Advantage and Reason

In the first book of the Republic, Socrates explores the definition of justice within the context of the political community. The problem we seem to be wrestling with in class is the degree to which this definition is limited to such a context. It has been said that Socrates represents the Philosopher (or reason) while his opponents represent tyranny. Before we more closely consider the concept of "advantage" as it relates to Socrates and Thrasymachus, I think it is important for us to understand Socrates' motivations for entering into such a conversation with Thrasymachus. Plato does a good job of masking Socrates' intentions throughout most of the dialogue, as his interlocutors become frustrated with their discussion, and Socrates' lack of commitment.

In the beginning of the Republic we see a clear conflict between force and persuasion, as Polemarchus orders Socrates and Glaucon to stay in the city. They ultimately decide to stay, but only after having been persuaded to do so. This tension seems to have important implications for the rest of the book. Later on, as Socrates converses with Thrasymachus, he articulates the just person's reluctance to rule, as "the good aren't willing to rule for the sake of money or honor" (347b). This reluctance seems to mirror Socrates' reluctance to stay in the city at the beginning of the dialogue. The just person, or the philosopher, as we may understand, rules only out of the fear of instead being ruled by someone who is unjust. In the same way, we can understand Socrates to be entering into the conversation only out of a commitment to the power of reason and persuasion.

In the second book Socrates shifts roles from deliberator to teacher, as he discusses justice now with Glaucon and Adeimantus. The two young men have close ties with the tyrants, and represent potential future leaders. Though he begins with a familiar sort of noncommitment, it seems important to Socrates to inculcate a particular commitment to justice in the young men. Considering this together with Socrates' discussion with Thrasymachus, it seems like Socrates has indeed reluctantly entered the political sphere, though not as the aforementioned just man. Rather than assert himself as the just ruler out of fear of the tyranny of Thrasymachus, Socrates attempts to serve justice while escaping the dreaded political life.

With all of this considered, I would argue that Socrates does seek to establish the advantage of reason, yet in a particular and important way. Socrates does not establish himself as the reluctant ruler in this discussion, but instead fights for reason over power without appeals to his own legitimacy as ruler. Socrates does what ultimately leads to his execution, and inculcates the future rulers with a commitment to reason and justice.