At this point, Thrasymachus enters the conversation. Socrates describes Thrasymachus as being like a wild beast wanting to tear Socrates apart, shouting and accusing Socrates of cheating the argument by only refuting other people rather than giving his own opinion. Thrasymachus had been wanting to jump in for some time, but the others around him had restrained him. Again, we have returned to the theme of violence. In this example, the people want to hear Socrates out and listen to the argument, so they keep the violence at bay for Socrates. That is, Socrates now has defenders for making his arguments. They may not yet agree with him, but they are at least willing to listen, and listen fully, or well.

 

Thrasymachus challenges Socrates to say what justice is, but he also limits the conversation by telling Socrates that he won’t accept certain answers, pithy answers, such as one-word answers like “the advantageous.” Thrasymachus, I think, represents many of us in thinking that, “hey, Socrates never really teaches us anything. He only rips apart others’ teachings or gives imprecise answers that require further clarification.” Unfortunately, Socrates weasels his way out of answering. He suggests that by placing limits on what Socrates can use as answers, it makes it ridiculous to answer, for the truth could be what is prohibited.

 

This is an interesting point. In society, do we fail to get at the truth because we limit the acceptable answers ahead of time? Especially in the public sphere, are we, the people, unwilling to accept certain answers, such as on issues of poverty or climate policy? Have we narrowed the list down to some set of politically correct or politically mainstream answers such that the person with the truth feels uncomfortable putting forth their views? I’m not certain that this is what Socrates (Plato) is getting at here, but it is interesting to consider this nonetheless. It also links back to the idea before about people being willing to listen to argument. Rather than using force to solve disputes, we can use arguments. Now, Socrates is pushing it further, saying, not only should we entertain arguments, but we shouldn’t reject certain answers ahead of time. We need to be open to actually listening.

 

Thrasymachus, however, is not open to listening. He actually jumps in and suggests that he has a better answer. That is, rather than being willing to listen to others, he’s asking people to listen to him. It appears that Plato is transitioning to a critique of professional educators here. For Thrasymachus doesn’t just ask to be heard, he asks to be paid. Even more, he wants the payment to be a fine. He wants to punish those who disagree. Imagine a university professor today entering a debate with a non-professor and suggesting that the non-professor pay a penalty if his argument is not as good as the professor’s. This is about rivalry. He is in competition. He wants to crush his enemy. This is worth contrasting with the “payment” that Socrates thinks is fitting. For Socrates, there is no penalty from arguing, there is only gain. One learns. An argument is not about proving who is better, who is a victor, but about coming to a better understanding of the truth. Both are victorious in gaining in knowledge.

 

Is the point here that philosophy is different from teaching? It’s interesting to compare their two views of justice with respect to education. Thrasymachus puts forth the idea that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Throughout his argument, he perceives Socrates as trying to do “harm” to his argument. He thinks he is trying to “overpower” him. To Thrasymachus, if there really is no justice but what the stronger say it is, then if he can prove strongest, his justice will prevail. That is, the strongest arguer defines truth. So it is quite threatening when another person comes along who weakens you. But Socrates never puts out his own views, so Thrasymachus can’t counter-attack. It is like being in a war with an enemy that won’t fight. Force only works against force. How do you fight that? For Socrates, on the other hand, justice is about the calculating part being in the right place. It is not the stronger who provide education, but the thinkers. In the just city, philosophers seek the truth, not victory. Truth is not defined by man, but exists on its own. Truth can only be discovered. Therefore, the right approach is to seek it. To be a learner.

 

It’s disturbing to note, however, that Socrates does do battle. He defeats Thrasymachus in argument. He goes on to defeat all the poets, demonstrating that they didn’t know the truth. In a sense, then, Socrates is just replacing physical force with verbal force. Whoever has the strongest argument wins. The pen has become mightier than the sword, so to speak. Is this a problem? I mean, no doubt, it is a huge step forward to have right decided by whoever makes the best argument, rather than whoever makes the best war, but it is still disturbing that right is set by the winner of something. Can we ever really know right, then? Or, are we doomed to always take to be right whatever the best arguments that we are exposed to say?

 

Let’s just imagine that an argument existed that actually showed what right is. That is, if you followed the argument, you actually would know the truth. But how would you really know it is the truth? For it could just be that it is the strongest argument. You might have the truth, but you might just be convinced because the argument is strong. Maybe this is why number and geometry were so important to the ancients. For it seems like those truths are untouchable. The arguments are clearly true, not simply the strongest. The same could be said of science. This is why there was so much hope during the Enlightenment, perhaps. We seemed to have found a way to arrive at the truth without having to rely on one or another argument. We could know. Of course, religion was always in the background as another way of knowing. Truth was revealed and you simply believed it. But I think a philosopher would simply say that religion is another argument. Socrates even uses it with the myth of Er.
Plato’s Republic could be seen, then, simply as a strong argument, rather than an argument about the truth. If Plato knows that the strongest argument wins, or the most persuasive appeal, then he will be inclined to ensure that his messaging wins. But this is starting to sound awfully cynical. Let’s go back to the text.