5 pages/≈1375 words
Thrasymachus' View On Rulers In The Republic Of Plato (Essay Sample)
Thrasymachus' view on rulers in The Republic of Platosource..
The Republic of Plato
The Republic of Plato
Thrasymachus contend that rulers cannot make mistakes
According to Thrasymachus, justice is nothing else but the advantage of the stronger. The stronger is any powerful individual who can make decisions, which are followed by the followers without asking any questions concerning the decisions made. Rulers will legislate laws, which favors their interests and ignore the interests of their subjects or public, as they believe that whatever the laws they make the subjects or public should obey (Conford, 1941). According to Thrasymachus, rulers are powerful people and no will challenge them, as they cannot make mistakes in any leadership they offer or any legislations they make concerning the subjects. When Socrates challenged him, he continues claiming that justice is doing anything advantageous to the stronger. Thrasymachus is not happy about Socrates protestation claiming that Socrates should give his position on the definition of justice and not criticize the views and definitions of other people.
Thrasymachus argued that rulers cannot make a mistake, as they are in control of everything and the subjects should follow and participate in all the instructions given by the ruler. Throughout his presentation on the definition of justice, Thrasymachus wanted to be recognized as the person of interest concerning the definition of justice. It is because he gave his explanations in parts such that the audiences can be more inquisitive, and he can get time to explain and elaborate more on the meaning of justice (Conford, 1941). When Socrates and others criticized him, Thrasymachus explained further that tyranny, some by democracy, and others by an aristocracy rule different states. Each of the states the element which is the ruler is stronger as he could make any decision without being criticized. In all these leadership styles portrayed by the rulers, each of the leaders made laws to their advantage and declare them to their subjects. Any subject or individual who does not obey the laws made by the rule would be punished as the lawless and unjust. Thrasymachus did not succeed in his argument as Socrates criticized him to an extent that a neutral body was formed to determine when the leader is right or wrong and when he has made a mistake or no mistake in his ruling.
Glaucon Story of Gyges
The story of Gyges started when Glaucon wanted Socrates to defend the just life and the defense to show that is intrinsically preferred to injustice. Glaucon proposed to present the defense of injustice for the sake of argument. In his argument, Glaucon began by asserting that many people find it good or desirable to inflict wrongdoings on others the wrongdoers on the receiving end are regarded as undesirable. When people are on both ends of misdeeds receiving and giving, they will easily realize the pains of being a victim are more than the pains of being the victimizer (Conford, 1941). To avoid all these situations of being victims, people decide to come together and form agreements and the agreements were dubbed with the name justice. Glaucon argued and made clear that people do not enter into agreements, which give rise to justice willingly, and the situation is not seen as the best. Glaucon further regarded justice as something that is most desirable to an individual and something, which is most undesirable for the individual. Glaucon concluded by saying that people accept justice because of their weakness while the person with all the powers to carry out all the misdeeds successfully would be a fool if he/she would not do it in the position.
Glaucon decided to tell the story of the ring of Gyges to support his claims that no individual is willingly following Justice, and any person who is free to unjust would be unjust. The story is about the shepherd Gyges who found a magical ring of invisibility in a strange bronze horse that had been exposed by the earthquake. Shepherd Gyges used the power of the ring to seduce the queen and with the help of the queen; he murdered the king and took over the control of the realm. From the tale, Glaucon concluded that if identical rings were given to unjust man and a just man, both men would act unjustly (Conford, 1941). It proved to his satisfaction that they are acting justly only when they are under compulsion. By nature, Glaucon claims that it is obvious that all human beings desire more than what they are due in their life. Despite the expression, Glaucon considered that there is a possibility that an individual might refuse to use the ring in performing misdeeds. However, such a person would be praised in all ways to his/her face, and he/she would be regarded as a fool for refusing to use power in his/her possession.
Socrates favor of Supervising all Arts, Crafts, and Architecture
When Thrasymachus was presenting his argument and meaning of justice, he used all the three arts, crafts, and architecture to support his position that the rulers do not make mistakes. Thrasymachus claimed that a ruler who makes errors or mistakes is not a ruler. Since the ruler is above everything and cannot be challenged, everything that is standing for is right and should be followed by the subjects. According to Thrasymachus, to be a ruler is to exercise or practice the art and the technique of ruling and. Therefore, no incorrectly enacted laws or rules will be resulting out of exercising the art (Conford, 1941). Socrates wanted arts to be closely supervised as per the argument of Thrasychamus that a ruler should exercise the art of ruling and when the ruler makes mistakes when applying the art of ruling, he/she will not be considered as the ruler. The argument by Socrates to supervise the arts is because the performances of arts will be evaluated as per the artist who produced the arts. Thrasymachus claimed that a ruler is like an artisan because when the crafts produced failed to meet the required standard or the purpose intended the person producing them will not be regarded as the craftsman. He argues that the same applies to the ruler that he cannot make mistakes while ruling and any ruler who makes mistakes will not be a ruler.
Socrates was against all these arguments as in his personal argument a ruler needs knowledge in ruling such that he/she can be a ruler, and he/she can make mistakes like any other person because human beings are not perfect in anything they are doing. The same applies to the craftsman, as he/she requires some knowledge in craftsmanship to produce quality crafts or act as a craftsman (Conford, 1941). Socrates wanted close supervision of arts, crafts, and architecture about ruling. Socrates claimed that all the three were applied in making laws and application of justice. Close supervision will enable the rulers to produce quality laws serving all subjects equally. The art of ruling, legislative craft, and architecture are applied when making laws, and they should be closely supervised.
Physical Training benefits one’s mind or soul
According to Socrates, ...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
- American FederalismDescription: American Federalism was the era between 1861 and 1868, the era of the Civil War History Essay Master's level...3 pages/≈825 words| APA | History | Essay |
- crisis in the Gulf regionDescription: Crisis in the Gulf region History Essay Master's level...5 pages/≈1375 words| APA | History | Essay |
- Evolution Of The African-American Experiences Between 1920 And 1960Description: This paper will discuss some of the key moments in the twentieth century including the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, the workers unions and the trial of the Scottsboro boys in the 1930s, the double ‘V' campaign and the integration of blacks in the U.S forces in the 1940s....5 pages/≈1375 words| 5 Sources | APA | History | Essay |