THRASYMACHUS AND JUSTICE AS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE STRONGER Among the various challenges to Socrates’ philosophy, as documented in the Platonic dialogues, one that has resonated through the ages is that of Thrasymachus. The primary strength of Thrasymachus’ challenge to Socrates comes from the commonsensical nature of his argument. The idea that justice is the advantage of the stronger fits in the social experience. As reflected in the idiom, ‘might makes right,’ the idea that the strong decide what is just or get away easily when they commit an unjust act. Borrowing jargon from IR theory, Thrasymachus adopts a ‘social constructivist’ position.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
A person inherently has some sort of primitive worldview and code of personal ethics. Understanding, and in some cases coming to grips with, your worldview is important to understanding who you are and what you stand for in life. By knowing what makes you tick and why you act in certain ways is the first step on the journey to personal enlightenment and to creating a more secure sense of self and personal wellbeing. The following pages will establish the basis for my ethical worldview and discuss the development of my own ethical theory. Overview of Relevant Ethical Theories Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics was founded as it is known today by Plato and Aristotle, though
Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil. My motivation for presenting my own definition stems from my frustration in Thrasymachus’s inability to see justice as something much more than a form of legalism Thrasymachus starts his definition by stating that justice is the interest or advantage of the stronger (338c). Immediately after being questioned by Socrates on this definition, Thrasymachus quickly clarifies that the stronger are in-fact the rulers and that justice is in the interest of them alone (339a). Socrates forces the examination of this definition, and results in Thrasymachus then defining interests as the laws that rulers make (338e). From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b).
Explain the relationship between The Form of The Good and the other Forms (25 marks) Plato was a dualist and so he believed that there were two worlds: the unreal physical world and the spiritual world of The Forms. This view is portrayed throughout Plato’s theory of The Forms in which he suggests that the truth does not lie in the real world or our empirical knowledge but in fact the truth lies in our a priori knowledge. The Forms are eternal, unchanging and transcendent. The world is merely an imperfect copy of The Forms- The world of Particulars. In the platonic theory of Forms, there is a hierarchy of the Forms.
Actually, when Socrates talks about “human wisdom”, what he really means is recognizing and admitting one’s ignorance about not knowing, rather than one claiming to know. In the beginning of the text, right after Socrates mentions the sophists, he says “Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom .What kind of wisdom? It is perhaps such wisdom as could be called human wisdom, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I may be wise; whereas the persons of whom I was just speaking seem to have a sort of superhuman wisdom, for I don’t know how else to describe it, because I do not have it myself, and whoever says that I so speaks falsely and is attacking my character” (¶ 8). In this particular quote Socrates is speaking, he lacks in fully explaining the meaning of the “wisdom” the people of Athens speak on when referring to his reputation, this illustrates further that he knows nothing, which he states continuously throughout the text. Socrates then gives this word a new meaning when stating that instead of having just wisdom, it may be more politically correct to say “human wisdom”.
Plato’s definition of good is not the same as the good we define. By good, Plato means what someone most wants, the purpose of everything and what makes you good and want to be good. Plato believed everything exists for a purpose – that is its good. For Plato, good is eudaimonia and this is what we should be aiming for. It contains virtue, freedom, philosophy, happiness, beauty and courage.
Although the idea of social justice based in a social contract is mentioned in Plato's Republic and was known even earlier, the Republic's conception of individual justice is distinctively virtue ethical. To be sure, Plato understands individual justice on analogy with justice “writ large” in the state, but he views the state, or republic, as a kind of organism or beehive, and the justice of individuals is not thought of as primarily involving conformity to just institutions and laws. Rather, the just individual is someone whose soul is guided by a vision of the Good, someone in whom reason governs passion and ambition through such a vision. When, but only when, this is the case, is the soul harmonious, strong, beautiful, and healthy, and individual justice precisely consists in such a state of the soul. Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony.
How does he justify it? Look at their behavior recorded in Thucydides and Plutarch, what do you think of their leadership of the Athenians. government 119b Paper #3 government 119b Paper #3 In the lead up to the expedition of Sicily, the platform for discussion centers on the two main influences in Athens at this time, Nicias and Alcibiades. Their stances on the expedition will be in complete opposite of one another, and the outcome the same. In examining their speeches we can determine their positions and their ability to influence Athens.
In Book IV, Socrates “proves” the existence of the tripartite soul and its relationship to the tripartite city. His method is logical and clear, yet some problems arise when looking at his arguments through a modern lens. The boldest, and perhaps most problematic of Socrates’ statements in this argument is an assumption he makes before breaking the soul down into compartments. 1: Socrates is attempting to apply his deductions of what makes a city just to his current assertion that the same conditions make a man just. He says “a just man won’t differ at all from a just city in respect to the form of justice; rather he’ll be like the city” (435 b).