Plato, Republic, Book 1 (Thrasymachus) and Book 2 (to 369c)
1. According to Thrasymachus:
justice
=
the advantage of the stronger
=
laws set down by the rulers
(a) What makes the “justice=legality” version of the argument plausible?
(b) Lay out the first Socratic refutation (elenchus) of the claim. (It takes
its starting point from the ability of the rulers to make mistakes.)
(c) Lay out the second Socratic refutation. (It willingly accepts the correction
that T insists on, namely speaking of “rulers in the precise sense”)
2. Rather than engage with Socrates’s argument, Thrasymachus shifts at to a
comparison of rulers to shepherds (343b). What is the comparison? How does it
enable Thrasymachus to say what he really wants to say, namely that the unjust
person lives a better life than the just person? What evidence does he give to
support the point?
3. Thrasymachus can’t keep up with Socrates. He’s more bluster than logical
argument—he speaks abusively to Socrates (343a) before he ends up blushing out
of shame (350d). But as you turn to Book 2, you will notice that Glaucon does not
seem to be convinced, even though he is a very sort of person than Thrasymachus.
Why not? What are the three things that he proposes to do, as he “restores”
Thrasymachus’s argument?
4. Of these three things, focus intently on the second. What story does Glaucon tell?
How does it show that those who practice justice, do so unwillingly?
5. Why, according to the arguments of Glaucon, does the unjust man live better than
the just man?
6. What does Adeimantus add to Glaucon’s challenge? How does he use passages
from literature and myth to reinforce the point?
7. How does Socrates propose to respond to Glaucon’s challenge? Why might this be
a promising strategy?