[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 286x400, thrasymachus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15635320 No.15635320 [Reply] [Original]

There were a million things Thrasymachus could have said to counter Socrates. What about physicians who only know medicine and fitness to improve themselves and not the public at large? Socrates seems to imply all doctors and physicians are selfless and noble.

>> No.15635412

If you're not selfless you can by definition not be the best doctor.

>> No.15635417

>>15635412
To be the best doctor you merely have to have knowledge of medicine and the body. Any moral judgments are irrelevant.

>> No.15635569

>>15635417
A doctor cures and alleviates successfully. If you do not do these things you're not a doctor, if you're not selfless you cannot do these things optimally, such as risk your own health to save thousands.

>> No.15635678

>>15635569
But WHO does a doctor cure? What if he only has interest in curing himself or only some people and not everyone?

>> No.15635698

>>15635320
Thrasymachus argued better than Socrates but i still sympathize with S

>> No.15635874

>>15635320
plato couldnt let thrasymachsu btfo socrate

>> No.15635899

>>15635417
That's absurd, a book would be a better doctor than a human if theoretical knowledge without praxis were the metric to judge a practical discipline such as medicine.

>> No.15635917

>>15635899
So a clueless doctor who never opened a book but was willing to treat everybody is a better doctor than someone who knows about medicine but chooses not to?

>> No.15636383
File: 48 KB, 553x640, asian_spaghetti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15636383

>>15635320
He is not speaking about empiric cases, anon. And you know that he is not speaking about empiric cases because he refuses to call the ruler the ruler when the ruler fails in judgement. They are talking about the essence of the arts.

>> No.15636958

>>15635678
If he only cures himself, then he is not a doctor just some guy with medical knowledge.

>> No.15636965

>>15635320
The purpose of a doctor is to treat patients, and this is what a good doctor does selflessly. A bad doctor does whatever, it isn't a matter of what some rando with medical knowledge does, but what is the correctness associated with being a doctor, and that is to treat patients. Similarly, a good statesman works selflessly to benefit the state, a rando with political power does not (and he speaks about this in the Republic when he discusses tyrants).

>> No.15636981

>>15635917
It is not either knowledge or application, but both which makes a doctor. A doctor both knows medicine and treats patients, not one or the other. A person who knows medicine but chooses not to practice it is not a doctor, and a person who treats patients without knowing any medicine is not a doctor either, in the same way a person cutting wood with a saw randomly isn't a carpenter.

>> No.15637904

>>15636981
You're changing definitions to suit your position. If you go to a medical school qnd study medicine you are a doctor. Also I doubt there is a doctor or horseman in the entire wprld who is completely selfless and altruistic.

>> No.15637927
File: 21 KB, 171x261, 198384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15637927

>>15635417
ASS

>> No.15637961

>>15636981
Also Thrasymachus seems to be arguing what is actually practical and successful while Socrates just gives his idea of what is morally best.

>> No.15638015

Imagine two guys with the exact same knowledge about medicine. One of them never does anything with it, the other cures people.
Don't you think it is rational to argue that the one that cures people is a better doctor?

>> No.15638029

>>15635320
>misreading Plato THIS much
Literally never gonna make it

>> No.15638564

>>15637904
I'm not the guy you were originally arguing with, but his definition was similar, knowledge without praxis means nothing, and I argue praxis without knowledge is similar. If you go to medical school and then work at a bar are you a doctor? or is it that you merely have medical knowledge?
Obviously no doctor or horseman or whatever is completely selfless, the point is that the best are, or when they are the best they are completely selfless, but by definition they must work for the benefit of others to be a doctor or horseman.
>>15637961
Thrasymachus argues for material success, whole Socrates argues for a spiritual form of success. Socrates' point is that what is morally best is the same as what is best in general. The best doctor will also be the morally best (inasmuch as he is a doctor). Whatever is good will be morally good.

>> No.15639758
File: 214 KB, 900x900, dumdum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15639758

>>15637904
>You're changing definitions to suit your position.

>> No.15639830

>>15637904
>a person who has been trained in medical science, whose job is to treat people who are ill or injured
>a person with a medical degree whose job is to treat people who are ill or hurt:
>The doctor prescribed some medication.
>You should see a doctor about that cough.

>> No.15639833

>>15638564
So a private doctor hired by a rich man to only treat himself is less of a doctor than a doctor who treats only those who can pay is less of a doctor than a doctor who treats anyone for free? That doesn't seem right to me, theyre all doctors knowledgeable in medicine and treating a broken body. And by that logic how could a doctor who only treats himself be less of a doctor than any of them?

>> No.15639858
File: 63 KB, 600x624, 48371233_2157729111135979_9173617701178834944_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15639858

>>15639833
he's a worse doctor
Unless the rich man is a philantropist, through which the doctor by healing him aids millions.
Or alternatively, by curing this rich man's disease he discovers new methods which advances the medical sciences.

>> No.15639906

>>15635320
Thrasymachus was supposed to be a raging retard helplessly fighting against Socrates's argumentation, highlighting the superiority of Socrates, Socrates's views, the stupidity of his opponents.

>> No.15639918

>>15635569
Define iatrogenic

>> No.15639922

>>15639858
So if a doctor who treats one rich man also happens to be the most knowledgeable, practically skillful doctor to ever live is he still a worse doctor than any other doctor who treats more people? I don't see how you could judge the goodness of a doctor at being a doctor and not place most weight on his skill and knowledge. Its easy to imagine that often the best doctors are the ones who treat the fewest people for money since they're able to leverage their skill and who would hire a doctor for a high price if he was not worth it?

>> No.15639930

>>15639906
no he's not, socrates never refutes him

>> No.15639932
File: 589 KB, 900x1280, 1575720158590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15639932

>>15635320
>There were a million things Thrasymachus could have said to counter Socrates

Now you're playing Plato's game. :3

>> No.15639933

is it me or are the socrates people socrates talks to always yes men who dare not call socrates out on his bullshit?

>> No.15639955

>>15639933
Yes they're all retarded except thrasymachus who btfo socrates

>> No.15639965

>>15639922
Is price truly indicative of quality here? What good are skill and knowledge if they aren't put to use, or are only used in a very limited way? A less knowledgeable doctor who cures more patients is obviously better

>> No.15639974

>>15639930
Exactly. He didn't have a strong counter, to the obvious and inevitable arguments, so he used a dumb, borderline comical character to deliver them, thus making them seem weaker.

>> No.15639989

>>15639974
he does sort of protray him as a reeeing sperg but then socrates never can refute the actual logic of the dialogue

>> No.15640005

>>15639965
Maybe he's a better person morally but he's not better at doctoring. A doctor of the highest quality is the best doctor regardless of the quantity of his patients.

>> No.15640008

>>15639989
Of course he does. Plato is a dishonest hack.

>> No.15640198

>>15640008
I'm beginning to get this impression reading through the republic

>> No.15640348

>>15640198
Read maybe 30 pages of the Republic and just dropped it for that reason.

>> No.15640351

>>15640198
It gets much better. The first few books are the weakest part of the Republic, they're more of an introduction to the actually good part, a reason or a justification for his later statements. But once Plato is done laying the rail for his train of thought he delivers a very interesting multi-layered work. Quite humorous, too.

>> No.15640497

>>15639933
Read Gorgias

>> No.15640508

>>15640348
Based retard

>> No.15640573

>>15639933
Callicles didn’t take his bullshit in Gorgias and would have BTFO Socrates if he didn’t have that retarded idea of uncontrolled self-indulgence

>> No.15640581

>>15639930
This is false. Trasymachus's issue comes from a confusion of the mixed empiric case and the true case of the essence of the art. He confuses them in the way that he considers the mixed case as the true case; so in his speech about the sheep-herders. But this would put him in the contradiction that Socrates points out (before Trasymachus clarifies that he is actually speaking of the essence of the art); if the mixed case is the true case, then the true case leads into lie just as readily as it leads into the truth; it contradicts itself. The rest of the speech is determining the essence of rulership, which Trasymachus falsely mixed with those determinations external to it.

This sort of thing is the reason I discourage people from reading Plato first. It takes a more trained eye.

>> No.15640884

>>15640581
>It takes a more trained eye
Plato isn't a hard place to start at, it's just that the people you're talking about are neoatheistic brainlets.

>> No.15640936

>>15639989
>implying that's relevant
Socrates isn't always right, intended to be.
This is why it's necessary to read stuff like Protagoras or the aporetic dialogues.
It's even rational to understand that there is no scientific proof to such a moral question. You can show that the virtuous society is the self-reportedly most happy and prosperous society, through virtuous like trust.
The Might-Makes-Right attitude is the long run a detriment to yourself.

>> No.15640947

>>15639918
Bad medical theory?
That word just proves the doctor who practices his knowledge knows more that the one who only studies theory, the doctor with experience is more likely to predict that X is actually harmful.

>> No.15640962

>>15639933
Read the shortest dialogue, and yes it is legit, Clitophon.

>> No.15640974

>>15635320
He probs just wanted to get his boipussy wrecked later

>> No.15640999

when Socrates talks about someone in a profession or from a type of class such as a man from a democracy I think he means a person who embodies the word to the fullest extent i.e in The Republic book IX he talks about "The Democratic Man" and describes him exactly as he should be if he truly lives by a democracy so I presume he means the same when talking about Doctors in this case

>> No.15641065

>>15640999
This is very explicitly stated. Trasymachus speaks something as "do you think I still call the ruler a ruler when he is mistaken?", because no one makes a mistake on account of having a skill, but on account of lacking it.
Trasymachus's mistake is in insisting on mixing external determinants which exist in empiric rulers with the essential case that he wishes to speak of.

>> No.15641094

>>15637904
>no true horseman

>> No.15641693

>>15639833
reread the beginning of the Republic, Socrates addresses these points. Money is not a matter of consideration here. A doctor is someone with medical knowledge who treats patients with the aim to restore their health. How much he makes is irrelevant to his ability as a doctor, but is as regards his ability as a wage-earner. The quality of his being a doctor is related to his selflessness as regards his patient, but his medical knowledge and practical ability are a different matter, and Plato argues experience is the best theory, so that one should put their trust in a doctor who has proven himself capable both privately and publicly, so that the doctor who treats the most people will have the most medical experience and in this way too be the best doctor. Bring a better or worse doctor has nothing to do with how much he's paid or how wealthy his patients are, my initial point was that a man is a doctor while practicing medicine, and so if he only treats few people he will literally be practicing medicine less often and thus in this way too be "less of a doctor". Knowledge alone isn't enough as I've argued previously. A doctor cannot treat himself often, and requires another doctor (for example if he broke his arms), and you or I can go read medical journals to change our habits to healthier ones. We have medical knowledge and we practice it on ourselves, but are we doctors?

>> No.15641794

>>15635320
>why didn't thrasymachus just [use more sophistry]
bait