Reading Notes on The Republic: 348C-348E

Preface: Many of the viewpoints in this article come from Teacher Zhang Anren. Following Teacher Anren to read “The Republic” for a year and a half, I still cannot grasp even one out of a hundred. I attempt to organize my thoughts, not seeking to be an expert, but merely to establish my own understanding.

Socrates: Do you say that justice is evil?

Thrasymachus: No, I believe justice is natural loyalty and innocence.

Socrates: Then do you say that injustice is natural malice?

Thrasymachus: No. I say it is shrewd judgment.

He said, just the opposite. Therefore, we will naturally feel that: justice is evil, and injustice is good. However, Thrasymachus denied this. He said that “ just the opposite does not mean that.

What does he mean by justice? “Justice is natural loyalty and innocence.““Injustice is shrewd judgment.“Here it changes again. He changes his stance frequently, not playing by the rules, or rather, not following the logic we generally believe..

Let’s clarify this logic. Justice and injustice are one good and one evil, which is what Thrasymachus acknowledges. Then, injustice is beneficial while justice is harmful! Next, justice is natural loyalty and innocence, while injustice is shrewd judgment. This is Thrasymachus’s logic, or rather, his three-part viewpoint..

Injustice is beneficial and justice is harmful.. Beneficial to whom? Injustice is beneficial to the unjust. To whom is justice harmful? Justice is harmful to the just..

Because Thrasymachus previously said that the unjust gain benefits by making the just just, meaning that I can break the law, I can harm others, as long as it is beneficial to me. However, if he encounters another unjust person, someone who harms others, he himself will no longer benefit.. So he demands that others do not harm others, do not break the law, so that he can gain the benefits of injustice. This is his true meaning. That is, the unjust gain benefits by making others just. The result of this is injustice is beneficial to the unjust, while justice is harmful to the just..

Next, justice is natural loyalty and innocence. Why are just people just? On one hand, it is natural loyalty, meaning their nature is just and kind. The second is innocence. That is, the unjust use deception, evil, etc., to make others just, while they themselves are unjust. Their ability to remain unjust without being caught relies on the innocence of the just, which is dependent on the foolishness of others. The foolishness of others corresponds to their own shrewdness, so he says “ it is shrewd judgment.” In other words, the unjust are sophisticated egoists.

Socrates: Thrasymachus, do you really think that injustice is both wise and beneficial?

Thrasymachus: Of course. At least those extreme unjust individuals who can conquer many city-states and many people are so. You might think that the unjust I refer to are some petty thieves. However, even petty thieves, as long as they are not caught, also have their benefits, although they cannot be compared to the grand thieves I just mentioned.

Socrates: I think I did not misunderstand your meaning. However, you classify injustice among virtues and wisdom, while classifying justice in the opposite category, which I cannot help but express my surprise.

Thrasymachus: I indeed classify it this way.

He continues to confirm what the other party’s viewpoint is.. Do you really think that injustice is both wise and beneficial? Previously, injustice was shrewd judgment, and injustice is beneficial, so combined, it means that injustice is both wise and beneficial..

If we are a clever speaker or debater,, we can discover a loophole, because Thrasymachus said, at least those who can conquer many city-states and many people are extremely unjust. What about those who are not rulers? For those who fail, can we still say that injustice is both wise and beneficial??

Thrasymachus anticipated that Socrates would raise some questions, so he immediately continued to speak, wanting to close this loophole of Socrates, “You might think that the unjust I refer to are some petty thieves, but even if they are petty thieves, as long as they are not caught,“ meaning as long as they are clever enough, “they also have their benefits,“ meaning they can also gain benefits. Socrates said: “I think I did not misunderstand your meaning.“ Now it is confirmed.

However, he expressed surprise at Thrasymachus classifying injustice among virtues and wisdom, while classifying justice in the opposite category.

Socrates here introduces two new concepts— virtue and wisdom.

When discussing good and evil,, Socrates and Thrasymachus each have their own understanding. Socrates said: “ Justice is good, and injustice is evil.“ He categorizes virtue and wisdom under justice. Justice is a collection, and within justice, there are virtue and wisdom, or virtue and wisdom are the same thing, both are within justice.

Thrasymachus said that shrewd judgment is both wise and beneficial. The view of the wise school on virtue is clearly different from our general understanding of virtue. The virtue we speak of is justice,, kindness, compassion, courage, etc. However, Thrasymachus believes that the ultimate criterion for judgment of virtue is utility, meaning whether I can gain benefits. As long as I can gain benefits, it is virtue and wisdom..

However, Socrates is the opposite. His virtue and wisdom are depersonalized, using real benefits as the standard for whether virtue and wisdom exist. He regards virtue and wisdom as higher than real benefits, and that if you possess virtue and wisdom, you can judge whether the acquisition of benefits is just. However, Thrasymachus states very decisively: “ This is how I classify it.“

Related posts

Leave a Comment Cancel reply