• Yanni
    16
    I'm reading 'The Republic' at the moment and in Book 1 Thrasymachus counter-intuitively agrees to some of Socratres propositions when debating "justice is the interest of the stronger"

    There is a part where Socrates asks Thrasymachus:

    "But does he therefore confer no benefit when he works for nothing?”
    “Certainly he confers a benefit"

    I would have thought Thrasymachus' whole contention would rely on 'pay' and 'self interest' being the only true 'benefit' of the practice.
    That must mean that while Thrasymachus acknowledges another type of benefit that isn't monetary, he's contending that the monetary benefit is a primary motivation ahead of any other motivations that he wouldn't see as beneficial at all.

    In this case why would he agree?

    The only way I can seem to reconcile this is by assuming that, because he agrees then, Thrasymachus accepts 'interest' as a dichotomous notion, one side being 'self interest' and the other being 'genuinely of interest'

    Just seeking some explanation for this..
  • Wallows
    9.6k
    Yes, they converge here (and if I'm not mistaken the divergence is due to this very momentary convergence) in that one needs to be guided by the good to desire according to Socrates, contrary to what Thrasymachus desires for the sake of being "stronger", which can be understood as more competent.

    Hope that made sense, it's been a while.
  • Wallows
    9.6k
    Or more bluntly, same method, differing outcomes.
  • Yanni
    16
    hmm but I would have thought that the 'non-monetary' benefits wouldn't qualify as benefits at all for Thrasymachus in that the only benefit that would contribute to the attainability of a socially advantageous position would be money.
  • Wallows
    9.6k
    hmm but I would have thought that the 'non-monetary' benefits wouldn't qualify as benefits at all for Thrasymachus in that the only benefit that would contribute to the attainability of a socially advantageous position would be money.Yanni

    So, just a point I want to talk about that is disputed and should not come off as factual:

    -Thrasymachus is thought to be the mouthpiece for Spartan culture, which Plato held in high regard, and some argue that was a template for deriving the political structure of his Republic. Due to this "fact", it's thought that Socrates was coffering acceptance of their method; but, not outcome. Thrasymachus' point lives on to this day and many followers of the idealization of Plato's Republic (Third Reich, Islamic Republic, et all), think that he was right, and that might makes what is right. Yet, we are inherently driven to disagree with the outcome of his method (violence, bloodshed, war, etc.)

    My two pennies.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.2k
    I would have thought Thrasymachus' whole contention would rely on 'pay' and 'self interest' being the only true 'benefit' of the practice.Yanni

    Working makes one stronger, "practise makes perfect". So exercise, which is practise, builds strength; and strength is good. The benefit of practise is strength.
  • Yanni
    16


    Are you talking about practice in the sense of a repeated excercise in order to maintain or improve a skill?

    I don’t mean practice in this sense.. I meant in terms of professional practice e.g Doctor
  • Yanni
    16
    okay thanks for this. Gives me something further to look into
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.2k

    In any sense, even the sense of a practising doctor, practise gives a person experience, making one stronger in one's capacity to carry out that exercise. Where I live a doctor must take part in a supervised form of practise, residency, prior to obtaining a license to practise. Only after this can a doctor establish a "practice".

    The benefit of working without pay is experience and it is experience which gives one the power to carry out the task in a efficacious way. That is strength. Thrasymachus' subject is power, and Socrates is referring to how power is derived from practise.
  • ChatteringMonkey
    292
    I would have thought Thrasymachus' whole contention would rely on 'pay' and 'self interest' being the only true 'benefit' of the practice.
    That must mean that while Thrasymachus acknowledges another type of benefit that isn't monetary, he's contending that the monetary benefit is a primary motivation ahead of any other motivations that he wouldn't see as beneficial at all.
    Yanni

    'Monetary benefit' and 'self-interest'/'benefit in general' need not be identical. Why couldn't he see other motivations as potentially beneficial?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.