Importance of Thrasymachus

Farah Rafi

Short Essay 1

The main purpose of the Republic of Plato is to discuss the argument of why justice is better than injustice. It is interesting that the first book of the Republic of Plato can be considered a stand-alone known as the Thrasymachus. Book One offers several different possible definitions to the concept of justice, such as giving back what one is owed (331d) and doing good to friends and harm to enemies (332d). But it is the definition that Thrasymachus gives that haunts the rest of the dialogue, the one that Plato seems eager to answer and also the most personal. Why is it that Plato chose the arrogant, hot-headed Thrasymachus to lay to foundation for Glaucon and Adeimantus to challenge Socrates in the following book? In my opinion, Thrasymachus is one of the main targets of the argument that Socrates/Plato makes because he manifests the iniquities of those who are unwilling to rectify their own ignorance, particularly in the realm of politics, which is one of the reasons why a philosopher was found guilty of injustice.

            When Thrasymachus presents his argument of justice, his definition remains purely in the realm of politics. One of Plato’s main reasons for writing the Republic was to determine at what point democracy becomes so corrupt that a philosopher can be found guilty of injustice. Thrasymachus is the only one who does not back down from Socrates, instead choosing to fire with the blank gun that is ignorance rather than admitting defeat and learning from his mistakes. According to Thrasymachus, justice is the advantage of the stronger (338c). It can be assumed then that injustice is the disadvantage of the stronger. This definition identifies a relationship between the ruler (the stronger) and the citizens by saying that whatever the ruler wills advantageous, the citizens will be just by following them, essentially in the form of laws. As Socrates cleverly points out, Thrasymachus failed to take into account the potentially fallibility of the rulers, stating that according to this definition, the existence of justice in a citizen depends solely on the ruler’s ability to discern what is advantageous to him or her (339c-d). Thrasymachus basically presented two separate forms of justice in this single definition; one that pertains to the citizens who can be seen as just by following the laws (the will of the ruler) and another that concerns the ruler who must know what is in his or her best interests otherwise the citizens cannot be just. But while Socrates is the one who foiled Thrasymachus’ boldness, it was Socrates himself that actually succeeded in presenting and defending this very claim in one of Plato’s earlier dialogues.

            The trial and execution of Socrates no doubt had a big impact on Plato and evidence can be seen all throughout the Republic. And in rare cases, Plato can be caught taking from some of his previous dialogues. The Crito was a dialogue that presented the question of injustice and whether or not injustice can be used against itself. In this dialogue, Socrates challenges his friend Crito, who has come to convince him to escape his execution, to present an argument as to why his escape from prison would be unjust even though his detainment could be seen as unjust as well. One of the most remarkable aspects of the dialogue was the personification of the Laws of Athens, which Socrates uses to make his argument. He presents what he believes the Laws would say about his potential escape, stating that it was the Laws that educated and nurtured him from a young age and that he was free to leave Athens at any time before his arrest (51d). Ultimately, the Laws ask the question of whether or not it would be just to disobey the laws even if the laws themselves are unjust (51e). The Laws never once claimed to be just in themselves, however, disobeying the laws results in the act of injustice even if the laws are unjust. Doesn’t this argument sound familiar? This is the flaw that Socrates points out in Thrasymachus’ definition with the justice of the citizen. Thrasymachus let his pride get in the way and as a result he lost to Socrates when he pointed out that a citizen could be unjust even by obeying a law if it is not in the advantage of the ruler (339d). Had he taken up the voice of the Laws and questioned whether the act of disobeying a law, even if the law was unjust, would be seen as injustice, he could have saved his point. Instead he chose to stand by his argument, claiming that a ruler is only ruler if he or she makes no mistakes (341a). At least the Laws were not above admitting their faults.

            Unlike the Laws that Socrates personifies in the Crito, Thrasymachus is not so easily willing to admit that he is mistaken. One of the main points that Plato emphasizes much in the dialogue is the importance of education and understanding of philosophy (376b). For him, it is important that a philosopher be the ruler of the just city as the philosopher is more inclined to seek truth for itself rather than for the sake of winning an argument, in other words for selfish reasons. Glaucon and Adeimantus were willing to listen to Socrates, setting up the challenge to learn from him and to see what he had to say. This idea of understanding is very important for Plato. For him, the art of ruling a city justly lies in the heart of philosophy, a ruler with a love of wisdom. Wisdom, as one of his virtues, is simply the knowledge of what is beneficial to the city and what is good for the soul(428d). Socrates essentially took Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, flipped it around and presented it as the definition of wisdom, with Thrasymachus’ perfect rulers in the most “precise sense” being translated into the philosopher kings. Instead of it being the advantage of the stronger, it is the knowledge of what is advantageous to the city. The potential lack of knowledge in the ruler of Thrasymachus’ argument in not knowing what is advantageous to him or her is the hole that Socrates pokes in the argument and it seems that two books later, he has taken it upon himself to fix what Thrasymachus was too conceited to acknowledge. This may have been Socrates’ clever attempt to inform Thrasymachus that he clearly lacks the wisdom and understanding of what justice is, or wisdom for that matter.

            Thrasymachus plays a very important role in setting up the rest of the Republic of Plato. Unlike the other definitions of justice presented in Book 1, Thrasymachus declared the definition of justice as seen in the realm of politics, one that claimed that justice is whatever is advantageous to the ruler. It is clear that he lacks the knowledge of what justice is but more so, rejects the opportunity to understand what the real justice is. He presents a relationship between ruler and citizens similar to the Laws in the Crito, where the justness of a citizen seems to be dependent on obedience to the will of the ruler/the law of the land. But instead of admitting fault, Thrasymachus attempts to clarify that his “rulers” are rulers in the most “precise sense”, who lack fallibility because they are perfect at what they do. Although his dialogue ends in Book 1, Plato/Socrates does not waste the chance to educate Thrasymachus by presenting the virtue of wisdom as an inverted version of Thrasymachus’ definition, adding that it is the knowledge of what is advantageous. It is Thrasymachus’ definition that Glaucon resurrects and uses to challenge Socrates and it is Thrasymachus who lacks the will to understand and be educated on justice. It is those who are like Thrasymachus that are vital targets of Plato’s argument on the importance of understanding and justice.