Rasul 1

Asaad Falah Rasul

Prof. Joy Samad

CIV 203

06 March 2021

Socrates’ debate with Thrasymachus about Justice

Justice is a concept that's been explored for hundreds of years. One of the earliest

documented discussion regarding justice is that of Ancient Greek philosopher Plato in "Plato’s

The Republic." Book I, of The Republic, puts forth two inquiries: What is Justice? Why should

we be just? Platos attempts to answer these question in discussion with his teacher, Socrates. The

participants take part in a Socratic exchange like that found in Plato's prior works. However he

offers no meaning of his own, and the conversation finishes in aporia, a conclusion where no

further advancement is conceivable and the conversationalists feel more uncertain of their

convictions than they had toward the beginning of the discussion. The Republic moves past this

standstill.

Plato, through the voices of some imperative characters, portrays several perspectives on

justice and virtue. Thrasymachus, the sophist is one of the most important characters introduced

in The Republic besides Cephalus, Polemarchus and some other more, Thrasymachus is a skilled

sophist who illuminates the art of persuasion. Since ever Sophists existed, they have been having

a bad reputation behind their names for their show of dishonesty and their teachings of deceptive

approaches of winning over anyone on an argument at any cost, and during this discourse, We

cannot overlook Thrasymachus’ sophistry that he holds while arguing against Socrates. As bold

as Thrasymachus’s perspectives were, they failed to shock Athenian people, nevertheless; they
 Rasul 2

were immensely debated on and Socrates foresaw this and often argued against these views of

his.

Both Socrates and Thrasymachus reject conventional ethical values based on what they

observe as rational. While they both view themselves as realistic and oppose the standard

foundation for a decent life, their subjective opinions upon the topic of justice are opposing in

several ways. It can be proposed that the opinions of Socrates and Thrasymachus on justice are

somewhat different from each other because of their subjective beliefs on how the city should

function and their perception of an ideal leader. After Socrates invalidates the central claims

regarding justice put forward by Cephalus and Polemarchus, Thrasymachus jumps into the

conversation replacing Polemarchus. Thrasymachus, as we're told, has been trying to interrupt

the debate this whole time, and ultimately reached a boiling point. As it happens, he furiously

rises out of his seat, effectively frightening Socrates and Polemarchus.  Thrasymachus accuses

Socrates of spouting nonsense and presses him to provide his own answer instead of just

constantly questioning other people's answers. Thrasymachus has no desire for Socrates

vagueness; he's set on receiving precise, specific definitions. 

Socrates was disturbed out by this violent interruption and confesses he was almost

speechless. However, he regains confidence and responds that if he and Polemarchus made a

mistake, it was completely unintentional; obviously, they both want to discover what justice

means. They're motivated- just incompetent- and they deserve pity from smart men like

Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus is not impressed. He laughs and accuses Socrates of being ironic

instead of, to all intents and purposes, answering the question. Thrasymachus takes issue with the

direction in which the discussion is head. He regards Socrates' questions as being tedious, and he
 Rasul 3

says, the professional teacher of argument that he is, that it is time to stop asking questions and to

provide some answers.

Socrates defends himself by saying that Thrasymachus made the questions impossible to

answer by limiting the ways he could answer. A person can only answer in the individual manner

they're accustomed to. Thrasymachus imagines Socrates will just do what he wants and answer

in his typical way. He then challenges Socrates: what will Socrates do if he, Thrasymachus, can

define justice in a better way than Socrates himself? Socrates says he'll happily learn from

Thrasymachus, but Thrasymachus wants money, which Socrates claims he doesn't have. Glaucon

steps in and says Socrates does have money, and they should proceed with the challenge.

Everyone else present will support Socrates, which Thrasymachus expects as it's typical of

Socrates's usual tricks. Socrates asks Thrasymachus whether he should assume he would able to

reply, since he never expressed having known anything; it is Thrasymachus who seems ready to

deliver a response. Socrates is famous for claiming that he doesn't know anything.

Thrasmymachus appears to behave as though he does not even want to respond, whereas

Socrates believes that he wishes to demonstrate how strong his response is. Thrasmymachus then

suspects Socrates of gaining knowledge from people he questions without educating anyone in

response. Socrates admits that he gains knowledge and insight from those he enters discussions

with, but opposes the notion that he returns nothing in exchange. He acknowledges he has no

money, but he reimburses fresh insight with explicit admiration.

Thrasymachus defines the just as simply the advantage of the stronger. He says Socrates

ought to praise him but knows he won't. But Socrates says that he knows that he does not know,

at this point, what justice is. What, he says, is Thrasymachus' definition of justice?
 Rasul 4

Thrasymachus jumps into the discussion as a "wild beast" "as if to tear [Socrates] apart." He

quickly insults the interlocutors and shows a high disdain for philosophy. He claims to know

what justice really is without having to go through all the "asinine" arguments, simply stating it

as "the interests of the stronger." He is clearly basing this view on simple observations of various

rulers of his time. After Socrates refutes this argument by using examples of doctors and captains

working for the benefit of their patients and sailors, respectively, Thrasymachus isn't too happy

about the way the argument is going. So he starts insulting Socrates.

Basically, he's like, "Socrates, you're a Grade A, gold-medal moron." Does Socrates

really think that, say, a shepherd is concerned only for the welfare of his sheep and not with the

food and clothing the sheep will provide him? On top of that (says Thrasymachus), anyone can

see that people who are truly just are actually much worse off than those who are unjust. The real

answer, Thrasymachus claims, is that justice is something that is to the advantage of other

people, while being unjust is something that is to your own advantage.

After this, Thrasymachus seems to want to "run away" from the argument as if there is

nothing more to discuss. But after Socrates tactfully refutes this argument and leads

Thrasymachus to finally agree that rulers rule for the benefit of the ruled, Thrasymachus blushes.

Though defeated on this point, he's not yet satisfied with Socrates' argument, and sticks by one of

his previously stated views which held that injustice is more profitable than justice. However, he

shrinks back and seems no longer able to speak for himself after Socrates refuted his argument

on justice. Despite his withdrawal from the argument throughout the rest of the Republic, his

early ideas help lead Socrates farther on his search for justice through the construction of a

hypothetical just city.

 Rasul 5

In describing the education of the guardians of this city, Socrates discusses the need for a

balance between gymnastics and poetry. He relates how too much gymnastics lead the spirited

part of someone to be overtightened and hard. "He'll be museless and hate discussion" explains

Socrates. This hardness and hate for discussion reminds us of the actions of Thrasymachus at the

beginning of the argument defining justice. Thrasymachus becomes an example of a "badly

tuned soul" that Socrates goes on to describe.