Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Thrasymachus 0 Socrates 1

I believe that Socrates (S) is more convincing than Thrasymachus (T). To begin with, the reluctance of T makes the reader begin to doubt his views. After almost every statement made by S, T is reluctant to answer and alot of his responses and very short, often one or two words. Its as if he didn't know how to respond. S successfully uses logos to persuade readers and stump T. "Then, I said, no science or art considers or enjoins the interest of the stronger or superior, but only the interest of the subject and weaker?" This question by Socrates leaves T speechless because it is contrary to what T what preaching, but logically is correct. T agrees after much reluctance. Austin's "speech act theory" emphasizes the important of context and Socrates manipulates many passages in a way that T logically must agree even though it is contrary to what he so called believes. "Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject or suitable to his art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says and does." This statement made by S, completely rules out what T had just taught about justice. T could not respond, he tried to change the subject. Socrates clearly won this battle.


Blogger Ami Herrera said...

I too agree that Socrates is more convincing than Thrasymachus, but I didn't think about Thrasymachus' uncertainty and hesitance as a flaw in his persuasiveness, which it definitely is. It is a very good point that the audience should consider Thrasymachus much less credible as a speaker because he does lack confidence in his presentation as an arguer.

12:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home