• Home

Phil Blog 1 Question

In book 1 “The Republic” by Plato, Socrates and Thrasymachus discuss about the definition of justice and how just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger (338b). Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus for the fact that he believes justice is directed toward seeking and providing for the advantage of each art (341c) therefore there’s no advantage of the stronger. He followed with analogies that put Thrasymachus beliefs in total delusions. In book 2 Glaucon and Adeimantus wanted Socrates to continue his argument since they still didn’t  have an exact definition of justice. Socrates tells a story of the two rings and how the none of them would  be so adamant as to stick by justice and bring himself away from what belongs to others (360b). For me this is true, when in private even the just men would be unjust knowing he will not be punish. With this being said even when Socrates gives examples to justify it, the meaning of justice is still unclear. How can Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus belief when he mentions any men would be unjust if it will benefit him? How can justice be better interpreted? Or is there even justice at all?