Thrasymachus And Euthyphro: A Continuation

Thrasymachus and Euthyphro: A Continuation In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus is advancing another version of one of Euthyphro arguments; namely, that what is holy is agreeable to the gods. Thrasymachus does this in many different ways. He starts simply, with a definition of justice. This idea and concept is what could most easily be reconciled and the most likely candidate for an extension of Euthyphro’s actions. Thrasymachus then turns his own argument around by turning his thoughts on their heads and exploring a new concept; that injustice is right, which begins to foreshadow the concept of censorship from from further in The Republic. Euthyphro defines what is holy is what is agreeable to the gods. Through the Greek history, the gods were all powerful beings, beings that were literally at the top of Mount Olympus, looking down upon their subjects in the

Justice isn’t even the right path, according to him. It is injustice that is best, for surely that is what benefits the individual. It seems that Socrates has frustrated the man, and in Thrasymachus’ frustration, he reverses his entire argument. This is arguably the most interesting of the part Thrasymachus plays in Plato’s dialectic, as it begins to touch on aspects of Book III of The Republic. Socrates begins to argue for censorship against the glorification of injustice. This could be directly related to Thrasymachus’ own outburst. In frustration, Thrasymachus argues that injustice is right, but what if the heros of his childhood were not those who were unjust and yet deemed wise? The censorship of these heroes would likely lead to an ignorance that would lead to a society that does not find that these values could in fact be good. Socrates’ argues for a proper education of these kinds of people, the people who would become the guardians and leaders of his ideal