The Plato Republic - Essay Example

ID: Plato Republic Introduction The Republic is widely taught andpopular of Plato’s writings. In this study the three arguments posed by Thrasymachus and Socrates would be thoroughly analyzed. These arguments are centered towards justice. Thrasymachus and Socrates have distinct definition about justice. Socrates clearly defines justice to be of intrinsic good whereas Thrasymachus states it is exploited by the stronger party. According to Thrasymachus, justice belongs to those individuals who possess power. Individuals having power frame laws and weaker section of the society need to follow such laws. On the contrary, Socrates even denotes bad laws to be structured by rulers. These laws are bad since they are not well aligned with motives of the ruler. This study would outline more arguments between Thrasymachus and Socrates, along with an appropriate objection. Thrasymachus and Socrates basically possessed dislike towards one another and this resulted into such an argument. There exists a major difference in context of construction of justice. Discussion Analysis of three arguments Socrates traditionally held the view that Justice is an important good. Thrasymachus objects this view held by Socrates. He states that injustice, if it is held on a larger scale, is stronger more masterly and freer than justice. Thrasymachus also states that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Over the course of proving his claim Thrasymachus provides three arguments to counter Socrates. In providing the 1st argument against these claims held by Socrates, Thrasymachus states that justice should not be considered as a vice however; in his view, justice is nothing but high minded simplicity. According to Thrasymachus on the contrary to justice, injustice cannot be said as low minded but just having a better judgment. According to Thrasymachus injustice is not a better virtue but is more profitable. As an example he states of someone who brings a complete city or nation under his control and thus commits a complete unjust act that just benefits him. Socrates in his arguments objects to the fact that rulers are bound to make mistakes. Thrasymachus on the contrary states that the man who makes a mistake while ruling cannot be termed as a ruler. In order to prove this point Thrasymachus introduces the analogy of craftsman. By introducing the analogy of the craftsman Thrasymachus is thus able to avoid the trap that was set by Socrates by introducing the analogy of the craftsman. Thrasymachus highlighted that justice is closely knitted with power. This argument was further extended upon by Thrasymachus through incorporating the approach of injustice. Thrasymachus tends to protect his previous argument by stating injustice is stronger compared to justice. Socrates disagrees with this concept of Thrasymachus. As per Socrates, it is injustice if a powerful city attacks a weaker region. On the other hand, Socrates even argues about strength acquired by a city would be on the basis of injustice or justice. Thrasymachus replies by outlining injustice to be a source of such strength. However, Socrates does not agree with this statement. According to Socrates, a successful group needs to work in collaboration with one another. Injustice would divert mindset of group members. Justice is the central component of success and this proves views of Thrasymachus to be totally contradictory. Co-operation within a group is adversely affected by the act of injustice. When there is lack of co-operation, no group member shall be aligned with a common goal or interest. This aspect is also true in individual context. If individuals are highly determined to adopt the path of injustice then it would restrict them to exhibit any productive or constructive work (Plato and Grube 134). This entire argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates were inclined towards denoting injustice as an essential factor. There was a shift of argument from justice to injustice. Thrasymachus raised the argument of injustice in order to support his previous opinion regarding power and justice. The approach of injustice is not applicable in most cases because it exploits thinking process of an individual or team member. On the contrary, power at times is strongly associated with injustice towards weaker section. In such scenario, argument of Thrasymachus proves to be correct because success in this case is achieved through performing injustice towards others. Thrasymachus has stated an easy definition of justice in the first argument. Socrates promptly replies in order to know whether such understanding is accurate or not. A negative reply is obtained from Thrasymachus because he thinks that rulers have an advantage over others. The craftsman analogy in the first place works in favor of Thrasymachus. However a new objection is framed by Socrates so as to counteract the statement passed by Thrasymachus. Socrates clearly asserts that – arts are more benefit for subjects in comparison to artisan. Doctors utilize their medical art in order to benefit their patient. Thrasymachus compares ruling with art, and he even indicates that it is beneficial for subjects. All the points outlined by Socrates are assented by Thrasymachus. At the later stage, Thrasymachus is observed to reject probable conclusion from these arguments. The second argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates is extended into the third argument. In this argument entire focus is on the best living conditions. Socrates poses an argument about certain functions constituted by certain things only. For instance, function of sight is exhibited only by eyes. Thrasymachus believes in the concept of certain things encompasses specific functions. He states that such functions are performed best by these particular things. Socrates next statement was considering function and virtue. He outlines whether function and virtue are specific to a particular thing. For example, any particular aspect which increases efficiency level of eyes was another question asked by Socrates during the argument. His main point of argument was function along with virtue is essential for any kind of object. Thrasymachus is not observed to raise any argument against this statement; even he believes that virtue is an essential factor in overall functioning of an object. Socrates then applies this concept on soul (Plato and Grube 39). He asks whether there is some kind of function being performed by soul as well. This function is actually related to function of living. Thrasymachus is also observed to agree with this point on function of soul. On the basis of this discussion, it is clearly evident that justice is considered to be virtue of a soul. If a soul’s function directs the way of living then it has to be in a just way (Plato and Grube 38). This contradicts the argument of Thrasymachus which indicates injustice gives success and power. Just man shall significantly have a greater degree of virtuous soul in comparison to an unjust man. A longer and happier life is lived by those individuals who opt for the path of justice. In context of soul, justice is highly profitable. Just things are usually good for soul and this to great extent is supported by both Socrates and Thrasymachus. Socrates uses craftsman analogy so as to further illustrate his situation. He denotes bad craftsman as those who tries to overreach their desires. In the first place, analogy is appropriate since a just craftsman cannot succeed far in their career path and he needs to adopt unjust path to outperform others. Socrates clearly claims that an unjust man is weak and ignorant. Craftsman analogy in the first place is used in relation to ruling which has been agreed upon by Thrasymachus. On the contrary, the analogy in the later phase shifts towards justice. When there is a switch, Thrasymachus did not agree upon the new statement. Thus analogy is not associated with common aspect after such switch. Justice is more related to acting rather than being related to craft. Socrates is witnessed to shift from the common ground of discussion. Objection After studying the arguments by Thrasymachus and Socrates it is clear that there is a marked difference in the use of craftsman analogy. When Thrasymachus initially used the crafts man analogy he used it in order to refer to the craft of ruling. However Socrates switched the definition of the word and used it in order to refer to the act of justice. Thrasymachus however does not agree to this switch that is made by Socrates. Thrasynachus initially agreed to the use of the subject of ruling and thus it was in the common ground and the efficacies of the arguments were valid. However, when the switch in the subject is made by Socrates it can be said that the argument no longer rests on the common ground and thus the efficacy of the arguments is questionable. Till the time the aim of Socrates was to try and illustrate the illogicalities within the position of Thrasymachus. However, in the last argument that is provided by Socrates, he does not base his arguments on these guides. He preserves the form of the analogy but changes the subject of the argument. Thus the argument by Socrates is of questionable efficacy. It is not clear in these claims as to why someone who follows the regulations of the laws must always act in such a way that benefits someone who is politically stronger or in other words it is not clear as to why a person should act in the interest of others. There is one group of scholars who tell that the 1st claim that is justice actually is meant for the advantage of the stronger is the central theme of the claim. According this view, Thrasymachus is actually an advocate of the natural law that in the nature the strong rules over the weak. Another group of scholars who states that the second claim is the actual or the central element of the claims provided by Thrasymachus. In the second claim Thrasymachus states that justice is nothing but the mere obedience to the laws. According to these group of scholars Thrasymachus is a relativist who states that justice is nothing beyond the obedience to the laws. The third group of scholars who states the importance of third claim as the central theme. The third claim states that Justice is actually creating advantage for another. This group of Scholars views Thrasymachus as an ethical thinker rather than being a political theorist. There is another group of scholars who view Thrasymachus as an ethical nihilist who does not believe in the fact that justice does exist. There are also a group of scholars who find Thrasymachus as a confused thinker. According to them there are different criteria of justice that are advanced by Thrasymachus without appreciating the fact that these different ideas do not coincide. However, Reeves argues that the conversation that takes place in between Socrates and Thrasymachus illustrates the point that the questioning that is provided by Socrates is of no benefit to a person like Thrasymachus who denies the fact that justice is a virtue. This is the reason that led Plato to modify ethical principles of Socrates in the other books of the republic by Plato (Reeve 19-24). Conclusion Socrates and Thrasymachus had different views in regards to the justice. In the view of Socrates Justice is defined as intrinsic good in the view of Thrasymachus Justice is a very different arena. Thrasymachus defines justice as a thing that is exploited by the stronger parties. According to Thrasymachus justice is just man made term and the rule of the nature is always more subtle and important. There have been several criticisms of the claims extended by Thrasymachus but the claims actually provided the basis on which future books of Republic by Plato were modified. Works Cited Plato, and George, Grube. Republic (Grube Edition). Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing. 1992. Print. Reeve, CDC. Philosopher kings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. 2006. Print. Read More