>>25157088
You can rape a country about as hard as you like and still stay in power for your entire natural lifespan.

>>25157088
He makes a different argument that I like with Callicles. he says that the strongest do as they like, but who are the strongest? The strongest are men as a whole rather than any individual man and men as a race have seen fit to overthrow tyrants and imprison murderers- thus making egalitarian beliefs the true strongest ideology

>>25157088
Well he hadn't even defined justice to begin with. Besides, he contradicts himself when he defines the ideal guardian in Book II. There, you wouldn't be blamed for thinking you're listening to Polemarchos instead of Socrates when he says that the ideal guardian is like a dog, gentle to those he knows and hostile to those he doesn't. In other words, the ideal guardian is one who does good to his friends and evil to his enemies.

>>25157088
Well, he doesn't adequately show both what justice is and whether it's good, Socrates just shows that Thrasymachus has conflicted opinions about wisdom being good and the just man being wise. The debate as a whole also has a strange character to it where Thrasymachus' definition, "justice is the advantage of the stronger," isn't quite refuted even if Socrates prevails; if Thrasymachus prevails, his definition evidently stands, but even if Socrates prevails, he appears to be "the stronger," i.e., in argument, and so Thrasymachus' definition remains on the table. Socrates knows something screwy is up, because he says at the end of book 1 that he's not satisfied with how the debate went, and it takes Glaucon and Adeimantus demanding he define justice and prove it to be good for the just man at the start of book 2 to move things along.

The argument seems to assume that being good to the populous is the only way to keep them in line, as opposed to say propaganda or something else. Also, all the argument might prove is that the tyrant may feel compelled to provide the bare minimum in order to keep the populous from revolting, which probably wouldn't be very just.

>>25157088
It's okay if a philosopher king does it

>>25157092
Maybe if you're lucky, or if you didn't want to rape them that hard to begin with. People's desires are potentially infinite. There's a limit to the damage you can do before even your most loyal, callous, and rapacious subordinates begin scheming about how to protect themselves by removing you.

>>25157096
This is a weaker argument imho. I think Thrasymachus's arguments are better because it refutes self-interest by making other people's interests factor at least partially into self-interest.

>>25157158
>>25157189
It's fair that Socrates hasn't defined what justice was yet, but was that the task at that point? He was merely refuting other people's opinions of what justice is at that stage of Plato's Republic. At the very least, Socrates shows that whatever Thrasymachus means by "advantage of the stronger" would not reflect popular notions of an oppressive tyrant. There's no need to shift goalposts here.

Plus, we can argue that everything past the city of sows is not a true reflection of what Socrates may have thought what justice was, given that he was compelled by his interlocutors to add relishes to his initial plan for the just city. But that's another topic perhaps best reserved for another thread.

>>25157194
If you kill your flock, you have no more flock to take advantage of. To the extent that you deprive your flock, is less of a flock you have to harness. I would argue that even "bare minimum" would require a more robust well-being for the populace than what one would consider from Thrasymachus's image of the stronger and its advantage.

>>25157357
>There's a limit to the damage you can do before even your most loyal, callous, and rapacious subordinates begin scheming about how to protect themselves by removing you
You'd think so, and it has happened like this on many occasions throughout history, but there are outliers: Putin today is a good example.

>>25157357
>There's a limit to the damage you can do before even your most loyal, callous, and rapacious subordinates begin scheming about how to protect themselves by removing you.
So it's fine and just as long as I stop just short of getting deposed? Not a very high standard for justice, I think.

Moreover if you had perfectly loyal subordinates that never question you or betray you, you could inflict arbitrary levels of suffering on your people. And this would all be considered "just".

Thankfully we don't have to worry about that possibility.

>>25157366
You'd have to be retarded to think this. Putin is an angel compared to virtually every other Russian ruler who has ever existed for the entirety of Russian history.

>>25157376
At the very least, it refutes the idea that justice is advantage of the stronger, or at least dilutes the concept of "the advantage of the stronger" to the point where it's not all about the stronger's base desires. The fact that he mollifies Thrasymachus's passions in this seems like a pretty strong case that the excess of tyrants has to be moderated in order for the tyrant to get what they actually want without annihilating themselves. Obviously, the true nature of justice is much more difficult to attain, but Book I is about refuting all the common notions of justice, not about finding a better one (which is left to the later books and somewhat unanswered). From the vantage point of what Socrates is trying to do, he appears to be successful, as successful as he was in demolishing the other opinions stated in Book I at least.

>>25157386
"the people are stronger than one person" is not an argument against justice being the advantage of the strong

>>25157391
It is an argument against the caricature of tyranny that Thrasymachus argues for, which is the idea that the strong's self-interest extends only to the immediate self-interest of itself. And that's sufficient enough to deflate the thrust of his argument.

>>25157391
One tyrant by himself is not the strongest and so justice however you argue it cant be merely whatever benefits a single individual at the expense of the many which is what Socrates was getting at. Justice must have some definite application where the many equally benefit.

>>25157357
>It's fair that Socrates hasn't defined what justice was yet, but was that the task at that point? He was merely refuting other people's opinions of what justice is at that stage of Plato's Republic.
I agree, but I would also add that getting at the definition of justice is what Polemarchus and Thrasymachus think they're doing, and, absent Socrates establishing what it must or might be, they could be forgiven if they think the results of Socrates' questioning are unsatisfying insofar as they're not led by him to understand what they should replace their opinions with.

>>25157460
I agree with your points as well. Socrates does seem to wound Thrasymachus as much as he wounds Polemarchus in that limited scope. But the eristic approach can't be the only approach to the topic, and there's a reason why Thrasymachus later resurfaces in Plato's Republic despite being initially "tamed".

I feel pretty satisfied by this thread in general. Thank you and the others for talking things through with me.

File: IMG_0343.jpg (22 KB, 400x224)

22 KB JPG

>when it’s a misunderstanding the core concepts of Platonist doctrine contest and your opponents are the users of 4chan /lit/

>>25157402
The portrayal of
>justice is the advantage of the strong
as
>the strong must be shortsighted
was a strawman to begin with. Which is my issue with the dialogues in general.

>>25157439
>One tyrant by himself is not the strongest
Imagine a world where the tyrant is actually the strongest, where one person has the ability to unilaterally control millions of others. What consideration would the tyrant have for those under his thumb?

>>25157518
You can imagine a world like that but it’s a sci fi fantasy inside your empty skull. Even in dictatorships like Nazi Germany it’s not really one man unilaterally controlling the country. It’s the leader then his higher echelon then the Gestapo and SS men beneath them. Each one of them has to be in harmony with those around them - that’s what justice is.

>>25157589
>doesn't understand what a thought experiment is
The exercise is meant to show that the dictator needs only to consider others in so far as they have capacity to hinder his own self interest. That is to say, how right you are depends on how much power you are able to wield.
Saying that the dictator must consider powers outside of his own provides no argument for why the dictator should not kill random powerless innocents if he feels like it. Or, further, why he ought to not be as tyrannical as his power allows him.

Retard.

>>25157641
This is getting so far outside of Platonism it’s just stupid. Stop. You are annoying me.

Plato has an entire book on it you should read. The fact a tyrant can kill people at a whim doesn’t mean he can kill ANYONE or that justice serving an advantage of stronger IS ONLY his advantage

>>25157641
>Saying that the dictator must consider powers outside of his own...
>... provides no argument for why the dictator should not kill random powerless innocents if he feels like it. Or, further, why he ought to not be as tyrannical as his power allows him.
don't you contradict yourself in these two sentences? obviously, killing random powerless innocents is going to have some kind of effect, no? somebody is going to get scared or pissed off. some job is going to be unfulfilled. some chilling effect is going to occur that might thwart some regional prosperity and thus the tyrant's own prosperity. nobody is ever truly powerless like that. if they had no power, not even the power to elicit an emotional reaction out of the dictator, they wouldn't even be worthy of being killed for sport.

or is this like a Hume's is-ought argument that you're going for? I don't get it.

also, fuck these new captchas man. really makes you think twice before engaging slop posters.

The metaphor which Socrates makes is a politician and a doctor. A doctor can heal only himself and he can injure everyone who comes through his door but he’d be widely held to be a bad doctor compared to someone who heals both himself and all his sick patients. A doctor should have the knowledge of how to cure all the same as a politician should have knowledge of how to make the state work for all of its constituents. That's not even a moral position. If he lacks the knowledge he’s just a bad (meaning mediocre and unintelligent not bad in moral sense) ruler.

>>25157658
>The fact a tyrant can kill people at a whim doesn’t mean he can kill ANYONE or that justice serving an advantage of stronger IS ONLY his advantage
Yeah but Thrasymachus doesn't say that you fucking retard. You asked why Plato's argument in book 1 is unsatisfying, and this is the answer. Plato does not actually refute his argument.

What do you think the purpose of the Ring of Gyges thought experiment in book 2 is? It's necessary because he gave no good argument against Thrasymachus as to why someone ought not to do whatever the fuck they want as much as they possibly can.

>>25157688
>>25157689
>don't you contradict yourself in these two sentences?
No.
>nobody is ever truly powerless like that.
It's a counterfactual statement. There are people who are very nearly powerless, and people who have a great deal of power, but no people who have no power at all and no people with infinite power.

Once again, the exercise is meant to show that the dictator need only consider others in so far as they have power to hinder his own self interest. The point of bringing up the scenario of someone with absolutely no power to affect the dictator is to show that the dictator would have no reason to consider such a person in deciding their action. I.e., you have no reason to act justly if there are no negative consequences for acting unjustly.

Take the opposite case, someone with total control over you. Is it in your self interest to consider the power this being would have over you in deciding your actions? Yes, obviously. So, clearly, the dictator only has reason to consider others when they have some degree of power over him. The more power they have over him, the more he has to consider them. In other words, the dictator is rational in doing anything he wants as long as his power is greater than the power that opposes him.

The challenge for Socrates is to prove why this isn't true. Why the dictator ought not simply kill all his political enemies, genocide some random group, force the masses into obedient serfdom, and live in a golden place while his people starve, even if his power would allow him to do so.

That is to say, Socrates has to prove that Kim Jong Un (or whatever dictator you think is le bad) is acting irrationally. He does not really address this until book 2.

>>25157741
Here. I wrote this >>25157705
whether Plato convinced you or not is your judgment. His logic is more with taking what Callicles or Thrasymachus think in a matter and turning their words against them, showing their leaps in logic. Whether you buy it or not is your call

>>25157748
As you say, good and bad in that sense have nothing to do with good and bad in the prescriptive sense. Saying that the doctor is not knowledgeable or that he does a poor job at being a doctor makes no difference to his decision making process. It does not make the doctor want to be a good doctor or to heal his patients, nor does it make him irrational for not desiring so.

It's valid, but not relevant. The entire purpose of the debate was to prove that acting in accordance with the good is rational, and this does not move the needle either way.

>>25157518
>>25157641
I'm with the other anon on seeing this hypothetical as just too fanciful. Would a tyrant act like a bad god if they had the power to? Sure. But the tyrant in our actual world presumably doesn't grow his own food, make his own clothes, build his own palace, etc., and those are the considerations that really matter, that they're dependent on others, and so if they exercise their rule "unjustly" (by whatever value we plug in), it becomes more evident that they can't do whatever they like for long without endangering themselves, nor can they enjoy it for long since they'll constantly be looking over their shoulders. Plato discusses this at the end of book 8 and through book 9, and it's matched somewhat in a work by a fellow Socratic, Xenophon's Hiero.

>>25157741
The Ring of Gyges is a non-starter. At that point, we're entering the territory of arguing whether we could have justice if there were no consequences. And the fact of the matter is, no, there would be no coherent sense of justice. None of your choices would matter. It is even conceivable that injustice would lose much of its luster with the Ring of Gyges (in its Augustinian fashion).

In fact, why stop at the Ring of Gyges? Why not also consider a new myth, that of the Brooch of Hestia which I just invented on the spot, where the wearer of the brooch magically has positive things happen to him no matter what and have all possibly negative actions transform into something that leaves everybody better off, like a fantastical sitcom on crack?

If there's anything to learn about justice in Plato's Republic from Book II onward, it's that justice is about consequences if it is to be something at all. Book II-V is a never-ending attempt at problem-solving from the consequences of previous solutions. If your dictator does not consider consequences, then there is nothing to prove to him, and there is no argument to be made that the real world that we live couldn't make in far more impactful language.

>"What if you could do anything and get away with it?"
What if a bomb dropped on your head? goofy ahh argument fr. At this point why not imagine a world where everything is good? Get your Leibniz on fn.

>>25157892
>>25157930
I will explain it to you one last time. Please read every sentence carefully.

Let's say there is a person. Let's say that person wants to do something bad. It can be any bad thing. Why is it irrational for that person to do this bad thing, if it is in their power to do so?

For example, this person may be a rich and powerful pedophile. This person may want to go to the pedophile party island to rape children. He is able to do so and will face no negative consequences for this action. What makes this set of actions irrational?

Alternatively, this person may be the leader of a neighboring nation. This leader wants to kill you and your family so he can harvest the natural resources in your country. His military is much more powerful than your country's military, and as such he is very likely to win. Even if his country loses the war, he will not suffer any personal consequences. Why shouldn't he invade your country?

Or, this person may simply want to take candy from a baby. This is incredibly easy, there is no fear of retribution from the baby, and the candy-thief would benefit from taking the candy. Why ought he not take the candy?

>>25158208
>more "what if there were no consequences" niggatry
bro's brain is cooked

what if Jeffrey Epstein gave scholarships to damaged teenage girls instead of raping them on his private island?

File: 9F42725F-D3FD-433A-8469-8(...).jpg (526 KB, 1170x1185)

526 KB JPG

>>25158244
>the billionaires who went to Epstein island will face the consequences any day now!
oh man

>>25158264
bro can't stay on topic

besides a whole bunch of niggas lost their jobs and destroyed their legacy. larry summers, noam chomsky, stephen hawking, all chomo-associated now. also bill gates lost half his fortune because of it. even our thoroughly ZOGGED society has consequences, unlike these bs thought experiments where literally anything can happen with no impact on the rest of the world.

Can someone tell me what is the Greek word they use when they say corrupted?

File: dontlaugh.jpg (29 KB, 577x507)

29 KB JPG

>>25158394
>larry summers, noam chomsky, stephen hawking, all chomo-associated now. also bill gates lost half his fortune because of it.
>justice served!

File: vote-for-pedro.jpg (114 KB, 1024x533)

114 KB JPG

>>25157518
>Imagine a world where the tyrant is actually the strongest, where one person has the ability to unilaterally control millions of others
thats called a judge, not a king. he gets the most important decisions in society handed to him, he makes them, everyone bows and calls him justice, his word is law, questioning his decisions is unthinkable, regardless of whether he orders that this child can never again see his father, or that child must be castrated and paraded around as a bacha bhazi boy

>>25157930
>the Brooch of Hestia which I just invented on the spot, where the wearer of the brooch magically has positive things happen to him no matter what and have all possibly negative actions transform into something that leaves everybody better off, like a fantastical sitcom on crack
haha cool, id watch that sitcom. also maybe the lady wearing the brooch of hestia inherited it from her grandma and doesnt believe in magic

>>25158572
>there were no consequences
>okay there were some consequences... everybody hates me, I lost dozens of billions of dollars, and history will remember me as a chomo... BUT THATS NOT ENOUGH SO IT DOESNT COUNT
disingenuous retard alert

>>25157088
>If a tyrant is so immoderate that they destroy their own power base trying to satisfy their own self-interest, then their tyranny is pointless, self-defeating, and against their self-interest in the long run. Why shouldn't a tyrant offer at least a modicum of self-control and concern for their flock, at least so they could remain and power and do as they wish?
if a tyrant is too weak to rule by force i.e. if he rules only through force he will be overthrown by his flock or another tyrant who obeys his flock, then he is not strong and his rule is not the rule of the strong

>>25159162
A tyrant is never even strong enough to birth himself. How strong could he possibly be?

>>25159194
not what strong means

>>25159196
>t-t-that's not what st-st-strong means!!!
silence cuck

>>25159208
yes, being able to give birth to yourself isn't what the word strong means you fucking cretin

>>25159217
Who do you think is stronger dipshit, a childless man or a baby that gave birth to itself?

>>25159222
you're saying this as if it's obvious a baby would be stronger than a man?

File: wheeze.jpg (131 KB, 1080x1080)

131 KB JPG

>>25159194
>>25159196
>>25159208
>>25159217
>>25159222
>this entire conversation

>>25159233
idk bro... if a baby gave birth to itself that ain't no regular fuckin baby... I dont fuck with no parthenogenesis niggas

>>25159254
ok i think you might literally be talking about a baby that gave birth to itself, unfolding out of a single point in space that ends up being its butthole

>>25159262
be real with me dawg, would ya fuck with that baby? or would you leave that demon spawn tf alone

white people smfh

>>25159278
i'm getting the feeling you've been trolling from the beginning

>>25159293
answer the question mf

>tfw you're arguing with a guy who wants you to take all of his ridiculous hypotheticals seriously but won't even humor your demon baby hypothetical
bruh

File: 1773323124878570.gif (21 KB, 354x782)

21 KB GIF

>>25159278
>>25159293
you two, write an episode of hestias brooch, by coincidence the grandmas name was hestia. the ladys name is something cute and goofy like tiffany. tiffany puts on her rain jacket and fastend it with the hestias brooch walks outside the rain turns into the most pleasant midt and she walks with daughterjak to the coffee shop to get a london fog and a cocoa

>>25159374
name one of my hypotheticals that is ridiculous, or even as ridiculous as a demon baby birthing itself from the void
>>25159382
what does this have to do with the definition of strength

>>25159398
>what if you could do anything you want and have no consequences
>what if a demon baby could spontaneously will itself into existence
both equally retarded hypotheticals. actually, scratch that. one could easily argue that the latter is less retarded because you're only asking for ONE improbable event. the former asks you to make every possible event improbable and break causality while also preserving it.

>>25159398
would you fuck with that demon baby tho?

>>25159382
nigga just put that shit into chatgpt

>>25159428
>what if you could do anything you want and have no consequences
things i have never said. i just suggested that a tyrant could be strong enough to fend of rivals and never have to throw concessions to his power base

File: Screenshot 2026-03-23 at (...).png (1.7 MB, 1006x1774)

1.7 MB PNG

>>25159445
>a tyrant could be strong enough to fend of rivals
>and never have to throw concessions to his power base
okay so how is he fending off his rivals? who's gonna bat for him without any rewards whatsoever? like, is this a charity case here? why these niggas so charitable to help our lil tyrant nigga?

are we talking about ESP mind control here? or are we talkin about some 90 feet tall nigga like the ones who built the pyramids and put the gold on the tops, so big they could just stomp on a nigga and everybodys terrified of crossing him.

enlighten me lil nigga, im listening.

>>25159454
absolutist monarchies largely ruled through professional armies, not the consent of the masses, which is more of an eastern thing

>>25159466
okay so why do these armies fight for the monarchies? what are they getting out of it?

>>25159476
the authority of their station and fear of corporal punishment

>>25159374
This board never disappoints, kek. Effort posting always gets fucked

>>25159477
>authority of their station
Okay so how does that work? Authority is a big abstract term. What is the actual benefit?
>fear of corporal punishment
From who? What do the people administering corporal punishment have to gain from the process?

>>25159542
>What is the actual benefit?
there is no benefit. soldiers obey because soldiers obey the king, that's what they do
>What do the people administering corporal punishment have to gain from the process?
it's a whirling doughnut of corporal punishment, where one group of servants fears anotyher group of servants

why am i explaining basic political structures to you anyway

>>25159572
>they just will obey bro... like I don't have to worry about their loyalty, zeal, or efficacy at all bro... I give orders and they follow
>there's no reason why they'd follow somebody else or themselves, I can rest assured that they will do whatever I want always
>I don't even need to feed these niggaz bruh
okay, so ESP mind control

>>25159572
the rivals paid better than the king, made the soldiers remember how much you hit them and promised to hit them less, and also said something about courage and mandate of heaven... looks like your troops defected bro

fuckkkk better luck next time pal

File: 1755242433905861.png (297 KB, 424x495)

297 KB PNG

Has anyone in this thread besides the first couple posters even read The Republic?

Genghis Khan stayed in power until he died of natural causes. Therefore Genghis Khan was a just ruler and not a tyrant.
The same applies to Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Un. Therefore North Korea is a paradise ruled by a philosopher king and we should all accept juche.

File: istockphoto-91720915-612x612.jpg (57 KB, 612x408)

57 KB JPG

you all fail to explain why I ought to return my shopping cart
I will continue to leave my carts wherever I please.

Thread was good when it was about the Republic, and much less good when it became "but what if the tyrant could spirit bomb the planet." Lol, ah well, it was good while it lasted OP.

File: 1704034982923895m.jpg (137 KB, 707x1024)

137 KB JPG

>>25159800

>>25159903
what if the tyrant could spirit bomb the planet... without any consequences?***

>>25159628
>>25159729
you don't understand the concepts of duty and authority and are probably american

File: goyim3.jpg (653 KB, 1728x2304)

653 KB JPG

>>25160624

>>25160710
exactly, and that is much like the relationship between a monarch and his soldiers

>>25160737
the lion pays off his enemy's soldiers so that they defect and allow him to take over the kingdom

>>25161418
something that only happened in ancient greece because they were all wicked dishonorable liars

>>25161423
it's happened in every country except the USA

only Americans know honor

File: 7258A08F-53D2-437C-A47A-B(...).jpg (62 KB, 477x419)

62 KB JPG

>babby’s first dialogue
Plato’s theory of tyranny got utterly BTFO’d by Dionysius I and II. The Republic was one of his earlier works written before this happened. Read The Laws instead.

>>25161746
nah most european professional armies honoured their natural rulers

>>25159903
>>25160412
>I actually need to explain why someone shouldn’t commit immoral acts if they can get away with it?
>THIS IS JUST LIKE MY DRAGON BALLZ!!!!!!!!
Samefag-kun…

>>25159903
are you suggesting that there has never been a period in history where a ruler ruled through legitimacy rather than machiavellianism and bribes? read anti-machiavel, greekcel

>>25161755
Lol, Dionysius I was thought by the ancients to have either drunk himself to death or was assassinated somehow, and Dionysius II was ousted and had to flee Sicily. So much for doing whatever you want.

>>25161762
The hell are you talking about? Thread started going downhill when some anon's "counterfactual" was "but what if the tyrant could do whatever they wanted" without reference to any relevant real world factors.

>>25162131
And? Plato changed his mind. Read The Laws.

>>25162151
You sound confused. Review books 2 and 4 of the Laws. When they talk about tyranny in book 4, they're not approving of Thrasymachus' notions, nor tyrants like the Dionysiuses.

>>25162293
Did I say that he approved? Read The Laws dumbass.

>>25162299
You said he changed his mind about tyranny, but he plainly doesn't in the Laws, in book 2 for example.

>For the things said to be good by the many are not correctly so described. It is said that the best thing is health, and second is beauty, and third is wealth—and then there are said to be ten thousand other goods: sharp sight/hearing, and good perception of all the objects of the senses; and then, by becoming a tyrant, to do whatever one desires; and finally the perfection of complete blessedness, which is to possess all these things and then to become immortal, as quickly as possible. But you two and I, presumably, speak as follows: we say that these things, beginning with health, are all very good when possessed by just and pious men, but all very bad when possessed by unjust men. To see, to hear, to peiceive, and, in general, to live as an immortal for the whole of time, while possessing all the things said to be good except for justice and the whole of virtue, is the greatest of evil. The evil gets less as the time such a man continues to live gets shorter.

The tyrant, as subsequently described in book 4, is not the tyrant as understood by Thrasymachus or as acted out by the Dionysiuses, because the tyrant of book 4 has, by hypothesis, the virtues, so he is not the doer of perfect injustice that motivates the discussions in the Republic.

>>25162137
>some anon's "counterfactual" was "but what if the tyrant could do whatever they wanted" without reference to any relevant real world factors.
the fact that you need "evidence" that a tyrant doing whatever they wanted has ever existed shows you're too low information to talk about this subject and i suggest you read anti-machiavel before you embarrass yourself further

File: 1688556572331634.jpg (97 KB, 846x1024)

97 KB JPG

>>25163146
>tyrant doing whatever they wanted
no one tyrant could do this, it takes 12

>>25163146
Irrelevant non-sequiturs don't make up an argument, or even a conversation.

>>25163486
>"a tyrant who can do whatever he wants without losing the loyalty of his men would be truly strong, therefore justice is strength" is a non sequitur in response to an argument that "a tyrant must not exploit his men in order to retain their loyalty and so therefore he is strong if he acts justly"
you're right because my argument actually has something to do with plato's original dialogue wheras the one i'm responding to doesn't

>>25162396
/thread
Pious Tyrant ≠ Tyrant of Republic
(You'd think that'd be obvious.)

>>25163497
You're getting confused and picking fights over both things not said and things said that are directly relevant to the Republic. Socrates argues that the unjust man couldn't simply do what he wants to others without depending on others in the city to protect him in book 9, that if the unjust man and his servants were alone without thevrest of the city he would have to become a flatterer of his servants to protect himself, whereas the hypothethical that an anon derailed the thread with, "Imagine a world where the tyrant is actually the strongest, where one person has the ability to unilaterally control millions of others" isn't even Thrasymachus' argument.

>>25164297
>Socrates argues that the unjust man couldn't simply do what he wants to others without depending on others in the city to protect
NO SHIT NIGGER
what do you think "might makes right" means?

>>25164297
>Imagine a world where the tyrant is actually the strongest, where one person has the ability to unilaterally control millions of others
how the hell are you getting that from;
>if a tyrant is too weak to rule by force i.e. if he rules only through force he will be overthrown by his flock or another tyrant who obeys his flock, then he is not strong and his rule is not the rule of the strong
>i just suggested that a tyrant could be strong enough to fend of rivals and never have to throw concessions to his power base
>Socrates argues that the unjust man couldn't simply do what he wants to others without depending on others in the city to protect him in book 9, that if the unjust man and his servants were alone without thevrest of the city he would have to become a flatterer of his servants to protect himself
that's a retarded argument because you can control your servants without threatening/ bribing them. even the praetorian guard respected laws and hierarchy (sometimes)

>P1: the tyrant does whatever he wants
>P2: the immediate desires of the tyrant may conflict with his long term desire
>C: therefore the tyrant must consider the long term consequences of these desires
Notice that this says nothing about what the long-term consequences of these desires actually are. This requires a second argument:
>P1: there is an immortal soul
>P2: life is transient
>C: therefore, a benefit to your soul is infinitely more important than a benefit to your life
This still does not say what benefits your soul. For that, you need argument 3:
>P1: aligning yourself with The Good(tm) benefits your soul
>P2: aligning yourself against The Good(tm) corrupts your soul
>C: therefore, aligning yourself with The Good is the most important thing possible

The problem with all this is that it is only relevant if you take all 3 arguments together. If you don't believe in an immortal soul, or you don't believe that stealing or killing corrupts it, then there's no reason to give a fuck about these arguments.

>>25164311
This is totally beside the point. OP is asking about Thrasymachus, and Thrasymachus' position is that one should be unjust in order to be free from the just, for whom, according to Thrasymachus, justice is simply their advantage. The quickness wth whch you're willing to respind with attempted gotchas is making the thread subject murkier, because you and other anons are conflating Thrasymachus' unjust man with the tyrant, and further conflating both of those with Thrasymachus' just man.

>>25164322
>how the hell are you getting that from
I'm literally quoting the anon who derailed the thread at >>25157518, but the rest of your argument is denied by Socrates because no tyrant is an island, a tyrant always has to make concessions to someone else to have their power; if the tyrant is surrounded only by servants, the answer to the question, "why should they concern themselves with their servants' well-being?" is "because the servants will realize they outnumber the one guy abusing them and set themselves upon him," therefore the tyrant can't simply do whatever he wills, he has to hope something or someone outside himself prevails on his servants not to act, e.g., fear of the gods, habituation to certain customs, being rewarded for service in whatever way, etc.

File: 929886A3-E896-4EFD-A70F-8(...).gif (67 KB, 498x281)

67 KB GIF

>>25164564
>because the servants will realize they outnumber the one guy abusing them and set themselves upon him

>>25164564
>Thrasymachus' position is that one should be unjust in order to be free from the just, for whom, according to Thrasymachus, justice is simply their advantage
That is the entire point of “might makes right”. Justice is defined by who is in power. Might literally makes right. It is a system of obedience laws to keep you from even thinking of betraying your master for your own benefit.

See: honor, religion, state, morality, capitalism, monarchy, democracy, humanity, property, rights, etc.

I’m not sure what the hell “might makes right” would mean other than “might” makes “right”.

>>25164678
>“What you say is fine,” I said. “But what if some one of the gods were to lift one man who has fifty or more bondsmen out of the city—him, his wife, and his children—and set them along with the rest of his property and the domestics in a desert place where none of the free men is going to be able to help him? What do you suppose will be the character and extent of his fear that he, his children, and his wife will be destroyed by the domestics?”
>“I think it will be extreme,” he said.
>“Wouldn’t he now be compelled to fawn on some of his own slaves and promise them much and free them although there is no obligation for him to do so? And wouldn’t he himself turn out to be the flatterer of servants?”
>“He’s certainly compelled to,” he said, “or else be destroyed.”
>“And,” I said, “what if the god settled many other neighbors all around him who won’t stand for any man’s claiming to be another’s master, and if they ever can get their hands on such a one, they subject him to extreme punishments.”
>“He would,” he said, “I suppose, be in an even greater extreme of evil, watched on all sides by nothing but enemies.”
>“Isn’t the tyrant bound in such a prison, he who has a nature such as we described, full of many fears and loves of all kinds? And he, whose soul is so gourmand, alone of the men in the city can’t go anywhere abroad or see all the things the other free men desire to see; but, stuck in his house for the most part, he lives like a woman, envying any of the other citizens who travel abroad and see anything good.”
>“That’s entirely certain,” he said.
>“Therefore, it is a harvest greater by such ills that is reaped by a man who has a bad regime in himself—the one you just now judged most wretched, the tyrannic man—and who doesn’t live out his life as a private man but is compelled by some chance to be a tyrant, and while not having control of himself attempts to rule others, just as if a man with a body that is sick and without control of itself were compelled to spend his life not in a private station but contesting and fighting with other bodies.”

>>25164688
Sure, but what of it? Are just clarifying, because I don't see how this gets back to Scrates vs Thrasymachus. My point was that anons keep associating the tyrant and the unjust man with "might makes right," but that's not Thrasymachus' nominal position.

>>25164564
>no tyrant is an island, a tyrant always has to make concessions to someone else to have their power
>or someone outside himself prevails on his servants not to act, e.g., fear of the gods, habituation to certain customs, being rewarded for service in whatever way, etc.
you could make the argument that the strongest tyrant must make concessions to those he magically oppresses, because he has to act to have his wishes fulfilled

>>25164705
Thrasymachus' position IS might makes right just as I have said it. There is no distinction there, it's the SAME THING.

This:
>Thrasymachus' position is that one should be unjust in order to be free from the just, for whom, according to Thrasymachus, justice is simply their advantage
is saying that justice is created by the strong as their advantage against (YOU). It is saying that "might" makes "right".

>>25164764
It's not his position. Did you forget when Thrasymachus says,

>And this must be considered, most simple Socrates: the just man everywhere has less than the unjust man. First, in contracts, when the just man is a partner of the unjust man, you will always find that at the dissolution of the partnership the just man does not have more than the unjust man, but less. Second, in matters pertaining to the city, when there are taxes, the just man pays more on the basis of equal property, the unjust man less; and when there are distributions, the one makes no profit, the other much. And, further, when each holds some ruling office, even if the just man suffers no other penalty, it is his lot to see his domestic affairs deteriorate from neglect, while he gets no advantage from the public store, thanks to his being just; in addition to this, he incurs the ill will of his relatives and his acquaintances when he is unwilling to serve them against what is just. The unjust man’s situation is the opposite in all of these respects. I am speaking of the man I just now spoke of, the one who is able to get the better in a big way. Consider him, if you want to judge how much more to his private advantage the unjust is than the just. You will learn most easily of all if you turn to the most perfect injustice, which makes the one who does injustice most happy, and those who suffer it and who would not be willing to do injustice, most wretched.

His claim about justice as "the advantage of the stronger" (his words, NOT "might makes right" which distorts his definition by overly emphasizing force) amounts to a kind of legal positivism. Recall when he says,

>And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage; a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same. And they declare that what they have set down—their own advantage—is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body.

>>25164724
I think Socrates grants that, and the remainder of his argument becomes whether the tyrant is then ever truly happy or satisfied.

>>25164843
I'm not sure what you aren't getting here. The phrase "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" was coined, in large part, in reference to Thrasymachus. His philosophy is might makes right because might makes right is his philosophy. It is what he is saying here.

This:
>And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage; a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same. And they declare that what they have set down—their own advantage—is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body.
IS MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Might, here, makes right. The strongest create the system of justice. The mightiest, dictate what is right. Those in power create and enforce the system of morality. Right is created by the mighty.

I don't know how else to put it than this. It is the concept of might makes right spelled out. I mean, the phrase itself already literally spells it out.

If you have some other conception of the phrase "might makes right", you have to specify that.

>>25164904
You aren't adding or even clarifying anything here. If by "might" you don't mean what everyone who ordinarily uses it means, i.e., physical violence, and you mean something as broad as Thrasymachus does by "strong" (e.g., numerical superiority, wealth, honor, or knowledge), then your point still isn't adding anything here beyond belaboring Thrasymachus' definition, and his definition is still not the same as his own position which amounts to saying "might makes right" in your sense is bad to him, with injustice being preferable. People in this thread were arguing over whether Socrates truly settled that Thrasymachus' definition was insufficient or not, whether the unjust man or the tyrant can be happy or not, and whether there was something more Socrates needed to add. But nothing you're saying is new to me, it doesn't clarify anything that needs clarifying, nor does it add to the conversation, it seems like picking arguments for arguments' sake.

>>25164861
fine, i guess the greek word for justice doesn't fully translate then

>>25165158
>you don't mean what everyone who ordinarily uses it means, i.e., physical violence
There it is. Your special headcanon definition. Use google if you are not sure what terms mean:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/might_makes_right#:~:text=Inherited%20from%20Middle%20English%20might,the%20stronger%20is%20just”).

>objection relevance!!!
You said this:
>Socrates argues that the unjust man couldn't simply do what he wants to others without depending on others in the city to protect
This is not a refutation of might makes right. It does not even address might makes right. All it does is identify where, in part, the power lies. Part of the tyrant’s power is that others in the city protect him. Well, no shit. This is not an argument that says anything about might makes right either way.

This is what makes Socrates’ argument unsatisfying. It totally argues past Thrasymachus.

>>25165819
Am I arguing with someone stroking out? Your link is historically wrong, the phrase is in origin independent of Thrasymachus, and the attribution to him of the position is long after the phrase's invention in relatively more modern times. That would've been evident had you bothered to look at the citation of Paul Shorey's translation, which is not "might makes right." And you're ignoring that the phrase sharply means "right through violence," which Thrasymachus is clear it doesn't narrowly mean.

Your quotation of my post above isn't relevant because neither might makes right nor Thrasymachus' definition were at issue. At all. You're getting confused if you think what I was talking about was any part of Socrates' argument against Thrasymachus' definition, I was literally point to an argument from book 9, norably, 8 books after the argument with Thrasymachus.

And you haven't said anything about Socrates' arguments. How about contributing by actually talking about them? Do you know what Socrates' arguments are?

>>25164345
not really. you could have long-term desires which are shorter in scope than... idk... living your next life. anything that isn't immediate is basically a long-term desire. you just need to believe that tomorrow you is as important as today you. that's it.

>>25157088
>Why do so many people say that Socrates makes a bad counterargument against Thrasymachus and the right of the stronger in Book I of Plato's Republic?
Well you see Socrates was so busy having ass raping sex with the forcibly homosexualized young athletic men that he was supposedly hired to teach basic geometry and history and arts to, that he didn't have enough time to come up with a good counter argument.

>>25166015
>n-no it doesn’t mean that the dictionary is wrong
Lol ok nigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

>115 posts
>not a single person has yet explained why you should not do "evil" things if you can get away with it
Kim Jong Un is a philosopher king

>>25166403
>linking a wiki page you haven't read
I don't know what kind of trolling this is, but it's impressively retarded.

>>25166556
>The idea, though not the wording, has been attributed to the History of the Peloponnesian War, written around 410 BC by the ancient historian Thucydides, who stated that "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."[7]
>In the first chapter of Plato's Republic, authored around 375 BC Thrasymachus claims that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger", which Socrates then disputes.[8] Callicles in Gorgias argues similarly that the strong should rule the weak, as a right owed to their superiority.[9]
uh oh stinky

>>25166557
I don't know if you pucked this up at all, but the phrase "might makes right" doesn't in appear at all in what you just quoted. Here, let me emphasize the very first sentence you quote:

>The idea, though not the wording, has been attributed to...

>The IDEA, though NOT THE WORDING, has been attributed to...


Even then, it'd still be wrong to attribute it to Thrasymachus, because Thrasymachus' definition of justice is just legal positivism. Retard.

File: might makes malding.jpg (38 KB, 765x195)

38 KB JPG

>>25166610
uh oh seething

File: 1694109505900206.png (254 KB, 900x806)

254 KB PNG

>>25166610
>>25166658
Legal positivism is the idea that laws are determined by social facts, not morality. What the law is, is separate from what it ought to be.

Thrasymachus holds the complete opposite position. You could not be any more wrong.

>>25166658
>"Might makes right" or "might is right" is an aphorism that asserts that having superior strength or power gives one the ability to control society and enforce one's own agenda, beliefs, concepts of justice, and so on.[1][2][3] Montague defined kratocracy or kraterocracy (from the Ancient Greek: κράτος, romanized: krátos, lit.'might; strength') as a government by those strong enough to seize control THROUGH VIOLENCE OR DECEIT.[4]
Which isn't what Thrasymachus says the just is, because it's what he says the UNJUST is:
>Consider him, if you want to judge how much more to his private advantage the unjust is than the just. You will learn most easily of all if you turn to the most perfect injustice, which makes the one who does injustice most happy, and those who suffer it and who would not be willing to do injustice, most wretched. And that is tyranny, which by stealth and force takes away what belongs to others, both what is sacred and profane, private and public, not bit by bit, but all at once.
And he re-emphasizes his difference between the just and unjust at the end of this same speech:
>So, Socrates, injustice, when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice; and, as I have said from the beginning, THE JUST is the advantage of the stronger, and THE UNJUST is what is profitable and advantageous for oneself.

>>25166663
It's precisely Thrasymachus' view of what justice is. See the second passage quoted at >>25164843. It's a morally-neutral definition of justice. He's not saying something like "democrats in a democracy actually rule by threat of violence or force", he's saying they set down laws that are advantageous to them as rulers, so laws like those of Solon and Cleasthenes that strengthen democratic instutions. Same with any other kind of regime. It's also why as soon as he gives his definition and Socrates starts asking about it, he clarifies himself accordingly:
>“That’s what I’m going to do,” I said. >“Now, tell me: don’t you say though that it’s also just to obey the rulers?”
>“I do.”
>“Are the rulers in their several cities infallible, or are they such as to make mistakes too?”
>“By all means,” he said, “they certainly are such as to make mistakes too.”
>“When they put their hands to setting down laws, do they set some down correctly and some incorrectly?”
>“I suppose so.”
>“Is that law correct which sets down what is advantageous for themselves, and that one incorrect which sets down what is disadvantageous?—Or, how do you mean it?”
>“As you say.”
>“But whatever the rulers set down must be done by those who are ruled, and this is the just?”
>“Of course.”

File: loading pepe.gif (26 KB, 250x228)

26 KB GIF

>>25166724
Thrasymachus: THE JUST IS DETERMINED BY THE LAW.
Legal positivism: THE JUST AND THE LAW ARE UNRELATED.

These are antithetical claims.

Read up on legal positivism here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/

>>25166787
He's saying the Just is reducible to law, any law. Again, his view of justice is that it's NOT moral, he makes no distinctions in this regard between democracies, oligarchies, aristocracies, etc.

I'm plenty aware that justice is ordinarily a moral word, but it's not to Thrasymachus. He denies that there's anything like natural right.

>>25166787
If justice is simply what the law says then justice as such has nothing to do with the law and it is indeed completely arbitrary. I would encourage you to read some kid's books to work your way up to literacy.

>>25166796
I recognize the guy you're arguing with from months past, you're not going to get anywhere with him he essentially can't read. He will go feverishly hunting through his red-bound complete edition of Plato and rip quotes out of context and then give them a retarded interpretation often contradicted in the very same paragraph. God speed you if you want to tango with him but it's really not a good use of time.

>>25166796
>He denies that there's anything like natural right.
That is the point. Legal positivists claim that "moral facts" are distinct from and orthogonal to laws.
Thrasymachus claims that supposed "moral facts" are just an ideological expression of power.

>>25166808
You're confused with who you're responding to and meant to tag >>25166787 or >>25166663, or you don't recognize that I'm the anon you're complaining about, since I'm the only one quoting the Republic.

>>25166803
>justice is simply what the law says
>justice has nothing to do with the law
the second proposition is quite literally the complete opposite proposition of the first
I do not know why you would think that follows

>ice cream is simply milk and sugar
>ice cream has nothing to do with milk and sugar

>>25166822
Uh no I quoted who I meant to quote. Why do you think I would be attacking anyone for quoting the Republic? That doesn't make sense. I suppose at the last analysis you are both retards but one of you is worse than the other. And with that satisfying thought I take my leave.

>>25166808
>schizoposting now
meds

>>25166820
But he's only saying the former, he's not necessarily blaming regimes for doing so. Don't forget that he approves of the tyrant which is the one case he offers where justice and injustice meet. Moral facts barely come into it for him, justice is just obeying the laws to him.

>>25166828
Bro.
>Justice is simply what the law says
Self-explanatory.
>Justice has nothing to do with the law
Because it's arbitrary.

Just like,
>the wall is red
Because it is red.
>the wall is not red
Because its redness is contingent.

You'd think people who read Plato could follow logical moves like this.
>>25166838
There are like thirty people who post here regularly and if you can't tell them apart you are and idiot.

>>25166830
Lol okay, whatever you say

>>25166845
>There are like thirty people who post here regularly and if you can't tell them apart you are and idiot.
You must be an idiot then.

>>25166845
>the wall is red
>the wall is not red
These are totally contradictory. You are confused. Take some time away from the computer, and take your meds as well.

>>25166851
Dude I quoted your post and responded to you and you think I must be talking about someone else because I criticized someone for pulling bogus quotes in the past and you yourself happen to have been quoting from the Republic, and you can't fathom that one poster could be quoting from the Republic (that's you), and some other poster, not you, could be notorious for bogus quoting. This is literally the stupidest argument I have ever had on 4chan.

I don't own a complete plato book

>>25166863
I explained the logic, you don't understand it, that's just too bad. Again this is really rich stuff coming from someone who is supposed to be into Plato because he makes arguments like this all the time.

>>25166870
Keep crashing out bro

File: GrVEQQhXQAEYJG9.jpg (117 KB, 886x1080)

117 KB JPG

>>25166876
>THE WALL IS RED THEREFORE THE WALL IS NOT RED
snap out of it man