Glaucon And Thrasymacus Essay, Research Paper
Glaucon and Thrasymachus
Plato s Republic has six main characters, Glaucon, Adeimantus,
Thrasymachus, Cephalus, Polymarchus and Socrates. The Republic is a
dialogue between Socrates and each of these five men, the topic is
justice, what it means to be just, who is just and why they choose to
be just. Each man holds his own opinion and tries to convince
Socrates that theirs is the correct answer. For the use of this
paper I will be discussing in depth the characters of Thrasymachus
and Glaucon. These two characters have very different insights as to
the question of justice, they are in effect opposites.
The first of these two men that Socrates speaks with is
Thrasymachus. When Socrates has a dialogue with someone he uses a
system called refutation. Refutation is best described as a
four-fold process. First Socrates will get his opponent to elicit an
opinion, then he will ask for clarification of the opinion given, he
will then point out some obvious flaws in the argument of his
opponent and then he will give this other person a way out, before he
tears their argument to pieces. The first mistake that one can make
when talking to Socrates is to give a strong opinion right off the
bat, this gives the appearance that this person thinks that he has
great knowledge of this subject. Socrates knows that one can not
possible know every angle of something and therefor begins to cut
down the opinion held. Thrasymachus makes this mistake very early
on. The opinion stated by him is that justice is the advantage of
the strong, or might makes right. To Thrasymachus justice is only
universal in the it is always the stronger who control it, no matter
the culture or society. Thrasymachus puts himself in immediate
danger of Socrates by stating this strong opinion so early on.
Thrasymachus also goes on to say that given the chance every man is
unjust, and that justice is less profitable then injustice is to
man. Thrasymachus says that the just man everywhere has less then
the unjust man (342e). This idea of Thrasymachus relates directly
to Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle says that everything
lawful is in a sense just (1129b, 10). Assuming that the laws are
created by those who are in power, this quote directly coincides with
what Thrasymachus is saying. Thrasymachus appears to be an
unvirtuous man, greedy and power-hungry. He (Thrasymachus) appears
at first glance to be an intellectual man, however in seeing him talk
with Socrates we watch his strong opinion crumble into a pile of
doubts and questions.
Glaucon takes on this dialogue with Socrates a little
differently from how Thrasymachus had gone about it. Glaucon has
been listening to Socrates take on these other men, and he thinks
that he kind of understands Socrates way of questioning. Instead of
posing a direct opinion as Thrasymachus, Cephalus and Polymarchus had
done, Glaucon tries to play along with Socrates game, he does not
mention any opinion of his own. After the discussions with
Thrasymachus and the other two men, Socrates believes that he has
conquered the dialogue and that now he may retreat back to his home.
Glaucon and Adeimantus, realizing that really nothing substantial
about whether or not it is better to be just or unjust has been
established, asks Socrates if he had wanted only to have seemed to
persuade them, or if he really had wanted to persuade them.
Socrates, never able to back down from a good discussion, admits that
he would love to be able to truly persuade the men to believe that
justice is better than injustice. Glaucon shows us immediately that
he is a knowledgeable man, first in that he calls Socrates on this
and second that he does not make a statement of his own opinion.
Glaucon merely restates and argues Thrasymachus opinion again.
Glaucon tells a story that backs up what Thrasymachus said about
everyone, given the chance, would be unjust. In doing this we see
that Glaucon is even more wise than we thought, he uses a technique
that was used by homer and the other pre-Pre-Socratics, that of story
telling. By the time we got to Plato this art of telling a story to
teach, rather than lecturing is basically lost. The story told is
that of the Ring of Gyges , in the story a man goes down into a
hole in the earth and encounters a hollow bronze horse, and within
the horse there is a corpse. Upon the corpse a ring is found that
gives the bearer of it the ability to become invisible. This man,
who had appeared to be just in his life, proceeded to kill the king,
sleep with the queen and take over his kingdom. This story is great
for Thrasymachus argument that if given the chance, any just man
will do the same as an unjust man would. Basically saying that we
are only just because people are watching, the idea of justice that
we have is superficial being that we only abide by it to keep
ourselves from looking bad and getting into trouble. It appears that
Glaucon is trying to be a virtuous man, in the dialogue we see that
he is in pursuit of knowledge and that he does not consider himself
wise in the least; to me knowing that you do not know is a virtue in
itself. Both Socrates and Glaucon share this virtue of not knowing.
It also appears that Glaucon is courageous, Socrates undoubtedly
carries a reputation with him of cutting seemingly great men up in to
little pieces. Glaucon put himself on the line, he risked his honor,
which to the ancient Greeks was the most important thing. Had
Glaucon made a fool of himself in this dialogue that is how he would
have been remembered throughout time, and being remembered as a fool
was obviously a very shameful thing to the ancient Greeks. In having
this courage Glaucon shows us again that he is a virtuous man.
Thrasymachus and Glaucon are two very different characters who
bring two very different points of view to the dialogue. One
thinking himself to be wise and finding out otherwise, by drowning
himself in his own opinions; the other, satisfied with knowing that
he is not wise, but in the same still striving to learn from others
and the world around him.