POL200Y1 Chapter Notes - Chapter Study Questions: Glaucon, Nonverbal Communication, Frenemy
This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
I. After Thrasymachus' powerful speech at 343a-344c, Socrates rescues the situation by floating once
again the "artisan in the strict sense" (345b-347e). This time, however, he must also introduce a new
art, the money making art. Has he succeeded in refuting Thrasymachus? Or has he only seemed to
I think that although he may not have solved the question at hand, he has successfully refuted
Thrasymachus’ point as beforehand the idea that the just man is fueled by the honour and compensation
provided by actly justly was never brought up, and so this brings forth the idea that a just man isn’t just for
the sake of being a just man, but for the sake of receiving its benefits.. Socrates proves Thrasymachus
wrong in claiming “no one wishes to rule voluntarily, but they demand wages as though the benefit from
ruling were not for them but for those who are ruled” (pg. 23. 345 e), and later that “no art of kind of rule
provides for its own benefit, but…it provides for and commands the one who is ruled - considering his
advantage - that of the weaker - and not of the stronger.” (pg. 24. 346 e).
II. At 350cd Thrasymachus, who entered the discussion so fearlessly, engages in some non-verbal
communication: he blushes. (Socrates never blushes, in this dialogue or any other.) What does this
blush teach us about Thrasymachus? Why does he blush at just this point in the discussion?
I believe that Thrasymachus blushes here because his original point, which he claimed not only to be
irrefutable but that Socrates could never create a well-cultivated response and instead was only able to
listen, has been proven wrong in both respects. Socrates here appeals to ethical consistency, embarrassing
Thrasymachus for contradicting himself in his own propositions.
III. Dissatisfied with both Thrasymachus’ critique of justice and Socrates’ defense of it, Glaucon derides
Thrasymachus’ claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. What is it in fact, according to
him? And what does he demand that Socrates show that it is? Glaucon is a complicated guy. Is he
the enemy of justice, or its friend? Its frenemy?
Glaucon plays the devil’s advocate, essentially claiming that since “the seeming overpowers even the truth
and is the master if happiness, one must surely turn wholly to it.” (pg. 42. 365c). He essentially claims that
good comes in three forms: 1) a good that everyone likes for its own sake, 2) a good everyone likes both for
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version