Book I What is Justice: Thrasymachus vs.

Socrates
Socratess Response to Might Makes Right & the Pursuit of
Power & Self Interest
Book I: Socrates uses the Socratic method to debate the sophist
Thrasymachus, on the question What is Justice?
The dialogue of Republic takes place in Cephaluss house. In what
context is the topic of justice first introduced in The Republic, as
Socrates engages Cephalus? (p. 167).
What is Polemarchuss definition of justice? (Polemarchus is
Cephauss son)
Justice gives benefits to ones friends & harm to ones enemies
(p. 168, line 332 d) (Represents a conventional Athenian view of
Justice at the time).
Socrates & Polemarchus work through this definition together, and
end up declaring it unsatisfactory on p. 171, section 336 c.
Thrasymachus then coiled himself up like a wild beast about to
spring, and he hurled himself at us as if about to tear us to pieces.
____________________________________________________
Thrasymachus, 1st Definition of Justice: Might Makes Right.
Justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger.
The stronger = The Regime or those who have power
Obeying or following those who have power (the Ruling Class),
whether a tyrant or a benevolent ruler.

Justice in a tyranny is no worse than justice in a democracy. If a

tyrant holds power, his laws are justified, according to
Thrasymachuss relativism.
Socrates & Plato are offended by this relativism. They want a more
universal conception of justice.
____________________________________________________
Socrates deploys the Elenchus (on p. 172 bottom right column p.
173, left column). He methodically poses to Thrasymachus a few
pointed questions to show that Thrasymachuss definition is
contradictory.
1. Socrates: Is it just to (always) obey the laws of the rulers?
2. Thrasymachus: Yes, since justice is that which is to the
advantage of the stronger.
3. Socrates: Can rulers make mistakes?**
4. Thrasymachus: Yes**
5. Socrates: So some of the laws of the rulers are made correctly,
and some incorrectly
6. Thrasymachus: I suppose so
7. Socrates: And any law is good if it prescribes to that which is
in the advantage of the rulers?
8. Thrasymachus: Yes
9. Socrates: Whatever laws the rulers make must be obeyed by
their subjects
10. Thrasymachus: Of course

Refutation:
11. Socrates: Then you are really saying that Justice requires you
to do both that which is in the advantage of the Rulers, as well as
that which is in the disadvantage of the Rulers. Since the Rulers
will sometimes unintentionally order laws that are bad for
themselves.
What steps does the success of the elenchus rely on? #3 & #4
_________________________________________________
Socrates gives a provisional definition of Justice on p. 174 (line
342 d). How does Socrates describe or define justice on p. 174
(line 342 d), after he uses the elenchus to refute Thrasymachuss
first definition?
Thrasymachus sees that his 1st answer is incoherent or
unsatisfactory. But he doesnt like Socrates provisional answer.
Thrasymachus responds to Socrates by giving a second analysis of
Justice (its not really a definition).
Thrasymachus asserts that the Good Life is best achieved
through injustice and pure self-interest. This is the only way
to get ahead & assure a better life. This is given on p. 175,
bottom left column, in a rather long discourse by
Thrasymachus (starts at 343b on p. 175).
This second definition represents the cynical view of power
politics or realpolitik.
Note that Socrates has induced Thrasymachus to admit that
mistakes are possible. If falsehoods do exist, this implies that
knowledge truth something foundational -- does exist.

There are 2 dialogues at work here:

1. Socrates and Thrasymachus
2. Socrates, Thrasymachus, and the readers
The subtext of the second conversation:
Socrates/Plato holds to the notion that people thirst for knowledge
Socrates holds that the relativism of the Sophists blocks their quest
for knowledge/wisdom
Thrasymachus is forced into a position of defining justice with
reference to achieving power, rather than with respect to truth and
wisdom
Socratess Implication: The adoption of a relativistic
understanding of truth requires us to give up our pursuit of
knowledge.
It appears that Thrasymachus recognizes that his chameleon-like
definitions of justice are wanting.
Might Thrasymachus come to realize that he does not teach
wisdom/virtue, but simply a means of acquiring & maintaining
power? Might he realize that his preoccupation with power
cripples his ability to appreciate the importance of knowledge &
wisdom?
Thrasymachus is left in a state of cognitive dissonance at the end
of Book I. He falls silent for the rest of the dialogue in Republic.

By the end of Book I, the major themes of the Republic have been
introduced.
No answers or definitions have been given at all. Socrates wants
to show Thrasymachus that he doesnt know what he thinks he
knows. He wants us to clear the preconceptions and clutter off of
our decks in order to think clearly about the meaning of Justice.
I What is Justice or how can a person be ethically good?
II What is Justice in the state or polis?
III Why is just behavior an intrinsic good that is, how can
ethically good behavior or disposition positively influence the
well-being & happiness of a person?
IV What is a just ruler and how is s/he formed