Plato's Republic Discussion

I think that I agree with Socrates argument, that the just will always win in the end. Although Thrasymacus does make a good argument when he says that the just man usually gets walked over by everyone else; I think that what matters is the end result. It isn't really worth winning "happiness" or wealth if you do it in an unfair way. I would much rather say I am just and poor, than unjust and rich. If you are an unjust, wealthy person, you know that you really don't deserve the wealth you have. Therefore, you can never actually be happy with yourself, because in the back of your head you will always remember that you don't deserve it, but another man who played the game of life fairly deserves the money that you have. Therefore when Thrasymacus says that the unjust man will be happier, he is wrong, because an unjust man can never be happy, because his conscious will always overpower the thoughts he tries to create. What I am trying to say is that the unjust man may try to believe that he is happy because he is wealthier, however the fact that he got wealth unfairly will always be taunting him. So, its not really worth being unjust, because money can't buy happiness, despite what Thrasymacus may believe.

I also like the way in which Socrates connects things, by linking one description with another. Instead of just saying that a person is unjust, he uses a bunch of negative adjectives, such as "bad, thoughtless, worthless, and ignorant" to describe an unjust person. This therefore makes the unjust man seem like a more terrible person than what Thrasymacus does, enabling him to better prove his point. However, when he describes a just person, he uses much more positive adjectives, like "wisdom, good, prudent, and virtuous," which make the just man seem like a much nicer man than he may actually be. By using these adjectives, the argument becomes more intense, because now it is about more than a just versus unjust man- it is about a person who has wisdom versus a person who is thoughtless. It makes the argument so much more deep than it originally was. I believe this method is called the Socratic method, and it totally worked to prove his point.