Thursday, July 13, 2006

Blog2: Socrates is more persuasive

In this reading I think that Socrates is more persuasive in his arguments than Thrasymachus. My belief that Socrates is more persuasive is mainly because I believe that Thrasymachus’ ethos is portrayed in a way that makes him unappealing to the audience. Firstly, Thrasymachus displays arrogant and narrow minded behavior in his speech insulting both Socrates and Socrates’ attempt to understand Thrasymachus’ view of justice. For example, Thrasymachus says to Socrates, “I will, to please you, since you will not let me speak”, and in this quote you can tell that Thrasymachus doesn’t respect Socrates and is not open to learning in this situation (25). It is obvious in Thrasymachus’ dialogue that he is not comfortable with being wrong or corrected, and this makes him les credible as a speaker. He is not as persuasive because if he is portrayed as someone who is unwilling to listen to others, people will not be willing to listen to him. Another reason that I think Thrasymachus isn’t as persuasive as Socrates is because he has a controversial expression of arête in his view of justice. Thrasymachus has the view that “perfect injustice is more gainful than perfect justice” which is not a common or accepted belief among most people (22). When statements such as these are made I think that audience would be less likely to want to here Thrasymachus argument because it is such a bold and different view than normal. Overall, Thrasymachus portrayed as close-minded person and therefore his credibility is substantially lowered in this dialogue.

5 Comments:

Blogger Nikhil said...

Even though "most" people might view injustice being more gainful than perfect justice, it is still true that in many situations that isn't always the case. For example, like Thras points out, when it comes to taxes, the unjust person will pay less and benefit from it, while the just person will pay the correct amount or more sometimes, and end up losing out on the benefit.

4:38 PM  
Blogger Nick_sp said...

I think it's important to realize how subjective "gains" and "benefits" are in these kinds of instances.

to a person who deeply loves wealth, power, and fame, the acquisition of these things is the pinnacle of living. Losing these things, or never having them at all, is what's devastating to this kind of person.

On the other hand, one can imagine an individual who cares little or nothing for power, wealth, or fame, and instead prefers a humble life, especially if it keeps his conscious clear. If you don't think these people exist, just look at monks, priests, etc throughout the world that live in utter modesty because it helps them feel closer to whatever power they worship.

to this person, the little bit of money you saved from being unjust and cheating on taxes is a small benefit beside the penalty of not being able to look in the mirror and be happy.

2:21 AM  
Blogger Danny said...

I agree with Nick that monks, priests, and others care nothing about power, wealth, or fame. However, they are not doing it without thier own benefit. Athough they have none of the benefits you mentioned they are doing in persuit of what they feel is more valuable. In this case they are devout because of their belief system. Their happiness comes from their convection and not wealth or fame.

8:22 AM  
Blogger phantomdance said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:36 AM  
Blogger phantomdance said...

I agree with both Nick and Danny on their views of what each type of person finds happiness in. Religious figures become these roles in their lives because of the fact that it simply pleases them to be a service to something or someone, or an idea. Their personal gain has alot to do with serving an idea as opposed to acquiring personal wealth and material possessions. Some people, even those without ranks as religious and modest figures, simply find joy and happiness in other riches of life that don't include monetary value, though it is a rare and dying thing nowadays. It is ironic how a person pure of heart is usually not given the benefit a doubt whereas someone who actively acquires wealth and power continuously is. Are they not as deserving because they have different ideals of happiness?

9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home