Even though “Mathematical” isn’t quite the term I’d use for describing
Socrates’ sheer brilliance or ingenuity if you’d like to call it in
proving (eventually) his points on the rather intriguing debate centred
around justice. However, I must say that I wasn’t with Socrates’ views all
through the book in fact I quite agreed with Thrasymachus’ (please excuse
me if I get some of the names wrong..its all Greek to me after all !)
initial statement that “the just is nothing other than the advantage of
the stronger” something, trying not to digress from the discussion here, I
feel is especially relevant in modern society and not unlike the way
Thrasymachus’ supported his belief with some generic instances. Even
though I’m tempted to support Naomi on the fact that Socrates was less
than convincing on many of the arguments I eventually did or rather
Socrates made me believe that his stand on ‘Justice’ was quite right, I
can only admire his persona that can pique interest in people’s minds
(well, some of them) on arguments such as the one that forms the essence
A few queries for Sean though, I really did find his format of reasoning
quite interesting. For the example that you use i.e. the one starting
335b, I’d really like you to enlighten me on why you don’t agree with
“when they (human beings) are harmed, they become worse with respect to
human VIRTUE”. I can understand your reference to the fact that human
beings and their reactions to certain situations would be different,
understandably we’re at the peak of the evolution pyramid (I don’t if
there’s a term like that) but in the reference that Socrates makes about
human beings becoming ‘worse’ when harmed and more ‘unjust’ as a
collateral, fairly believable, atleast in my opinion.
But yes, as Dan put forward his views “it is never just to harm anyone”
does seem a little too fantastic for both the epoch the book is set in and