Thrasymachus 'Pursuit Of Happiness In Socrates'

I do believe that Socrates’ assertion that the unjust man is ultimately not happy is true, and he artfully refutes the argument Thrasymachus makes that an unjust man can be happy. Thrasymachus’ main point is that an unjust manner of living results in profit and advantage at the expense of others. “Don't you know then, said he, that some cities are governed by tyrants…in others aristocracy…and is not this the thing that is strong and has the mastery in each—the ruling party?”. (338d) Thrasymachus states that “the just is something that is of advantage…of the stronger” (339b) but he feels that a ruler demanding obedience from his subordinates is, in fact, unjust. (343c) A city that enslaves other cities is unjust but has enormous power and wealth which, from Thrasymachus’ point of view, leads to happiness.

(343d-344c) Socrates asks if such a community that acts unjustly could persevere if its individual members acted unjustly toward each other.

‘(Will) the city that thus shows itself superior to another…have this power without justice?” (351b) “do you think that a…group that attempted any action in common, could accomplish anything if they wronged one another?” (351c) Thrasymachus agrees that it could not and that injustice causes division and strife that prevents unity. Socrates goes on to point out that an individual member of this community that behaved in an unjust way would be divided against himself and therefore not able to achieve much. “utter rascals completely unjust are completely incapable of effective action"(352c). He continues by stating that a just man is able to accomplish things and achieves the “the right conduct of life.”

(352d). To back up his point, Socrates develops an analogy between the function of eyes and the function of souls. “Is there anything else with which you can see except the eyes…could you hear with anything but ears? Would you not rightly say that these are the functions of these (organs)” (352e)? He equates function to virtue. “Do you not also think that there is a specific virtue or excellence of everything for which a specific work or function is appointed…The eyes we say have a function…Is there also a virtue of the eyes?” (353b) His argument then concludes by asserting that in the same way blindness is a deficiency of function (i.e. virtue) and perfect vision is an abundance of function, injustice is a deficiency of the virtue (i.e. function) of the soul and justice is an abundance of virtue of the soul. Finally, Socrates asks Thrasymachus if he agrees that “The just soul and the just man then will live well and the unjust ill?”. (353e) Thrasymachus responds “So it appears”. (353e).