Hello, I'm Dr. Anadale and I teach philosophy
at Mount St. Mary's University in
Emmitsburg, Maryland. This video deals
with the middle part of Republic, Book1,
and the beginning of Socrates'
engagement with Thrasymachus.
There's a dramatic shift in the dialogue when
Thrasymachus enters at 336b.
Thrasymachus is an interlocutor unlike any other
in the Socratic dialogues--he is not
respectful, he's obnoxious--and he's not
interested in taking part in this common
project of conversation governed by
reason to try to arrive at the truth
about the definition of justice.
Instead he dismisses the entire
conversation as a waste of time.
The definition of justice, says Thrasymachus,
is obvious to anybody who
thinks about it for more than a few
minutes, and Socrates is just showing off
his rhetorical skill in front of his
friends by pretending otherwise.
Justice, says Thrasymachus, is obviously just the
advantage of the stronger. That's all it
ever has been and all it ever will be.
Socrates obviously disagrees with this
definition and he will set forth his own
account soon enough.
Much of the rest of the book Republic
will be occupied with giving an extended
response to Thrasymachus' point of view.
But first Socrates exposes the
contradictions in Thrasymachus' view.
Socrates thought that a false view will
always expose itself as false
upon examination and reflection as we
begin to see contradictions in it.
True views will withstand the test of examination.
This is an important point to remember
because it gets right at the heart of
what Socratic philosophy is all about:
if we subject points of view or beliefs to
rational analysis the false ones will be
exposed as false by the contradictions
that they generate. This means that
philosophy can give us a kind of
intellectual hygiene: the ability to, by
critical analysis, recognize and either discard
or modify false points of view.
Starting at 339a Socrates shows the
first contradiction. Thrasymachus admits
that sometimes rulers are wrong about
what would be to their advantage. But in
that case obeying the ruler's commands is
different from doing things that are to the
ruler's advantage. When Thrasymachus equates
these two, saying that justice is obeying
the ruler AND doing what is advantageous
for the ruler, he contradicts himself.
The next step Socrates takes is to argue that every
craft or activity seeks the advantage of
what it rules over, not its own advantage.
He begins this argument around 341a.
He gives many examples; my first reading
question for you is: make some examples
of your own... think of some examples of
your own from crafts or activities that
you know that seek the advantage or
improvement of the thing that they rule
over or that they address, rather than
the advantage or improvement of the
person who exercises the craft or the skill.
During Socrates' argument Thrasymachus
makes a lengthy speech, starting at 343b,
in which he asserts the justice is
more like sheep herding, where the aim of
the shepherd is to fatten the sheep for
slaughter and so for the shepherd's own
advantage. In the course of this speech
he also makes the claim that a just
person always gets less than an unjust
person. In other words it is always to our
advantage to do the unjust thing
if we can because being just or playing
by the rules just doesn't get you ahead
in life. Note here that Thrasymachus
uses his words carelessly. Earlier he had
said that justice was the advantage of
the stronger, but now he seems to be
praising injustice as being advantageous.
Socrates tries to force Thrasymachus to
take more care with what he is saying.
Moving slowly through an argument will
lead us to the truth, while careless
speeches will lead us astray into error.
He insists again that no craft seeks the
advantage of the craftsman, arguing that
this is why craftsmen are paid for their work.
So for example the medical skill of a
doctor is by its very nature aimed at
benefiting other people and their health
and it's for this reason that we
compensate the doctor for the use of his
skill by giving him money. If his skill
were directed at his own advantage by
its very nature, there would be no need to
bring money or some extra compensation
into the transaction. But what about rulers?
Socrates argues that good people
will not seek money or honor for ruling.
Instead they rule because their only
alternative is to be ruled by someone
worse than themselves.
Socrates says in a city of good men,
if it came into being, the citizens would
fight in order NOT to rule, just as they
do now in order to rule. There it would
be quite clear that anyone who is really
and truly a ruler does not naturally
seek what is advantageous to himself but
what is advantageous for his subjects.
So my second reading question for you:
in our society in the 21st century
do you think the best people to rule are
the people who least want to rule? and why or why not?
There are some interesting questions at
play here about the relationship between
power and virtue and the question of
what qualities are required in order to
be a good ruler, in order to be successful
at the task of political leadership.
Socrates then says that he is going to
leave this question and pursue another
point Thrasymachus made, namely that
the life of an unjust person is better
than the life of a just person.
This is a question that I'll take up in a later video.
That's all for today. Thanks for watching; goodbye.