Thursday, July 13, 2006

Blog # 3- Burkes Pentad

Agent: Socrates and Thrasymachus
Act: Persuading others using developed rhetoric and the Socratic method
Scene: Cephalus' house
Agency: Conversation and persuasion amongst men
Purpose: To discover the true nature of justice and injustice

The discussion here was between two men, Socrates and Thrasymachus. After arriving at Cephalus' house and speaking to the host about justice, Socrates basically gets handed off into a conversation with Thrasymachus. Initially, Thras thinks that he knows far more than Socrates and someone views him as a con-artist more than a wise teacher. After excessive questioning and advanced rhetoric on the part of Socrates, Thrasymachus' arguments seem to lose a lot of their weight. Book 1 starts off kind of slow but when the conversation begins with Thrasymachus, the pace of the book picks up. This is probably due to the fact that Thras feels more passionately about what he thinks real justice is than the other men-with the exception of Socrates. Unfortunately for Thrasymachus, Socrates manages to refute almost every argument that Thras makes, forcing Thras to basically give up and agree with the assumptions Socrates puts forth.

I do not think Book 1 represents or even effectively mentions the idea of Utopia because there is too much deviation in the beliefs of the men talking. They can not all agree on one exact definition of justice and in a Utopian society, it seems to me as though justice (law, good vs. evil) should be the first thing they agree upon. If it were to be a Utopia, the whole premise of Book 1 would cease to exist because to me in a Utopian society, arguments need not exist because everything is already perfect.

2 Comments:

Blogger karebear1206 said...

For my post on this blog topic, I had written something similar to yours regarding the representation of utopia. But after what was said in today's class, I got to thinking, that even in a utopian society, there could still be arguments. But I guess as long as a true consensus was attained, Utopia could be represented. So, Socrates and Thrasymachus were arguing about justice. If we define Utopia as a perfect society, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects, then Utopia could have been represented if they truly were in agreement about justice signifying virtue or not. But I still agree with you and my blog about this situation not representing utopia since I do not believe the ideas of Socrates and Thrasymachus were in perfect harmony. Even though in the end Trasymachus began to eat his own words and agree with Socrates, he didn't seem to genuinely stand on the same side as Socrates. Though what I do take back about what I said on my blog was that disagreement could not be present in a utopian society.

11:46 PM  
Blogger Nikhil said...

See, even after hearing what was said in class yesterday, I still do not think that arguments should happen in a Utopian society-- this may lead to it being a dull society where everyone agrees, but to me, that is just a consequence of the Utopia. If arguments do occur, where no real truth or common ground is found, it is automatically NOT the peaceful, pleasant Utopia that I envision.

9:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home