Student Question
What is your initial impression of the Socratic method in Plato's Republic?
Quick answer:
One's initial impression of Socratic method in Plato's Republic may be that it is a useful way of bringing us closer to the truth while at the same leaving the question open. Through his questioning method, Socrates clarifies concepts such as justice while still leaving much room for further debate and argument.
Plato's Republic presents us with several notable examples of the Socratic method in action. Instead of treating everyone to a lecture on what he thinks about a certain philosophical concept, Socrates engages in a dialog with some particular figure in an attempt to get closer to the truth.
Socrates isn't trying to teach anything to anyone; after all, he famously proclaimed that he knew only one thing, and that was that he knew nothing. In his philosophical dialogues, he's simply trying to encourage people to clarify their thoughts in the hope that they will have a better understanding of important concepts and ideas such as the meaning of justice.
As with many of Socrates's interlocutors, Thrasymachus in the Republic thinks he knows what a particular idea means. In his case, it's justice, which he attempts to define as whatever gives an advantage to the stronger. Thrasymachus then goes on...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
to claim that the life of an unjust man—such as a tyrant—is better than that of a just man.
Socrates challenges Thrasymachus's bold assertions. His main argument is that no knowledge, including the knowledge of justice, seeks what is advantageous to itself. This means, among other things, that contrary to Thrasymachus's earlier assertion, justice cannot be defined as that which gives an advantage to the stronger. Note here that Socrates regards justice as an object of knowledge, something we can actually know.
A few more arguments are exchanged between Socrates and the cocksure Sophist. Socrates argues, contrary to Thrasymachus, that the unjust man is not happy; in fact, he's in a constant state of unrest, always dissatisfied with himself and others. This is because, according to Socrates, virtue is a quality that allows something to perform its function well.
But injustice doesn't do this; on the contrary, it leads to disharmony, both in the soul of the tyrant, and in society as a whole. Therefore, it cannot be a virtue. Indeed, it is the opposite of one. And as justice is the opposite of injustice, it logically follows that it must be a virtue.
Though Socrates clearly gets the better of the argument, no firm conclusions have been drawn. Thrasymachus's arguments were clearly defective, but no complete definition of justice has been arrived at. And that's entirely in the nature of Socratic method; it always leaves open the possibility for a concept or idea to be developed in a new direction.