Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Socrates I Guess

I find Socrates more convincing because he was able to use example after example to get his point across and he even had Thrasymachus agreeing with him. He made it to where Thrasymachus had no relevant argument to defend his stance about justice being in the interest of the strong.
I think that Aristotle’s theory would be best be able to describe why Socrates is more convincing than Thrasymachus. In this scene in the book Socrates and Thrasymachus are arguing about whose interest justice is in. Whether it’s in the interest of the strong or someone else. This clearly leaves the reader and viewers with a choice. Other choices we have to make are if injustice is more gainful than justice, whether unjust is good and wise and just neither and whether the unjust is happier than the just. They either agree with Thrasymachus or they agree with Socrates, or maybe neither.
The ethos of Socrates was persuasive because he had common sense and moral virtue. He knew that there was no way that the unjust could ever be happier or more gainful than the just because everyone has some kind of just in them and as Socrates proved at the end, justice is the excellence of the soul. He showed goodwill to the audience by presenting them with questions he knew they had the answer to in order to get to his point.
The pathos of Thrasymachus was anger during Socrates speech. He was upset with just about everything Socrates said. As for the rest of the people listening, they seemed calm just as I felt as reader.
Logos were used well by Socrates also. It allowed the audience to be active in his speech and kept a transition between the two by asking questions that they obviously knew the answer to. When the audience answered him in the way that he knew they would, it helped him and made his argument that much stronger. It also really helped that the one person he was debating against was forced to agree with him also.


Post a Comment

<< Home