Let's set the scene here. Socrates is at a house with some people talking about what justice is, a typical Saturday night for our boy. Now we just got finished talking with Palamarkis about whether or not justice consists of benefiting friends and harming enemies, a position that Socrates goes against. And once Palamarkis agrees with Socrates, a voice is heard amongst the crowd. What nonsense you two have been talking all this time, Socrates!
Why do you act like naive people, giving way to one another? If you really want to know what justice is, don't just ask questions and then indulge your love of honor by refuting the answers. You know very well it is easier to ask questions than to answer them.
Give an answer yourself and tell us what you say is just. The man who said this was Thrasymachus. And this guy wasn't just your average citizen of Athens.
No, this guy was a sophist. Now these sophists, they were teachers of philosophy and other things. just like our boy Socrates.
The big difference however, was that they were after the money. They got paid to give these speeches and teach. Unlike Socrates who sort of just wanders around and bothers everyone by asking them questions.
And this is pretty much what happens here. Socrates uses his eloquence to get out of giving an answer himself, but Thrasymachus gets all prideful and is willing to offer his own answer so long as he gets paid. Socrates'friend Glaucon says that they'd all help contribute the funds on Socrates'behalf, because Socrates is broke as usual.
And with that, we get our starting off point, Thrasymachus'position that he will be defending. Welcome back to AmygdalaVids everyone, if this is your first time then hit the subscribe button if you're enjoying the video so far, but don't hit the like button, don't do it, I want to earn that from you first. So as stated earlier, Thrasymachus is going to speak on what justice is. But to help you guys follow the argument and the whole back and forth from Socrates, I have created these argument charts to help. Now without wasting any time, Thrasymachus is going to be arguing that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger.
Listen then, I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger. To demonstrate and clarify this, Thrasymachus uses the example of cities. Now cities are ruled by rulers, and these rulers are considered the stronger in these cities. And each type of rule makes laws that are advantageous for itself. Democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones, and so on with the others.
And by so legislating, each declares that what is just for its subjects is what is advantageous for itself, the ruler. And it punishes anyone who deviates from this as lawless and unjust. So Socrates plays within the game that Thrasymachus has created.
He first asks if it is just to then obey these rulers, which Thrasymachus replies, yes. And then, Socrates gets Thrasymachus to agree that these rulers can be liable to error. And because these rulers are liable to error, that means that incorrect laws can be made. Laws at odds with what is advantageous to the ruler.
Haven't we agreed that the rulers are sometimes in error as to what is best for themselves, when they give orders to their subjects? And yet that it is just for their subjects to do whatever their rulers order. I suppose so.
Therefore, if a ruler, who is subject to error, passes a law that is disadvantageous to them in error, and it is just for the subjects to obey that law, then it is then just to do what is disadvantageous to the stronger, in some cases. At this point, all of Socrates'friends are loving it, celebrating Socrates for laying the smackdown on Thrasymachus. But the celebration is cut short because Thrasymachus has another trick up his sleeve. You see, Thrasymachus really screwed up when he agreed that rulers are prone to error, but if he could somehow correct that, then he just may pull this thing off.
Therefore, Thrasymachus specifies that a craftsperson, so long as they are engaged in their craft, can never be in error. This is a little complicated, so let's first hear it from the man himself. When someone makes an error in the treatment of patients, do you call him a doctor in virtue of the fact that he made that very error? I think we express ourselves in words that, taken literally, do say that a doctor is an error, or an accountant, or a grammarian, but each of these, to the extent that he is what we call him, never makes errors, so that according to the precise account, no craftsman ever makes errors. It is when his knowledge fails him that he makes an error, and in virtue of the fact that he made that error, he is no craftsman.
No craftsman, wise man, or ruler makes an error at the moment when he is ruling. Even though everyone will say that a physician or a ruler makes errors. So this is kind of complicated, but here's how I understand it. So there's a craft, be it the craft of pottery or mathematics, and these crafts are without error. So when a human engages in the craft of mathematics, he cannot be in error.
But if someone messes up in math, writes down that 2 plus 2 equals 5, then what they're doing isn't math anymore. And in that moment, they are no longer engaged in the craft of mathematics. And in that moment also, he is therefore no longer a mathematician. He's just a human making an error, I guess. So applying this to rulers, if the human engaged in ruling makes a mistake, then he is no longer doing the craft of ruling and is therefore not a ruler.
A ruler, to the extent that he is a ruler, never makes errors and unerringly decrees what is best for himself, and that is what his subject must do. Thus, as I said from the first, it is just to do what is advantageous for the stronger. Now this distinction, between the typical way we identify a craftsperson and the Thrasymachus way, is pretty important, so keep that in mind.
So Socrates takes this and wants to get very specific as to what these crafts are. Tell me, is a doctor, in the precise sense, a moneymaker or someone who treats the sick? Tell me about the one who is really a doctor, someone who treats the sick.
So with this, Socrates is able to get Thrasymachus to agree that these crafts are designed to provide what is advantageous for each. So for that doctor example, the specific craft of being a doctor is someone who treats the sick. The money you receive for performing that craft is something separate.
Being a doctor, in the end, is solely about treating the sick. To provide what is advantageous, that is what the craft was developed for. But there is no deficiency in the craft itself. There is no error.
It is the human that is prone to error. but the craft itself is without fault. Is there no deficiency or error in any craft? And is it inappropriate for any craft to consider what is advantageous for anything, besides that with which it deals?
And since, it is itself correct, is it without fault or impurity so long as it is wholly and precisely the craft it is? It appears so. Therefore, the craft doesn't have to consider what is advantageous for itself since it is perfect and without fault. The craft does, however, consider what is advantageous for its subjects. Doesn't it follow that medicine does not consider what is advantageous for medicine but for the body, and horse breeding does not consider what is advantageous for horse breeding but for horses?
Indeed, no other craft considers what is advantageous for itself, since it has no further needs, but what is advantageous for that with which it deals. They then agree that crafts themselves are stronger than which they deal, mainly because again, the craft is perfect. while the subject is in need of the craft for an advantage.
Therefore, the crafts consider what is advantageous for the weaker, and this then leads to Socrates'final conclusion for this round. So then, Thrasymachus, no one in any position of rule, to the extent that he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is advantageous for himself, but what is advantageous for his subject, that on which he practices his craft. It is to his subject and what is advantageous and proper for it that he looks.
And everything he says and does, he says and does for it. So with that, Socrates gets rid of the idea that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Sorta. You see, they go another two rounds, but those arguments seem less connected to these first two arguments. So I thought it'd be helpful to split this up.
If you want a part two, just let me know. Or if you want me to cover the whole Paul and Marcus argument, I could do that too. I am at your service. Now disclaimer here, you don't have to agree with Plato. I don't necessarily agree with- Plato on everything.
But seeing these arguments flow and play out is a great exercise in critical thinking. Maybe you think Thrasymachus'initial point is right, and he just argued it badly because, you know, it's Socrates. As always, let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
And if I didn't earn your subscription up front initially, totally understandable. Hopefully you've enjoyed this video enough to hit that magic button to stay updated for more videos. One more shout out to Plato, I named my son in Stardew Valley after him, and I wish you all a beautiful