The Republic

[Anonymous No.11152636]

Why does Thrasymachus define justice as "interest of the stronger" then all of a sudden speak of unjust men and just men in the traditional context of justice as something virtuous? For example, he says that unjust men will have more success than the just, but if you plug in his explicit definition of justice, his statement makes no sense.

Am I misunderstanding something here or is Plato trying to deceive us?

[Anonymous No.11152870]

>>11152636
Socrates rapes him after that, making him accept that just = being good, reasonable and unjust = bad, dumb

[Anonymous No.11152890]

>his statement makes no sense
He's a sophist: to argue under one definition in a sentence and another in the next, and getting paid to teach how to do that is their job description.
>Am I misunderstanding something here
If you don't like Thrasymachus' bullshit, Plato is your man.

[Anonymous No.11152895]

>>11152870
So then isn't it possible that Thrasymachus gave a correct definition of justice, but contradicted himself throughout Socrates' questions? Socrates makes him admit that justice is wisdom and good based on Thrasymachus's statement that isn't even based on his definition of justice, but the commonly held concept of justice as being "virtuous" or "fair." I just don't see how Socrates refuted his definition of justice.

[Anonymous No.11152971]

>>11152895
He thought that being unjust was smart, after Socrates made him accept that the just is smart instead, then he couldn't keep his proposition since unjust people aren't smart

[Anonymous No.11153041]

>>11152971
But if justice is really the interest of the stronger, then isn't injustice whatever opposes the interest of the stronger? So that whoever is the strongest is always just, and the weaker subjects are unjust when they oppose the stronger, and just when they obey? Socrates advocates that the just would never want an advantage over just, just as the wise never want more wisdom than other wise men, but in a society based on Thrasymachus's conception of justice, it's perfectly conceivable for law-abiding citizens to want to have advantages over other law-abiding citizens. So long as they are following the laws created by the stronger, they are equally just, but they can still legally gain advantages over the other. The just can also gain advantages over the unjust, and the unjust over the just and unjust. Sure, Thrasymachus could have defended himself better, but what would have Socrates have said otherwise?

[Anonymous No.11153079]

>>11152636

people that are unjust in our society are the ones that will benefit, that's what he's saying. as long as they're stronger our classification of them being "unjust" means nothing, because they are stronger.

spoiler alert: thrasymachus is right and socrates' "good" is a meme that only cucked spookers will ever believe in

[Anonymous No.11153170]

>>11153079
What do you mean by "stronger"? If someone is "stronger" then you surely don't mean that they have more muscles, for what meal is fit for an athlete wouldn't be fit for us. So by "stronger" what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11153396]

>>11152636
Plato depicts Thrasymachus as someone overwhelmed with a lust to win arguments, who often changes his position/tries to intimidate his foes in order to try to win: so it makes sense.

Also, unrelated, but I had a philosophy teacher in undergrad who said that the three opinions of justice in book 1 of republic correspond to the oppinions which are held by an unphilosophic person depending on their degree of stress.

Cephalus' position is that of the individual under no stress, Polemarchus under moderate stress, and Thrasymachus under extreme stress.

I thought it was an interesting idea.

[Anonymous No.11153653]

What is the justice concept of Plato btw?