchus rather than be shallow and phony about it. The attitude of Thrasymachus was very well expressed when he said: “Socrates will do as he always does – refuse to answer himself, but take and pull to pieces the answer of someone else.”(Plato 189) Therefore, the entry of Thrasymachus in this conversation clearly revealed that the discussion that was highlighting the exposure and knowledge of Socrates changed abruptly when Thrasymachus said: “But what if I give you an answer about justice other and better”. However, in reply to the insight and awareness of justice as pointed out by Thrasymachus, Socrates spoke out to make lawful intrusion when he said: “You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore, equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us?”(Plato 190) To this, Thrasymachus replied by saying that the notion expressed by Socrates intends to degrade and lower the argument on justice. The discussion that occurred between Thrasymachus and Socrates was most invigorating and revives or energizes the readers to a great extent as both try to counter each other although Thrasymachus was more aggressive while delivering his discourse on various subjects that were related to justice in one way or the other. It is undoubtedly true that the style adopted by Socrates revealed the versatility and preciseness of a man whose ideas can be described as settled and mellow as if they required no more explanations or justification particularly when those ideas were refuted by Thrasymachus vehemently. Hence when Thrasymachus tried to explain his idea about justice by quoting examples about different forms of government and the lawmakers who make laws and rules for their interest and punish those who defy them, they were being unjust: “laws, which are made by them for their interests, are the justice that they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of law, and unjust” (Plato 190). The reply of Socrates is filled with refined nuances as he listened to Thrasymachus with calmness and the change or distinction that brought a conspicuous change during the discussion was when Socrates mentioned that both of them have principally agreed that there was “some sort of interest” that is intertwined with the idea of justice although in the very next moment Socrates tend to change or alter the erroneous thinking of Thrasymachus expressed through the phrase “of the stronger”. The observations of Socrates that follow soon after are marvelous and strong, yet compassionate. The way in which the conversation progresses further leaves little doubt about the dexterity of Socrates when he intended to deliver with immense precision about justice. If this part of the discussion is considered carefully, Socrates expressed his belief that lawmakers did not cause grief to their subjects when they made mistakes while ordering something that was unjust in the true sense; rather it caused more harm to the people in authority or those who were described by Thrasymachus as unjust. The continued discussion on justice and injustice kept moving with a hint of steadiness and uniformity until the attitude of Thrasymachus gradually changed from aggressiveness to a state of composure as he stopped refuting the statements made by his opponent although his unwillingness or disinclination is still clear. At one point Socrates made this remark: “Thrasymachus made all these admissions, not fluently, as I repeat them, but with extreme reluctance; it was a hot summer’s day and the perspiration poured from him in torrents; and then I saw what I had never seen before, Thrasymachus blushing” (Plato 203-204). This moment can be described as historic, which was expressed in the most lucid manner by Socrates not just when he described the visible changes in the approach of Thrasymachus and said: “As we were now agreed that justice was virtue and wisdom, and injustice vice and ignorance” (Plato 204). It seems rather disbelieving that the hostility and belligerence of Thrasymachus reduced although only visibly as the power and proficiency of Socrates took over in the most delicate manner without being understated and insinuating in any manner. In fact, none of the arguments of Socrates could be denied by Thrasymachus until he opposed the former in a disagreeable mode; at the same time Socrates did not step back when he seemed to have convinced Thrasymachus about justice and injustice and said:”I am delighted Thrasymachus, to see you not only nodding assent and dissent, but making answers which are quite excellent” (Plato 204). With the conversation about justice proceeding without much opposition from Thrasymachus, he was compelled to speak about the outstanding abilities of Socrates to captivate his audience when he expressed: “Feast away in triumph, and take your fill of the argument; I will not oppose you, lest I should displease the company” (Plato 206). This comment is fascinating when compared with the initial behavior and anger of Thrasymachus during the discussion between Polemarchus and Socrates about the definition of justice that was eagerly sought after by Polemarchus. The most significant part of this argument about justice is the continuing transition from one subject to another, which was reasonable throughout and rational and successfully changes Thrasymachus’ mode of thinking as he crossed over to acceptance despite the fact that there was no clear hint about this as expressed by the man who opposed violently in the beginning. Thus, towards the end of their argument, Socrates was the speaker in effect and Thrasymachus a mere follower of his speech. When Socrates said: “Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than justice” (Plato 208), Thrasymachus replied: “Let this, Socrates, he said, be your entertainment at the Bendidea” (Plato 208). The expression of Thrasymachus is incongruous or paradoxical particularly because he was not able to speak towards the end and the admission of Socrates was charming and sharp as expressed in the finishing line: “And the result of whole discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy” (Plato 209). This remark of Socrates has perhaps broken the general myth about great people and their coherence without any hint of solemnity. References Plato, The Republic. 380 B.C. Greece. Rosen, Stanley, Plato’s Republic: A Study, New Haven, 2005. Read More