3/20 The Republic Assignment
Q. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
A. He mostly says that leaders are making the decisions that benefit mostly themselves, and for what's in their best interest, which is the law, and anything else that doesn't fit in with his decisions is against the law. But then I also read that if a leader makes an order, and it hurts them, then that would be against the law. I'm really confused.
Q. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
A. I'm not very sure, but I think Thrasymachus' two main points are justice is for interest of the stronger people, and injustice is for for your own interest. I also think Socrates two main points are noone wants to be controlled by another, noone wants authority from another, and wise men would rather have other men do their work, rather them having to do it themselves.
Q. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
A. It is never right to harm another, because you're not only effecting that person, but you're also effecting yourself. If you hurt someone, you could have regret over what you have caused, because that person could backfire on you, and even hurt you as well, sort of like revenge. You also wouldn't make a big impact on that person if you hurt them physically, because you're only hurting them on the outside, when you hurt them mentally, then you're effecting them, causing an emotional state. I think Socrates would most likely agree with this, but would not exactly agree with fighting mentally, or with words. I think Socrates would say something like, you could cause this, but you could also force other men to take the consequences.
A. He mostly says that leaders are making the decisions that benefit mostly themselves, and for what's in their best interest, which is the law, and anything else that doesn't fit in with his decisions is against the law. But then I also read that if a leader makes an order, and it hurts them, then that would be against the law. I'm really confused.
Q. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
A. I'm not very sure, but I think Thrasymachus' two main points are justice is for interest of the stronger people, and injustice is for for your own interest. I also think Socrates two main points are noone wants to be controlled by another, noone wants authority from another, and wise men would rather have other men do their work, rather them having to do it themselves.
Q. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
A. It is never right to harm another, because you're not only effecting that person, but you're also effecting yourself. If you hurt someone, you could have regret over what you have caused, because that person could backfire on you, and even hurt you as well, sort of like revenge. You also wouldn't make a big impact on that person if you hurt them physically, because you're only hurting them on the outside, when you hurt them mentally, then you're effecting them, causing an emotional state. I think Socrates would most likely agree with this, but would not exactly agree with fighting mentally, or with words. I think Socrates would say something like, you could cause this, but you could also force other men to take the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment