This article offers an interpretation of Thrasymachus’ Inmoralism, that is to say, of the set of judgements concerning the superior value of injustice in comparison with justice, issued by him in book I of Plato’s Republic. It is argued that both the argument in support of these judgements and its implicit resource to the concept of πλεονεξία cannot be interpreted descriptively, if they are to serve to justify the immoralists judgements. It is also argued that a particularly important subgroup of (...) such judgements is supported by a peculiar conception of practical reason based on the concept of πλεονεξία. Finally, the comparison is made between this ‘pleonexic’ conception of practical rationality and the one that Plato advocates in the Republic. (shrink)

In defending the view that justice is the advantage of the stronger, Thrasymachus puzzlingly claims that rulers never err and that any practitioner of a skill or expertise (τέχνη) is infallible. In what follows, Socrates offers a number of arguments directed against Thrasymachus’ views concerning the nature of skill, ruling, and justice. Commentators typically take a dim view of both Thrasymachus’ claims about skill (which are dismissed as an ungrounded and purely ad hoc response to Socrates’ initial criticisms) and Socrates’ (...) latter arguments (which are deemed extremely weak). In this paper, I clarify Thrasymachus’ views (and those of several other ancients) concerning qua locutions and the nature of skill and ability and I reconstruct Socrates’ arguments against Thrasymachus’ views concerning skill and justice. I argue that Thrasymachus’ views are not ungrounded or ad hoc and that Socrates’ arguments are rather different (and significantly stronger) than often supposed. (shrink)

This is an earlier version of a chapter from my book "Plato's Republic as a Philosophical Drama on Doing Well" (2014). The book analyses Plato’s Politeia (= Republic) as a philosophical drama in which the participants turn out to be models of various types of psychic constitution, and nothing is said by them which may be considered to be an opinion of Plato himself (with all that that entails for Platonism). The debate in Book I between Socrates and Thrasymachus serves (...) as a test case for the assumptions that the Socratic method involves searching for truth or examining the opinions of interlocutors and that Socrates is the mouthpiece of Plato. Socrates and Thrasymachus are usually assumed to be arguing about justice. In fact, they are going through the motions of an eristic debate, where the aim is not to discover the truth about the matter under discussion but to defeat the opponent by fair means or foul, but especially foul. The outrageous wordplay used by both men is not so obvious in translation, and in any case tends to be ignored or explained away by scholars who assume that Plato the philosopher was writing a philosophical treatise (an exposition of philosophical ideas) and not a philosophical drama (a presentation of philosophically interesting models, to be compared and contrasted by the reader). (shrink)

In a recent article, C. H. Kahn addresses an ‘old scholarly myth’, namely the idea that Book I of the Republic began life as an earlier, independent dialogue and was subsequently adapted to serve as a prelude to the much longer work that we know. The case for this hypothesis rests both on stylometric considerations and on the many ‘Socratic’ features that Book I, unlike the rest of the Republic, shares with Plato's earlier works. Having disposed of the positive arguments (...) in favour of the ‘myth’, Kahn turns to the contrary—and in his view overwhelming—evidence that Book I was composed from the start as an integral part of the longer Republic. He catalogues 12 passages in Book I, accounting for roughly half its length, whose full significance will, he argues, only emerge if they are seen as instances of prolepsis, deliberate anticipations of what is to come in later books. (shrink)

RESUMO: Ao associar governo à téchne, Trasímaco estabelece que o governo também exige um conhecimento específico. Esse saber permitiria que o governante pudesse beneficiar-se dos governados, tirando proveito deles. Em sua definição de governo, ele aproximará essa téchne do governo ao governante injusto, mais especificamente o tirano. Neste trabalho, pretende-se analisar a relevância dos argumentos de Trasímaco para a filosofia política. ABSTRACT: By associating government with téchne, Thrasymachus states that government requires specific knowledge. This knowledge allows the ruler to benefit (...) from the governed and to take advantage of them. In his definition of government, he equates this téchne with government by an unjust ruler, specifically that of a tyrant. This article aims to analyze the relevance of Thrasymachus' arguments for political philosophy. (shrink)

The conviction that Plato manipulated Thrasymachus’ views is today accepted by the scholarly opinion. Given the absence of testimonies regarding the political and moral views held by the historical Thrasymachus, the degree of this manipulation can be gauged only by assessing the degree of incoherence and ambiguity in the views of the Platonic Thrasymachus. This perspective, of necessity a self-referential one, is overcome by the hypothesis presented in the following article, namely, that Plato manipulates not as much the views of (...) the historical Thrasymachus as the extremely concise and ambiguous thesis which he has ascribed to him; and that the goal of this manipulation is to mock Thrasymachus’ style and rhetorical posture – both confirmed by testimonies outside the Platonic text – as ill suited to the philosophical reflection on the content of this thesis. (shrink)

In Book I of the Republic, or so I shall argue, Plato gives us a glimpse of sheer horror. In the character, beliefs, and desires of Thrasymachus, Plato aims to personify some of the most diabolical dangers that lurk in human nature. In this way, the role that Thrasymachus plays for Plato is akin to the role that for Hobbes is played by the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all, which would allegedly be the inevitable result (...) of a "state of nature", where human beings have no government to terrorize them into obedience. It is also akin to the role that for Kant is played by the "radical evil" that is allegedly an indelible feature of human nature itself. As I shall try to show, the desires that characterize Thrasymachus are of the kind that are described in Book IX as "lawless" desires, desire of the wild insane kind that dominate the tyrannical soul; and his beliefs systematically reflect these desires, in a way that has its own hideously coherent logic. (shrink)

Thrasymachus’ position on justice, as articulated in Book I of Plato’s Republic, has emerged in the literature as a frustratingly intractable problem because it seems to be made up of contradictory accounts. This paper accomplishes three objectives in relation to this problem. First, it offers an original solution, ‘the relativity view’, which reads Thrasymachus’ two speeches as a temporal narrative, thereby explaining away the notorious contradiction. Second, it highlights the little-noted and underappreciated relativistic and perspectival understandings of justice in Thrasymachus’ (...) account in order to demonstrate where the dominant positions in the literature have gone wrong. Finally, it connects the ‘relativity view’ to the Republic as a whole, a surprising deficiency in most of the literature, which gestures to a deeper understanding of the connections between Book I and the rest of the Republic. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the first iteration of Thrasymachus’ claim as reported in Book I of Plato’s Republic that ‘justice is the interest of the stronger’, namely, a ‘political’ interpretation, according to which ‘justice is the interest of the stronger party in each polis as established in the law’. The author contends that this argument is logically and rhetorically distinct from Thrasymachus’ subsequent restatements of his position in Republic I. The ‘political’ version of the Thrasymachean position enjoyed currency after the (...) composition of the Republic — and in a way that was not entirely negative. The current paper examines two cases of this reception: the first, in Plato’s own late work, the Laws, where he reengages with the Thrasymachean doctrine; the second, in the De republica Anglorum of Sir Thomas Smith, an early modern theorist who self-consciously defended Thrasymachus’ theory of justice. The paper’s immediate purpose is to suggest that Thrasymachus’ conception of ‘political’ justice, in particular, has far more coherence and power than the supposed ‘refutation’ of it in the Republic might leads us to believe. (shrink)

RESUMO Em nosso artigo, pretendemos verificar as teses de Trasímaco sobre a justiça e se estas são consistentes entre si. Para isso, há de se observar a relação da justiça com o governo e a força que a determina. O intuito é reavivar as discussões hodiernas sobre as teses de Trasímaco dentro da filosofia platônica, assim como demonstrar sua importância para o âmbito da filosofia política. ABSTRACT This article aims to verify Thrasymachus' theses on justice and whether they are consistent (...) with one another. As such, it is necessary to observe the relation between justice and government, as well as the force which determines it. The objective is to revive in actual times the discussions about Thrasymachus' theses within Plato's philosophy, and to demonstrate its importance in the scope of political philosophy. (shrink)

A discussão entre Trasímaco e Sócrates no Livro I da República de Platão dá vigor à questão da justiça iniciada com Céfalo. Trasímaco é um personagem importante da obra, pois vai relacionar a justiça ao governo da cidade. Isso faz com que a justiça saia da esfera individual e entre na esfera pública. Em nosso artigo, pretendemos verificar as teses de Trasímaco sobre a justiça e se estas são consistentes entre si. O problema da consistência das teses é antigo entre (...) os comentadores e apresenta diferentes soluções. Nosso intuito é propor uma solução para o problema e relacionar isto à arte do governo proposta por Trasímaco. Isso nos permite verificar a maneira pela qual Sócrates e Trasímaco diferem entre si em suas propostas de governo e dos tipos de governante. Desse modo, nosso trabalho pretende contribuir com a literatura platonista sobre o papel ocupado por Trasímaco dentro da obra de Platão. (shrink)

This catalogue is divided into two parts. Part 1 presents basic bibliographical information on books and journal issues that consist exclusively or in large part in papers devoted to the Presocratics and the Sophists. Part 2 lists the papers on Presocratic and Sophistic topics found in the volumes, providing name of author, title, and page numbers, and in the case of reprinted papers, the year of original publication. In some cases Part 2 lists the complete contents of volumes, not only (...) the Presocratic and Sophistic-related papers. Annual updates are submitted as additional files below. (shrink)

La présente étude vise à tirer du témoignage platonicien la plus large information positive sur le maître de rhétorique Thrasymaque de Chalcédoine. Il s’agit en particulier d’établir la cohérence entre le propos tenu sur Thrasymaque dans le contexte de la présentation de l’histoire de la rhétorique dans le Phèdre et les propos prêtés au personnage de Thrasymaque au premier livre de la République. On avance que les thèses politiques du personnage fictif reflètent une conception de l’art oratoire fondée sur la (...) production d’affections chez l’auditeur, en particulier de la pitié : la description des situations politiques doit faire apparaître en toute circonstance la position peu enviable du dominé, afin de justifier la plainte. Ce résultat est confirmé par la confrontation aux fragments restants de l’œuvre de Thrasymaque. On en tire dès lors une conclusion sur l’influence du Thrasymaque historique sur Platon : si le philosophe abandonne la rhétorique émotionnelle de l’orateur, il en conserve et en amplifie le pessimisme. (shrink)

Une analyse adéquate de la pensée de Thrasymaque doit affronter un double problème de cohérence. Les thèses qu’il avance dans la République de Platon ont été jugées incompatibles ; en outre, elles semblent en opposition avec d’autres fragments conservés. Cet article vise à montrer qu’une lecture politique de la pensée de Thrasymaque peut rendre compte de ces difficultés. Parallèle­ment à son intérêt pour la rhétorique, les témoignages dont nous disposons sou­lignent l’engagement politique de Thrasymaque, dont le contexte fut probable­ment la (...) polémique contre la démocratie athénienne. Or nombre des affirmations soutenues par Thrasymaque dans la République de Platon impliquent une attitude anti-démocratique. Deuxièmement, la plus grande importance doit être accordée au fameux témoignage sur les dieux (DK B8) qui, bien loin d’être une amère protestation contre la violation humaine de la justice, se comprend mieux comme une façon paradoxale de provoquer la moralité traditionnelle en soute­nant que les dieux ne se soucient pas de l’humanité. Le fragment B8 apporte une confirmation supplémentaire du rôle stratégique de Thrasymaque dans la philo­sophie politique de Platon. En effet, le but principal de Platon, de la République aux Lois, est la fondation « théologique » de la justice, en opposition fondamen­tale avec les thèses conventionnalistes comme celle qu’assume Thrasymaque. (shrink)