Socrates vs Thrasymachus

[Anonymous No.20431384]

Socrates Arguments Against Thrasymachus

I finished reading books I and II of the Republic as well as The Five Dialogues and can’t help but notice a pattern within Socrates’s arguments: he consistently fails to understand the truth behind the opponents statements, and whether out of ignorance or sophistry, concocts an argument that is mostly semantical in nature. Take for instance Thrasymachus’ statement: “justice is the advantage of the stronger”

Although Plato writes Thrasymachus to be ignorant and foolish, himself not revealing the actual meaning behind this statement, it should be understood as being a statement of moral nihilism, might makes right, not necessarily that justice is categorically what the strong do. Socrates leads Thrasymachus on a word game with the definitions of justice and injustice, trapping him in paradoxes such as: “if an unjust man seeks to do injustice, would it not be just for him in his own right to do so?”

The above is paraphrased, but Socrates unwittingly admits the true meaning of “justice is the advantage of the stronger”, justice does not exist, it is an ideal purely relative to the individual or group. This relativism of course, being “rediscovered” by Nietzsche thousands of years later, in response to the history of western philosophy being built off Socrates. Socrates was a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20431430]

>>20431384
Congratulations!

[Anonymous No.20431442]

>>20431384
There are philosophers who hate Socrates. Like William James:
>Intellectualism in the vicious sense began when Socrates and Plato taught that what a thing really is, is told us by its definition. Ever since Socrates we have been taught that reality consists of essences, not of appearances, and that the essences of things are known whenever we know their definitions. So first we identify the thing with a concept and then we identify the concept with a definition, and only then, inasmuch as the thing is whatever the definition expresses, are we sure of apprehending the real essence of it or the full truth about it. The misuse of concepts begins with the habit of employing them privatively as well as positively, using them not merely to assign properties to things, but to deny the very properties with which the things sensibly present themselves. Logic can extract all its possible consequences from any definition, and the logician who is unerbittlich konsequent is often tempted, when he cannot extract a certain property from a definition, to deny that the concrete object to which the definition applies can possibly possess that property. The definition that fails to yield it must exclude or negate it. This is Hegel’s regular method of establishing his system. It is but the old story, of a useful practice first becoming a method, then a habit, and finally a tyranny that defeats the end it was used for. Concepts, first employed to make things intelligible, are clung to even when they make them unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.20431465]

>>20431384
It took you this long to figure that out? I sure hope you are underage.

[Anonymous No.20431474]

>>20431384
Op you have been filtered like everyone (who is typically young) is when starting with Plato. You'll eventually come back to him and realise you were an idiot.

Read Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.20431615]

>>20431442
>>20431384
I have always thought of Plato as being a proto-troll. Before there was social media, the new media of papyrus (which replaced stone and mud) was the “new tech” that “disrupted.” Everyone at the time was much more pragmatic, and most tended towards the Heraclitus view of the world as a Making not a Made, and knew full well the failure of getting stuck in the made that then forced stupid choices and ridiculous crap like what Socrates was spouting.

And so Plato, the troll that he was, was a little like those on /pol around 2008 that decided to bring up racism and antisemitism as a joke, but then the joke got away from them.

You see, I see Plato’s writings as one big elaborate troll post making fun of the idiots of his day that was done so well that the morons united around it, in a Q type conspiracy, and it all simply got out of hand and they destroyed all the writings of those who actually made sense. Since they made sense, there was little need to write down the way most people looked at the world and so there wasn’t much to destroy, but what is left makes it look like the trolling was what people actually believed, that then became what they believed as they self-immolated their own society through the apathy and greed that destroys such societies.

Most people do not agree with me, though, but I must say, I got a big laugh when they voted in 82 (I call him 82 because I would bet my first born against a burrito that his IQ is no higher than 82!), proving once and for all time that a person might be smart, but people are clearly the dumbest single organism on the planet.

[Anonymous No.20431690]

>>20431384
Socrates vs Thrasymachus is just a poor man's Socrates vs Callicles et al. More generally speaking, though, Plato is really a poor man's philosopher. He was born a generation or two too late for the golden age of Hellenic thinkers, and in the wrong city state.

[Anonymous No.20431700]

>>20431384
I remember thinking similar thoughts. Socrates would continue to use some vague traditional understanding of “justice” that doesn’t actually represent T’s definition.

[Anonymous No.20431861]

>>20431384
The smart tyrant strengthens his flock because it’s the source of his power. But he doesn’t do that because he himself is deficient in some way. You need to distinguish between the immediate and the long-term exercise of power. The higher your time preference, the less likely your reign will last. Might ultimately does make right at the end, but Socrates is arguing for the superlative form of might—virtue.

[Anonymous No.20433316]

bump

[Anonymous No.20433396]

>>20431474
Read non-fiction.

[Anonymous No.20433431]

Moral realism and just world hypothesis is the most unintelligible bullshit ever. If there was an inherently "just world" in the sense of oppressed and victim beating oppressor and victor, war and conquest would not be possible. The moments wars were initiated, the initiating side would cease to exist as an immediate punishment. Yet this is not the case, so there is no "just world" of karma or sin.

[Anonymous No.20433446]

>>20431700
>Socrates would continue to use some vague traditional understanding of “justice”
Didn't read it.
>>20431861
The tyrant who strengthens his flock would not be a tyrant by definition.
>Might ultimately does make right at the end
You seem to have confused the conclusion, which is that right ends up making might, or the two at least become indistinguishable. Also worth noting that Socrates's arguments do not end at book II of the Republic, as Glaucon ends up taking up Thrasymachus's weak arguments and iron manning them. Socrates then ends up admitting the strength of the argument, however still presenting his own reasons against them.

[Anonymous No.20433468]

>>20433446
I didn’t confuse the conclusion, you just stopped reading them. I read Glaucon’s ironman as the admission that sociopathic ladder climbers can get away with tyranny without having the consequences blow up in their face within their lifetime.

[Anonymous No.20433491]

>>20433431
>The moments wars were initiated, the initiating side would cease to exist as an immediate punishment
Refuted retroactively by Joseph de Maistre.

[Anonymous No.20433510]

>>20431384
I think you think that Plato underestimates Thrasymachus. Historically, Thrasymachus had to act as a diplomat to Athens on behalf of his fatherland, Chalcedon, at an occasion when it looked like Athens might set herself upon them, so there's a certain irony to his arguing on behalf of injustice by identifying justice with whatever the strong will, much as there's an irony in the Polemarchus conversation in light of his murder.

Something to notice, in the Phaedrus, Socrates says of Thrasymachus' skills in rhetoric:

>Socrates: "And the Chalcedonian man's strength appears to me to have gained, by art, mastery of speeches that are dragged on, piteously wailing over old age and poverty; and at the same time the man has become terribly clever in turn at angering the many and again, when they have been angered, at beguiling them by singing incantations, as he said; and he's strongest both at slandering and at dispelling slanders from whatever source." (267c-d)

I.e., his skills are in playing on people's emotions. With this in mind, reconsider the following passages:

>Now Thrasymachus had many times started out to take over the argument in the midst of our discussion, but he had been restrained by the men sitting near him, who wanted to hear the argument out. But when we paused and I said this, he could no longer keep quiet; hunched up like a wild beast, he flung himself at us as if to tear us to pieces. (336b)

>And Thrasymachus evidently desired to speak so that he could win a good reputation, since he believed he had a very fine answer. But he kept up the pretense of wanting to prevail on me to do the answering. (338a)

Finally, think back to the "blush". Our tendency is to read that passage and say, "oh, Thrasymachus was embarrassed", but look and pay attention to what Socrates says:

>Now, Thrasymachus did not agree to all of this so easily as I tell it now, but he dragged his feet and resisted, and he produced a wonderful quantity of sweat, for it was summer. And then I saw what I had not yet seen before--Thrasymachus blushing. (350c-d)

Thrasymachus isn't embarrassed; Socrates says it was summer, and the verb "to blush" is the same as "to turn red" in general: Thrasymachus is just doing exactly what Socrates describes in the Phaedrus, he's pretending to be angry to whip everyone up in a frenzy so he can win what seems to him is a competition.

Since you're only two books into the Republic, I'll spoil the later bits somewhat by pointing out that this competitive, honor- and victory-loving attitude is a big theme of the Republic, and it comes in as the "spirited" part of the soul. Thrasymachus' fake-indignation looks forward to that later movement in the overall argument.

(Cont)

[Anonymous No.20433529]

>>20433491
And your literal who was refuted by Nietzsche, tough luck kid.

[Anonymous No.20433537]

>>20431384
Thasymachus was correct. I wrote an exposition on him

[Anonymous No.20433567]

>>20433529
Nobody has refuted Nietzsche, tough luck kid, find your next memer to name drop.

[Anonymous No.20433577]

>>20433529
No, because a moral order requires a delay between action and reaction to be a moral order at all, otherwise all actions would be perfectly negated by their reactions, and there would be no change. Thus, your point does not refute anything, except that it shows that the prerequisite for morality is the passage of time, which is a relation of action and reaction. It's also refuted by René Guénon (pbuh) in pic related, his essay on the realm of the Demiurge.

[Anonymous No.20433586]

>>20431384

[Anonymous No.20433598]

>>20431384
>>20433510
He makes another crucial demand:

>"And see to it you don't tell me that it is the needful, or the helpful, or the profitable, or the gainful, or the advantageous; but tell me clearly and *precisely* what you mean, for I won't accept it if you say such inanities." (336d)

>That’s because you’re a sycophant in arguments, Socrates,” he said. “[…] The man who makes mistakes makes them on account of a failure in knowledge and is in that respect no craftsman. So no craftsman, wiseman, or ruler makes mistakes at the moment that he is ruling, although anyone would say that the doctor made a mistake and the ruler made a mistake. […] But what follows is the most *precise* way: the ruler, insofar as he is a ruler, does not make mistakes; and not making mistakes, he sets down what is best for himself. And this must be done by the man who is ruled. (340d-341a)

Thrasymachus introduces the principle of the precise meanings or understandings of words. This comes in later as the principle distinguishing the classes of the city:

>"If, then, we are to preserve the first argument--that our guardians must give up all other crafts and very *precisely* be craftsmen of the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to it--they also mustn't do or imitate anything else. (395b-c)

It's also the principle behind the education of the city:

>In this too they must then receive a *precise* training from childhood throughout life. (403c-d)

It comes in as the justification for the law of non-contradiction:

>"Now let's have a still more *precise* agreement so that we won't have any grounds for dispute as we proceed. (436c, and context)

And it comes in to define the philosopher's role in the city and their education:

>"And let's now dare to say this: philosophers must be established as the most *precise* guardians." (503b)

Etc. Thrasymachus introduces a term that's no big deal in any other dialogue, but once he does here, it reaches into everything.

Consider also, much later:

>"Don't make a quarrel between Thrasymachus and me when we've just become friends, though we weren't even enemies before," I said. (498c-d)

It is right to note that in Socrates beating Thrasymachus in the argument, he's right only because *Thrasymachus* is right, that is, Socrates prevailing makes Thrasymachus' point, which Socrates recognizes, hence his own sense at the end of book 1 that something's gone awry.

[Anonymous No.20433601]

>>20433577
Literally mysticism. "Le real moral law" is nowhere coherent nor mathematical as Newtonian/Einsteinian physical laws, so it appears to be nothing more than teleology being read onto things after the fact.

[Anonymous No.20433608]

>>20433567
Malcolm Bull did

[Anonymous No.20433616]

>>20431384
>, justice does not exist, it is an ideal purely relative to the individual or group.
Did you ever read the dialogue called Philebus, and also later in the Republic, where it is shown that justice is actually a relationship between part and whole, a relationship of equality (the mixed) between the limited and the unlimited? That being so does not mean justice does not exist, nor even relative. This is a continuous theme in Platonism; that ideals transcend any given condition in the material world, just as justice can be resolved into a relationship of form and proportion between part and whole in its essence, as opposed to some God-given commands which Plato never once asserted.

[Anonymous No.20433619]

>>20433601
I refuted your point, please detail how it is invalid. To simplify it even more for you because you're a bit slow, how could morality exist if one could not act in a way that was bad?

[Anonymous No.20433671]

>>20433619
>how could morality exist if one could not act in a way that was bad?
You say that without the potential to act badly, there would be no real moral law (because the potential to act badly is a necessity for moral law). When we discuss "real moral law", we mean that "painful outcomes necessarily follow from cruelty against the Other.", i.e. that there is a mechanistic moral law where metaphysical punishment follows metaphysical crime - which would appear to tend to the Dharmic view. Your definition of moral law appears to be the old Greek "evil acts are bad for those who commit them." Ultimately it resolves to a definition game.

If there is no mechanistic moral law where "given transgression produces given punishment", there is no moral law at all.

[Anonymous No.20433672]

>>20431442
This is interesting. Is there any more stuff from James or philosophers who take this view in terms of being negative toward that Socrates/Plato etc.?

[Anonymous No.20433687]

>>20433491
>Refuted retroactively by Joseph de Maistre.
What did he say

[Anonymous No.20433720]

>>20433671
>If there is no mechanistic moral law where "given transgression produces given punishment", there is no moral law at all.
You never proved there was no mechanistic moral law, though. You just stated it couldn't exist, which I refuted by showing that it could (not that it did) exist.
>Your definition of moral law appears to be the old Greek "evil acts are bad for those who commit them."
Yes, which you haven't refuted. You simply said that for this to be true, a result would have to immediately follow from its cause. I showed that this is not the case, and that results can be displaced in time (in fact, they must be displaced from their cause to be distinguishable as cause and effect, otherwise there is no cause or effect, and if there is no cause then there is no action, and so no moral action nor order), whilst still maintaining the relationship between the result and its cause.

[Anonymous No.20433853]

>>20431384
>he consistently fails to understand the truth behind the opponents statements, and whether out of ignorance or sophistry, concocts an argument that is mostly semantical in nature.
Correct. Socrates doesn't care about your argument because they are fallacious anyhow, it doesnt matter to him to disprove them properly, what matters is that he can put you in the state of confusion and see how you react. A good student becomes angry at himself, a bad student becomes angry at Socrates.
Read Laches. Socrates turn an argument over whether MMA should be taught to kids into a discourse about courage with two renown generals just to have them end up looking like children.

[Anonymous No.20434007]

>>20433598
Based actually-reads poster

[Anonymous No.20434132]

>>20431384
Tranny thread

[Anonymous No.20434135]

>>20433510
>>20433598
Based

[Anonymous No.20434140]

>>20431384
Thrasymachus was just the Nietzsche of his day. Nietzsche himself says the sophists ,in The Will To Power, were the best philosophers of the Greek period because they made arguments in favor aristocratic status and values. Socrates was really stupid. That's why he got himself killed.

[Anonymous No.20434142]

>>20431384
Socrates argues like a communist. He just plays the definition game.

[Anonymous No.20434167]

Nietzsche was just extremely butthurt that Plato had him figured out thousands of years before he was even born. All his attacks on Plato sound like petulant whining. In reality, Plato knew that men like Nietzsche have always been around, men who think might makes right and strength is itself a virtue. That's the sort of man the Republic was written to refute.

[Anonymous No.20434247]

>>20434167
Plato's Republic itself can only be implemented on the principle of Might makes Right.

[Anonymous No.20434330]

>>20433672
Check out Nietzsche's "The Problem of Socrates".

[Anonymous No.20434386]

>>20434167
>A featherless biped
Yeah, no. Plato didn't even figure out his own metaphysics.