Thrasymachus vs Socrates Throughout Plato’s book The Republic of Plato, there is the constant debate about the definition of justice. Justice is seen very differently by two very different philosophers. For example, the philosopher, Socrates, deems Thrasymachus as this “wild beast”, mainly because of his negative view on justice. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that justice is like an art. He compares justice to other aspects such as medical practices and pilots of boats, saying that the person wants to benefit others and not just himself. But Thrasymachus still does not agree with Socrates after this. Although the two sometimes have similar points of view, Socrates and Thrasymachus are two very different Philosophers because of Socrates positive view of justice, Thrasymachus’ negative view of justice, and the two’s inability to listen and reason with each other.
Wilkins 2] Thrasymachus main argument for his definition of justice is that it is “the advantage of the stronger” (338c), “injustice is power” (350d-352c), and “the unjust are happier than the just” (352d-354c). It is “the advantage of the stronger”
(338c), which explains that justice is relative to the ruling body. According to Thrasymachus, there is no universal definition of justice. Thrasymachus uses rhetoric when trying to…show more content… Socrates is more relaxed and logical while Thrasymachus’ theory is more confusing and radical. Throughout the first few books, Thrasymachus is constantly being refuted. It seems though no matter what the other has to say, one comes back with a question in an attempt to discourage the other. Socrates does this many time throughout the first few books and appears to successfully defeat Thrasymachus. He makes Thrasymachus contradict himself and subsequently embarrasses him in front of the other sophists. Both are very smart men with different views that shed light on many of the issues surrounding
