RP2: How Does Plato Teach the Reader About Justice Through Socratic Dialogue?

Socrates’ argumentative style is unlike most. Throughout book one and two of Plato’s Republic, the philosopher engages in several conversations, arguing the true definition of justice, and its value in society. Aside from very occasional narration, these full-length dialogues are the readers only view into Socrates’ experiences. By giving the full argument presented by each person, the reader is able to follow along the same points that Socrates himself did before arriving at a conclusion. This method of debate, though it may seem almost redundant at times, is foolproof. Instead of presenting several points that support his current belief to his adversary, in an effort to sway their views, Socrates entertains his oppositions’ thoughts and gradually brings them around to his way of seeing things. Being a philosopher, Socrates often doesn’t have a definitive answer to the question he poses at the beginning of a debate, so he often ends up learning as much himself as he teaches others. While in a heated dispute over the meaning of justice, Thrasymachus, Socrates opponent, doesn’t agree with the way Socrates searches for truth; “By Hercules! That is Socrates’ usual irony for you! I knew this would happen. I even told these others earlier that you would be unwilling to answer, that you would be ironic and do anything rather than give an answer, if someone questioned you” (Plato 13). Thrasymachus is referring to the way that Socrates never makes a hypothesis of his own, but instead only disputes others’. While this is frustrating for Thrasymachus, and possibly even the reader, this is where socratic dialogue finds its strength in teaching. Socrates leads the conversation in a certain direction, often using metaphors and hypothetical scenarios to make his point more clear. He offers up no opinion in the process, but only uses logic that is commonly agreed upon by both sides.

“Socrates: And ears have a function? Thrasymachus: Yes. Socrates: So they also have a virtue? Thrasymachus: They have virtue too. Socrates: What about everything else? Doesn’t the same hold?” (Plato 33). This example shows the manner in which Socrates guides his adversary, through his own thought process. Very gradually, he makes sure the two agree on something, commonly accept it as truth, and then apply the logic to a larger concept. Once something is established as fact, choosing his words carefully his moves closer toward the question that is ultimately trying to be answered. The convincing nature of Socrates style is why Plato teaches the reader through socratic dialogue. Plato gives the full argument in order to walk the reader through Socrates’ train of thought, and the reader sides with Socrates gradually, so they arrive at the answer to his question from the same perspective. Often by the end of the dispute, there are no longer two opinions, one having been crowned winner and the other loser. Instead there is one truth, that neither side can logically refute. Not only does Socrates’ opponent have an answer, but Socrates does too, one that he probably didn’t consider truth before hand. This is what the reader has learned.

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work

Works Cited

Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and C. D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992.