Thrasymachus, the Tough-Minded Realist

In the 17th century, when philosophy re-emerged as an important field of study in Western society, philosophers looked to Ancient Greece for inspiration. Much of the writings of 17th century philosophy relied heavily on influences of the prolific Greek thinkers, in particular Plato and Aristotle.[1] In looking at the philosophy of Ancient Greece, it is notable that the tough-minded subjectivists, represented throughout the discourse of modern philosophical thought, had no standing in the philosophical community of Ancient Greece. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the three biggest figures, all believed in essences of things and some form of objective Truth.[2] The subjugation of subjectivist thinking to the margins of philosophical thought in Ancient Greece can be seen clearly in the dialogue between Socrates in Thrasymachus regarding justice.

In the conversation between Thrasymachus and Socrates regarding the nature of justice, we see an example of the conflict between a subjective and an objective temperament in looking at the world. Before Thrasymachus enters the conversation, Socrates has successfully convinced Polemarchus (and the others in attendance) that Polmarchus’s definition of justice, “[giving] to each what is owed to him,”[3] is flawed. Thrasymachus is angered by the discussion between Socrates and Polemarchus, for he believes that Socrates has used his traditional rhetorical genius to twist the arguments of Polemarchus, without attempting to answer himself.[4] Due to his dissatisfaction with the previous discussion, Thrasymachus proposes a new definition: “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger.”[5] Thrasymachus’s general argument here is that justice is a volatile idea; it is ever-changing. He believes that to say there exists some pre-ordained ideal of justice is completely ludicrous. Rather, he believes that those people in power consistently change our ideas about justice to fit their needs.

In the ensuing dialogue, Socrates directs the conversation away from the main focus of Thrasymachus’s argument, thereby not confronting it directly. Instead of choosing to argue with the idea that justice is different in different places, Socrates instead chooses to question whether or not rulers know what is in their best interests.[6] There are two ways of looking at this digression from the serious question at hand. The first is that Socrates simply doesn’t realize the big picture of the topic. I find this unlikely. Socrates wasn’t an unintelligent guy. But if he did grasp the larger picture, it must mean that he intentionally drifted away from this topic. Socrates is then using the same technique for which he criticized the sophists in The Apology![7] Since Socrates’ argument against Thrasymachus’s original claim leaves much to be desired, we must examine for ourselves whether or not his claim that justice is subjective is valid.

If justice were universal, as Socrates seems to think[8], it would remain the same throughout time and space, and so we would have similar concepts of justice today as we did hundreds of years ago. Additionally, we would have the concepts of justice in the United States that exist in the rest of the world. It does not require an in-depth analysis to see that this is clearly not the case. For example, let us take the United States of 1787 and the United States of today. In 1787, an American of African descent constituted 3/5 of a person. Today that same person counts as one American. At that time, women were not allowed to vote. Now if one suggested that women should not have the right to vote, he would be decried in the name of justice. But let us also take a contemporary example. Suppose we say that the concept of justice changes with time, but that at any given time, there is a particular idea of justice that obtains universally. Yet in Pakistan today, the government allows a specific treatment of women which would be found totally unacceptable in the United States. Pakistani men, after divorcing their wives, return to the home of their former wives and throw hydrochloric or sulfuric acid on their ex-wives’ faces to make them so undesirable that they will never be able to remarry.[9] When we read this, we are struck by the severe sense of injustice about it. These women have done nothing wrong (in most cases) yet are punished mercilessly by their former husbands. Yet many Pakistanis do not see this as some glaring injustice. Clearly then, we see that Thrasymachus’s ideas about the dependence of justice on the views of those in power (men have more power than women in Pakistani culture) have significant validity when applied to the real world.

We see, then, that despite the potential validity of Thrasymachus’s argument, Socrates does not take him seriously, thereby relegating his subjectivist opinions to the margins of philosophical thought. Socrates is able to convince others that Thrasymachus is wrong simply by confusing Thrasymachus with his rhetorical tricks. What is missing is a serious dialogue about the validity of subjectivism. That Plato, through the voice of Socrates, entirely ignores this point of view, as represented by Thrasymachus, reveals a glaring weakness in his philosophical approach.

[1] René Descartes, The Discourse on Method and Related Writings, trans. By Desmond M. Clarke, (London: Penguin, 2003), xv.
[2] Marvin Perry, An Intellectual History of Modern Europe, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 15-18.
[3] Plato, The Republic, 331e.
[4] Ibid, 336b – 336e.
[5] Ibid, 338c.
[6] Ibid, 339c-339e.
[7] Plato, The Apology, 21b – 22a.
[8] Reference earlier citation.
[9] Nicholas Kristoff, “Terrorism That’s Personal,” The New York Times, November 30, 2008, sec. WK.