The Frustrated Interlocutor - Republic Book 1

Socrates is notorious for frustrating some of his interlocutors to their wits end.  In reading Republic Book I felt as if I were “participating in the Form” of the Socratic Interlocutor.  

In Book I, we find Thrasymachus debating with Socrates about the nature of Justice.  Before he even jumps into the conversation, he knows it is going to be a frustrating experience, calling Socrates out on his incessant questioning, his never offering a proper answer of his own, and even calling him a false witness. The conversation begins, and we find Thrasymachus  giving a very “proto-Nietzschian” view of justice – that justice is essentially the will of the powerful over those who are weaker.  Right away this grabbed me, as I have often been fascinated with Nietzsche’s arguments against morality and his conception of the Superman.  To see these ideas already here in Book I of the Republic once again confirmed Whitehead’s famous quote, that most of Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato!  The discussion starts out on a political conception of justice, and Thrasymachus  and Socrates debate what it is to be a just ruler.  While this was interesting, what really gripped me was Thrasymachus ’ speech in 343b – 344c, where he gives multiple examples of how the unjust seem to prosper over the just.  His examples include the spheres of contracts (i.e. business), paying taxes, and holding public office, and I felt his arguments and examples in each sphere were quite convincing.  It reminded me of how in many places in Scripture the Biblical author will cry out, wondering why it is that the wicked prosper?  It often does seem that the wicked, i.e. unjust, have a better life.  When Thrasymachus  threatens to stop the conversation short, Socrates pleads with him to continue, saying, “Do you think it a small matter to determine which whole way of life would make living most worthwhile for each of us?”

Yes indeed!  These are the great questions of philosophy!  The ones that really matter. And so I read on with anticipation, eager to see what nuggets of truth that Socrates, the ancient man of wisdom, would bring to the discussion.  

I was greatly disappointed with what followed.  In fact, Socrates’ argument in response was so bad, I was left wondering if it was even serious, or if there was some kind of irony or literary twist that going was going on - perhaps I just was not smart enough to see it?  Socrates creates this convoluted argument, where he explores whether or not the just man wants to outdo the unjust, and vice versa.  We find that the unjust person wants to outdo both the unjust and the just, whereas the just person only wants to outdo the just.  Then Socrates brings up the case of the musician and the physician, who do not want to outdo other musicians and physicians, but only those who are non-musical and do not practice medicine.  He then makes a parallel claim that the knowledgeable person and good person would not want to outdo other knowledgeable or good people but only those who are ignorant or bad.  Socrates concludes that this makes the just person then like the knowledgeable and good person, and the unjust person like the ignorant and the bad.  The argument is frustrating for a number of reasons.  First, it seems to completely miss the point. Thrasymachus was talking about how the unjust seem to have an unfair advantage in the accumulation of wealth, possessions, power and pleasure in the material world.  Socrates simply didn't address any of these issues.  What on earth does Thrasymachus' thesis have to do with whether or not one expert in a field, whether doctor or musician, tries to outdo other experts?  Also, common sense experience seems to indicate that people who possess a craft do in fact try to outdo one other.  In fact, the sense of competition between individuals to outdo one another, while perhaps not a sufficient cause, is surely a what spurs on much of human advancement.  Whether that advancement is better philosophical argumentation, more publications, better products that meet consumer needs, or other kinds of scientific achievement.  The "pride of excellence" one might call this, where one seeks to be the best in their field, while possibly in part for altruistic purposes, but at least in part just to “be the best.”

I feel as mystified and perplexed as Socrates interlocutors often seem to be.  If there is a Greek word for “bedazzled”, I would like to know what it is.