Socrates Failure in Refuting Thrasymachus Essay Example for Free

Socrates Failure in Refuting Thrasymachus experimentIn producing a counter argument to Thrasymachus claim that rightness is the return of the stronger, Socrates bases his argument enourmously on slovenliness and prejudice. He assumes that the virtues which are supposedly functioning in the realm of ideas can also work propably in the existence. For example, in Socrates view, a doctor does not seek his ingest advantage, but the advantage of his patients. Yet, this view reflects the better ideal of a doctor in Socrates belief of ideas in a dream world. With a youthful perspective, one can fairly see that Socrates refutation has some complexities which clash severely with the real experiences of the quaint Hellenic. Socrates image of the doctor ignores the inherent homosexual desire or fragility to obtaining the power for his advantage. Socrates confuses the crafts with the craftsmen occasionally.The crafts such as medicine or horse-breeding are idealized. However, craft smen are hu musical composition and they are liable to exploit the authority which their crafts bedevil over them. Therefore, Thrasymachus idea of justice is more applicable than Socrates. Socrates manages to appease Thrasymachus, but that does not mean Socrates is lucky about refuting Thrasymachus. In f passage, if one observes their conversation critically, it is obvious that Socrates fails to refute Thrasymachus argument. Socrates is very optimistic and aflame towards human nature, which causes his arguments and refutations to be fragile . The virtue in individuals does not always bring prosperity to the allege on the whole. Not everyone is sensitive to the good of the separates.Socrates republic is, in this sense, utopic. Socrates states, Anyone who intends to practise his craft well never does or orders but his best for himself (Plato, 23). This belief does not match the modern experience nor does it match the experience of a Greek citizen in Ancient Greece. In reverse, Thrasymachus believes that justice is a means for the strong to exercise advantage. In a sense Thrasymachus associates the strenght of a citizen with his authority and position in the society. He famously states, Justice is zilch other than the advantage of the stronger (Plato, 14). Justice is a tool for the established order to refer itself. The strong citizen with a sizeable authority makes use of justice in a manner to assert his private interests. low the shadow of justice, he can easily practise injustice and impose it as justice to the others. Thats why the strong is in a position to employ justice and injustice at their own interest. For instance, since a ruler makes laws in a position to twist justice for his own benefit. Therefore, his prior concern is to preserve and enhance his own authority. In order to do that, he ignores the welfare of his subjects. He does not act always at bottom a moral perspective. Thrasymachus believes that even in the lower classes of the soci ety, this is exactly the case. In legal injury of taxes, for example, an unjust man will gain more economically since he will always assay for the ways to avoid taxation.A just man, on the other hand, with a sentimental love for his state and a respect for it, pays his taxes regularly and gains less than an unjust man in economical perspective. Thrasymachus believes that a man with authority is always just. Because he profits at the end. So, Thrasymachus concentrates mainly on the outcome of the act in a pragmatic way. He does not give any importance to the unjust proceedings which a man with authority exercise in order to achieve private benefit and gain. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that even a simple act of injustice on the path to power eradicate not all the man as an individual, but also the society on the whole.Socrates is trying to harmonize his own utopic world with the realities of the earth which he thinks can be transformed and shaped. His views are rather rom antic with a nostalgic perspective. Socrates is not skeptical unlike sophist philosophers of his age. He reasons, however, with a firm belief in his own conception of this world which is a projection of a higher world of ideas functioning in harmony. He believes that gods are just (Plato, 29). Homers Iliad on the other hand states otherwise, portraying gods are cruel and jelous. Therefore, Socrates thinks within his own ideology. He tries to impose his ideology to Thrasymachus who never disagrees with him at all.For example, in Socrates opinion, injustice causes civil strife, detestation and disorder while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose. However, in a World which does not precisely regulate the terms of justice or injustice, Thrasymachus view that justice always looks to the advantage of the stronger makes more sense. Thrasymachus claims are based on his own experience of Ancient Greek life while Socrates statements hardly related to the realities of the li fe surrounding him. He is blinded by what he firmly believes. He is trying to adjust the common realities of the society to his own ideology.Altough he is able to convince Thrasymachus at the end, what he does during this process is misleading. Thrasymachus seems to be an agent for Socrates to express his ideology in a dialogue for. Thrasymachus presence is only to introduce the question and to be a passive listener during Socrates answering process. Therefore, Socrates refutation of Thrasymachus claim that justice is advantage of the stronger is nothing but a dictation of Socrates attempt to reconcile his own ideology of a utopic republic with the status quo in Ancient Greece.In conclusion, Socrates contradiction to Thrasymachus may be convincing for Platos Greek audience, but it is not anyway convincing to the modern reader. Socrates idea of justice can only be valid in the future of Socrates lifetime in Socrates view. It does not correspond to Socrates actual reality. It is aimed to construct an emotional idea of justice in a future time. It is only possible by changing the realities of the world in a manner to suit Socrates ideology.