Marian Baena Torres

49345715 C
SEMINAR 1 – Plato

1) How does Thrasymacus understand justice? What arguments does Socrates use to refute Thrasymachus’
position?

Thrasymachus understands justice as what is good for the stronger. Thus, he goes on linking “the good for the
stronger” with a democracy, a tyranny and an autocracy, and saying that each government model has a ruler
power which builds up its own laws according to its own benefits, making what is “good for the stronger” (the
rulers) good for the citizens too, weather they like it or not.
Socrates refutes Thrasymachus’ opinion starting with his addition of “the stronger”. Thrasymachus has said that it
is just for the subjects to follow their rulers' laws, and has agreed with Socrates that as humans, these rulers make
mistakes enacting some of these laws, which means that they are against their own interests. Therefore, this
means that he agrees with the fact that the weaker must follow all the rulers’ laws, even though these laws are
not good for the rulers (“the strongest”), which tears down half of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice.
Further on the conversation, as Cleithopon and Polemarchus join in, Thrasymarchus is given the chance to change
his definition to justice being “what the stronger thinks is good for him, whether it really is good or not”.
Thrasymarchus refuses that and Socrates points out that this statement was implied when he agreed that rulers
can make mistakes. The first denies that and says that no one who practices a skill makes mistakes –a ruler is a
ruler, and so he doesn’t make mistakes, enacting laws within his best interests–, adding that those whose
knowledge fails them, aren’t currently using their skill, being “the rulers made a mistake” just a form of words.
Socrates deepens more into it, and disassembles Thrasymarchus’ opinion about the “good for the strongest”,
arguing that every skill or art thinks about what is good for the thing of which it is the art or skill, not for itself. In
the case that Thrasymarchus exposed before, there is no branch of knowledge which thinks about what is good for
the strongest, but only what is good for the weaker (under its control), as a doctor thinks about what is good for
the patient, not for himself. Once again, Thrasymarchus does not agree with that statement and assures that
rulers, in this case, are selfish and do not look after their subjects, just search for their own interests. He also
points out that Socrates’ point of view of justice is wrong because justice actually harms the weaker.
Thrasymachus’ goes on towards the idea that the just men will always end up worse than an unjust man and he
states that injustice is more free, powerful and more profitable than justice, making justice in fact what is good for
the strongest and injustice what is profitable and good for itself.
In order to refute this last opinion, Socrates makes him understand that a just man would try to undo only the
person unlike him, whereas an unjust man would try to outdo both the person like him and the one unlike him,
relating the just man as wise and good, and the unjust as bad an ignorant. Even if an unjust group of people
arranged some unjust movement, they must treat each other just, otherwise it would end up failing because it
creates factions and hatred and so injustice is not profitable. Finally, Thrasymachus has no arguments left.

2) For Glaucon, justice is a ‘consequential’ good. What does he mean?

Glaucon classifies justice into his third-fold of good, making it a consequential one. By this he means that we don’t
choose justice willingly but because we don’t want to suffer an injustice, meaning that we only embrace justice in
order to protect ourselves. At the same time, even though it can be unpleasant, it ends up being useful and
favorable for ourselves.

3) Why does Glaucon tell the story of Gyges?

The reason for Glaucon to tell the story of Gyges is basically the way to make Socrates understand that human
nature is selfish and greedy. In the story, Gyges’ ancestor was a shepherd and the day there was an earthquake he
 Marian Baena Torres
49345715 C
found a huge shallow horse made of bronze which held a corpse inside itself wearing a ring. He took the ring to
the shepherds’ meeting with the king, where he found out that by twisting the ring he could make himself
invisible. Gyges seduced the king’s wife and killed him, seizing power.
With this, Glaucon points out that even if two rings like this existed, no one believes there is a person that could
hold on and remain within the limits of justice when the opportunity to steal, sleep with whoever they liked, kill or
release people from prison exists. That would prove that no one is just willingly, but forced to be in order not to be
wronged, even though everyone believes injustice to be much more profitable individually. The way of unjust men
will always provide them with a better deal both with the gods and the men, than the just men’s way would.

4) According to Socrates, the guardians should be like watchdogs. What does he mean?

A watchdog, or a pedigree hound, has certain characteristics that makes them perfectly fitable for the guardian
role: physically talking, it possesses delicate senses, velocity in order to chase the prey and strength to fight it, as
well as courage. Mentally speaking, pedigree hounds are spirited and lively, which makes them rather fearless.
Even though the former description may seem impossible to find in a guardian, as we are comparing a guardian
and a watchdog, in the latter we can find that they respect and protect the ones they recognise and are offensive
towards the ones they don’t. It doesn’t matter that the ones that they recognise have already been cruel with
them and the new ones haven’t, it shall happen like this. Therefore, these qualities are not that unusual to be
found.

5) What, according to Socrates, does a ‘just’ city look like? Why is it just?

A “just” city as said by Socrates has to be as the following three elements: wise, courageous and self-disciplined.
First, it must be wise, as good decisions are the result of knowledge. The city that Socrates and Glaucon previously
built is presumed to be wise and contains different knowledge, but the one possessed by the guardians and found
in the rulers is which makes the decisions about the city as a whole.
Secondly, it is required to be courageous in the sense that it must preserve this bravery so that the instructions
that are given and the laws that are absorbed of what is to be feared will not be altered. Nor by pleasure, pain,
fear or desire.
Finally, it ought to be self-disciplined, meaning that it is a kind of harmony –both the city and the individual have a
better part and a worse part– that relies on the entire city. Self-discipline is then the deal about which of them
should rule.
This description of a city will be just because it is justice that grants power to these three elements in order to
exist and keeps them altogether and unaltered once they are settled. Justice, after all, is people’s possessions and
their use of these.

6) Why, according to Socrates, should individuals be just for the sake of being just?

According to Socrates, it is rational for individuals to be just for the sake of being just because it is not related with
the outer performance of a man’s own operation, but with his inner self and function. This forbids himself from
exercising other’s tasks –as it is said in the text, everyone must keep themselves to a single task–. Altogether, this
means that individuals must be their own rulers, mentors and friends, and so put their personal affairs in order.
This way, the three elements mentioned in the previous question will also be in harmony for the individuals,
creating an union. Individuals will then achieve to consider that a just and goos action is the one that will preserve
their wellbeing.