In Republic I, Thrasymachus violently disagreed with the outcome of Socrates' discussion with Polemarchus about justice. Demanding payment before speaking, he claims that "justice is the advantage of the stronger" (338c) and that "injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice'" (344c). Socrates counters by forcing him to admit that there is some standard of wise rule — Thrasymachus does claim to be able to teach such a thing — and then arguing that this suggests a standard of justice beyond the advantage of the stronger. The rest of the dialogue is occasioned by Glaucon's dissatisfaction with Socrates' refutation. — Plato on Thrasymachus
Thrasymachus realism — ChatteringMonkey
Interesting way to put it. Plato really couldn't fit into his picture Thrasymachus' portrayed psychopathy or sociopathy that pervades humanity instead of being guided by man's intelligence (nous) and strivings for eudaimonia. — Shawn
Thrasymachus or any realist would say that Plato is essentially doing the same thing, i.e. vying for (political) power with his philosphy, he just isn't as aware of it as they are. — ChatteringMonkey
Do you think this is true? — Shawn
Are you asking if that is what Plato said, what his view on it was. Or if what Plato said is true in reality, in how things play out? — ChatteringMonkey
Are you asking if that is what Plato said, what his view on it was. Or if what Plato said is true in reality, in how things play out?
— ChatteringMonkey
Well, I was only asking about your opinion about whether you think Plato was not accounting for the needs of the individual in Plato's Republic. — Shawn
there is one philosopher that stumped even Plato — Shawn
Regardless, do you believe that Thrasymachus has not been held in esteem by philosophers? — Shawn
These is for some an admiration, but I don't think that he has generally regarded as a philosopher. — Fooloso4
“Well,” said he, “do you see how many of us there are?”
“Of course I do.”
“Then,” said he, “you should either grow stronger than all of these men, or stay here.”
“Is there not another option?” said I. “Could we not persuade you that you should let us leave?”
“And would you be able to persuade us,” said he, “if we were not listening to you?”
“Not at all,” replied Glaucon.
(329c)It is like escaping from a raving and savage slave master.’
(354a)"In that case, will a soul ever carry out its own functions well, Thrasymachus, when deprived of its own particular excellence, or is that impossible?”
“It is impossible.”
“So, of necessity a bad soul exercises rule and care badly, and a good soul does all this well.”
“Of necessity.”
“Did we not agree that excellence of soul is justice, and badness is injustice?”
“Yes, we agreed.”
“Then the just soul, and the just man, will live well, while the unjust man will live badly.”
“So it appears,” said he, “according to your argument.”
“But someone who lives well is blessed and happy, while someone who does not is the opposite.”
“Of course.”
“In that case, the just person is happy, while the unjust is wretched.”
“Let it be so,” said he.
“But there is no profit in being wretched, but in being happy there is.”
“Of course.”
“Then, blessed Thrasymachus, injustice is never more profitable than justice.”
“Well, Socrates, let this be your feast for the festival of Bendis.”
It seems to me that Thrasymachus, with respect to what history can tell us, isn't entirely 'wrong.' — Shawn
I think it would be along the lines that the fight-to-the-death or submit scenario, that appears during the pursuit of recognition, changes both sides where the 'powerful', as such, confers power to the slave in spite of itself. — Paine
Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. — Shawn
I was thinking more in the context of personal freedom. — Paine
But I am also told that there is something about the results that will satisfy the need to violently oppose what is happening. — Paine
So, where does that differ from the view of community Plato put forward? — Paine
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.