Chapter 1: Convention Under Attack

Characters: Polemarchus, Glaucon, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, Cephallus Thrasymachus was a famous sophist that advocates for a might is right position in this dialogue. There are similarities between him and Callicles in Gorgias, however though Thrasymachus is aggresive he argues in good faith unlike Callicles.

Summary: The dialogue starts with Socrates meeting Polemarchus after witnessing the festival in Piraeus, the harbour of Athens, He convinces him to gather at his house where Socrates starts a discussion with the old man Cephalus. They discuss the experience of old age. Cephalus remarks how many old men will complain about losing many pleasures in life but also tells how glad Sophocles was to be rid of them. Like a slave liberated from a savage master. «This can be likened to the asceticism in Phaedo where philosophers are said to be desiring of death as it will separate them from the treacherous senses of the body and allow their souls to be closer to the truth they are seeking.» First the impact of wealth on whether one enjoys old age is discussed. Cephalus has inherited his wealth and is not that stingy about money. He however aims to leave just as much to his chilren as he received, and not lessen it like those before him. Wealth makes old age easier, but a bad man would never be content even if rich. Cephalus says many old people worry about the consequences of their actions in the afterlife as death approaches. The greatest benefit of wealth is that it allows you to avoid committing immoral actions and thus be less anxious in old age. This is where the question what doing the right thing actually means. The conventional sayings seem insufficient. «Do good to your friends and bad to your enemies.» For example Simonides says one ought to return what is given, but would you return a borrowed weapon to a friend that is not sound of mind?

Cephalus leaves the discussion and leaves it to Polemarchus and Socrates to continue. They continue discussing the meaning of Simonides saying and conclude that good deeds are owed to friends, but what about enemies? To refute this saying Socrates puts forward the expertise subject care concept that is common in Plato's texts. An expert only acts for the best outcome for its subject and to leave it in a better state. Doctors care to heal bodies, captains that voyages will be safe. Moneymaking is a separate skill that these people will most likely employ but its not related to their expertise. He asserts that morality is an expertise and therefore morality cannot guide people to harm others and therefore leave them in a worse state. «It could be contested that morality is an expertise or perhaps that its main subject is to leave the self in a better state and would then not be concerned with the state of others, a very anti-social definition.» The deception of appearances is brought up. Do we owe deeds to those who seem to be friends or those that are true friends? We can have the wrong impression or be deceived by the sense and then do good to enemies and bad to friends. Since moral people cannot harm others it follows that a moral person cannot harm anyone ever to fulfill the principle. «This is a radical position in Ancient Greek society.»

Thrasymachus enters the scene. Thrasymachus attacks not only Socrates position that morality is beneficial but also his methods and mannerisms. He demands that Socrates state his opinion instead of simply asking questions and claiming ignorance. «People in other dialogues have pointed this out, but it is amusing that Thrasymachus does it preemptively.» Thrasymachus is the one that first relates morality to not just laws but governance like democracy and dictatorships and states, that might is right which is why the powerful make the laws. Morality is the advantage of the stronger. Governments are ruled by the strong and it is right to obey them.

Socrates points out that rulers can be mistaken and do decisions that are not in their favour. Would it then be right to obey? «This can be similar to how moral people cannot be allowed to harm anybody since they can be mistaken or deceived.» Thrasymachus points out that we assume that people do not make mistakes in their ideal versions. For example when we speak of doctors as experts of medicine it is given that they do not make mistakes about treating the body. Socrates states again that morality is an expertise and must then care for the best of its subjects only like all the other expertises. «Again, Thrasymachus could challenge that morality is an expertise here.» All expertise strive for perfection and not to make things worse. «What if morality is the expertise of caring for the strong?» Since morality is the advantage of the strong and obeying is right, immorality is the most beneficial for a person. The immoral will always come out on top of the moral that restrict themselves. People have a negative attitude to immorality as they do not want to be on the recieving end. It is a compromise. Socrates states people never want power for its own sake, only for reasons of payment, prestige or fearing someone incompetent could take the power can compel people to take on the responsibility. «Anticipates the philosopher-kings reluctant rule.» The last reason is the most noble, the others are mercenary. Socrates is stumped that Thrasymachus separates good and moral, making immorality good but not right. «Otherwise he could argue that if something is good it cannot actually be immoral.»

Socrates explores the interaction between immoral and moral people to see who actually benefits. Immoral people will always act to be superior to others, while moral people only want to be superior to immoral people. Thrasymachus asserts that immoral people are good and clever, he also agrees that experts are good and clever. But experts will never aim to put themselves above other experts. «Insofar as practitioners of their expertise.» Then immoral people are not good and clever.

The interaction is expanded to communities. Thrasymachus posits that immoral communities are better for dominating and exploiting their neighbors. But their hostility will make them an enemy of everyone while moral communities can trust each other. This hostility causes not just strife among communities but internally as well withing families and in associations. Even immoral people will have internal discord preventing them from making decisions. Finally the gods, as moral beings, will oppose all immoral people and communities.

Finally the purpose of things are discussed. Knives are for cutting etc and worn knives are in a lesser state where they cannot fulfill their purpose. The purpose of the mind is to make optimal decisions and in a worse state it cannot perform. Immorality is a bad state that stops the mind from achieving its purpose while morality enables it.

Observations: Thrasymachus and Callicles are interesting as the two people (that I've read so far) who advocate for a might is right position. Republic differs from Gorgias in that pleasure was already discussed with Cephalus where it was deemed a liberation to be free of them in old age. Thrasymachus does not incorporate hedonism to his position like Callicles.

Like in the Phaedrus, Socrates rarely leaves the urban area of Athens.

The discussion of interaction between moral and immoral people and communities reminds me of game theory and the prisoners dilemma.

Thrasymachus agrees that the gods are moral and would be an enemy of all immoral people. I feel this argument could have been brought up much earlier to discredit his position but its also a uninteresting argument. In the next chapter we see Adeimantus and Glaucon demand morality be discussed without considering the intervention of the gods. They also provide a counter-argument that immorality lets you obtain wealth to perform the rites to please the gods despite your actions, which complements what Cephalus said earlier about wealth making old age more bearable as it allows you to avoid immoral behavior.