Fluent Essays

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY (DEFEND A POSITION): WHO WON THE ARGUMENT: SOCRATES OR THRASYMACHUS? [800-900 WORDS] Thesis: Which position will you defend and why?What kind of good is justice?Is justice intrinsically good? Or is justice an instrumental good (Book II)Create a strong analogy (Links to an external site.) to frame your argumentAnalogies are comparisons between two objects that share some obvious properties, and based on these initial similarities, you infer that they probably share other properties as well.For example: Justice is like math—they both function like universal standards of fairness/harmony. Saying that justice is an instrumental good is like saying all answers are correct in math class. You might be able to manipulate people with your opinions, but that doesn’t make your math results correct.Evaluate how Socrates and Thrasymachus define justiceAnalyze the reasons for their views—why do you find these reasons accurate/inaccurate?See Thrasymachus’ definition/speech (Book I)See Socrates’ definition (Book IV)Which life is best—the just or unjust? Why? How do you know?Explain how this debate is still relevant in the 21st centuryThese topics are among the most crucial for understanding Plato’s views about justice in the RepublicIndividualism VS collectivism (forced social restrictions)Can we reach justice without mass deception? (noble lies)Social stratification (guardians, auxiliaries, producers)What is education for? How should it be structured?What are the qualities and qualifications of a good ruler?Censorship (immoral art/speech)Select three of the topics above and explain why they are important to this discussion by highlighting relevant real-world examples.For example, one might say that the government’s positive outlook on the economy is a noble lie. Numerous economic and health experts are warning us about a second stock market crash, and that it could be a long time before the workforce and economy recover. If you agree with Plato, then this might be a necessary noble lie to tell during a time of crisis when people are highly emotional and irrational. This would highlight the need for mass deception to promote rational behavior (following the laws and norms of society). Without this noble lie, people might lose trust in the government’s ability to protect its people from harm and revolt! Thus, since most people are unable to recognize that justice is intrinsically good, noble lies are necessary for promoting the ideal form of justice.Topic 1 Guidelines:800-900 wordsMLA format: 12-point font, Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch marginsThis is not a research project—no outside sources—only the class text is allowedDon’t cite from my PowerPoint slidesAvoid long quotes to fill spaceCite Plato using the line numbers + in-text citations --> (Plato 347a).FILE FORMAT:Canvas only accepts the following file formats: doc, docx, pdf, txt, and rtf (Google docs and Pages files won’t work). Also, Canvas will not process file names that include special characters or dashes. If Canvas doesn’t accept your file, then I can’t grade it.ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: Submitting this assignment to Canvas will check for plagiarism and originality through Turnitin.com. Don’t plagiarize or buy essays online—it’s not worth it. I report all instances of plagiarism to the Honor Council.If you’re struggling to complete the assignment, then please please please come to office hours so we talk it over. We might clarify confusing things from class, make an outline to get you started, and I’m also open to reasonable deadline extensions. week_14b_ne_book_iv.pdf white__thrasymachus_the_diplomat__1_.pdf week_14b_book_iv___virtues_handout.pdf week_14b_book_iv___virtues_handout__1_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV -------------------- Stingy Magnificence or Vulgarity? Thrasymachus the Diplomat Author(s): Stephen A. White Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 307-327 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/270471 Accessed: 08-03-2018 21:48 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/270471?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology This content downloaded from 207.233.32.18 on Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:48:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THRASYMACHUS THE DIPLOMAT STEPHEN A. WHITE PLATONIC CARICATURE can be devastating, and rarely more so than in Republic 1. No one would call Thrasymachus diplomatic on the basis of his behavior there. Likened initially to a wild beast (336B), he grows increasingly derisive, accusing Socrates of playing the sycophant (340D), then chiding him as needing a nanny (343A), and finally sarcasti- cally threatening to stick the koyoq in Socrates soul (345B). There must be some truth to all this bravado: Aristotle reports the gibe, Youre always OpacijpaXoq-always brash and quarrelsome (A6: Rh. 2.23 1400b2 But before we condemn the man for bad manners, it is worth asking what provokes him to be so rude. First, the very intensity of his reactions indi- cates that he speaks from conviction; and the shame he feels when he finally finds himself unable to sustain his claims (350D), while obviously a sign of wounded pride, bespeaks sincerity as well (cf. 349A; see n. 51 below). Thrasymachus is also one of Socrates more capable interlocutors, quick to use the craft analogy for his own argument (340D-41A) and able to explain his ideas from multiple angles. Above all, he is astute enough to pinpoint the issues that inspire the rest of the dialogue when Plato has his own bro- thers renew his challenge (358A-B).2 Indeed, because his subsequent behavior is mentioned only twice, it is easy not to notice that he remains an attentive listener to the end of an extremely long discussion; neither resentful nor docile, he seconds Adeimantus and Glaucon in urging Socrates to provide a full account of the guardians (450A-B).3 The target of his criticism, A draft of this paper was delivered at the 1993 APA meeting in Washington. I am grateful for helpful criticism I received from the audience there, and from Michael Gagarin, Martin Ostwald, the Editor, and an anonymous referee for CP. 1. According to Ath. 11 505C, Plato used the same barb; Aristotle ascribes it and a similar pun directed against Polus (Gorgias associate) to Herodicus, quite likely the redoubtable doctor who was Gorgias brother; see Grg. 448B5, with E. R. Dodds, ed., Plato: Gorgias (Oxford, 1959), ad loc. Aristotle cites another instance of Thrasymachus sharp tongue to exemplify the witty use of metaphor (A5: Rh. 3.11 1413a5-10). Evidence for Thrasymachus is cited here from Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker7 (Berlin, 1954), who distinguish testimony (marked ,N) and fragments (marked B). 2. C. D. Reeve, Philosopher-Kings (Princeton, 1988), chap. 1, argues convincingly that his position in Book 1 is more sophisticated than usually allowed. As for his character, it is worth noting that Plato here likens him to a lion (341C), the noblest beast and icon of passionate pride and epic heroism (620B, in connection with Ajax; cf. Eth. Nic. 3.8 1116b23-30), that Plato elsewhere refers to him in Homeric diction (Phdr. 267C), and that Aristotle counts shame a quasi-virtue for the commendable aspirations it implies (he also thinks it distinctive of youth; Eth. Nic. 4.9, cf. Chrm. 158C). 3. The point at which Plato recalls his presence is telling: as Socrates broaches the paradoxical proposals in 5-7. In the only other reference to Thrasymachus, Socrates calls him a new friend (498C-D) and promptly offers a charitable reason why so many people (Thrasymachus no doubt included) will find his educational proposals utterly incredible. [? 1995 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/95/9004-0001$01.00 307 This content downloaded from 207.233.32.18 on Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:48:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 308 STEPHEN A. WHITE finally, is not traditional morality but the folly of imagining it is the key to success. His initial outburst, after all, occurs when Socrates first impugns the archaic maxim of helping friends and hurting enemies, then ascribes it to tyrants and despots (336A-B); and no less than four times he calls Socrates naive (cu`q5Or) for imagining that rulers serve the interest ruled (336C1, 343D2; cf. 343C6, 348C12). Provoked by what he takes to be moral complacency if not hypocrisy in his hosts and their Athenian friends, his tirades seethe with indignation. His is apparently the cry, as Guthrie suggests, of a disillusioned idealist outraged by what he deems facile nostrums plainly belied by political realities.4 Even if Platos portrait were entirely consistent, it would be foolish to assume it is accurate.5 More promising is the evidence for Thrasymachus own words and deeds. By far the most substantial item is the opening from one of his speeches that Dionysius of Halicarnassus quotes to illustrate the formative stage of the finest style-the mixed or grand style that reached its acme in Demosthenes (B 1: Dem. 3).6 Remarkably, however, the argument of this fragment has yet to receive close analysis. Accidents of transmission evidently bear part of the blame: the most detailed modern discussions take their cue from Dionysius and focus on style.7 Otherwise, the speech is rarely mentioned except in connection with domestic Athenian politics during the last decade of the Peloponnesian War, since most scholars believe it originated in the debates about constitutional reform in 411 or 404. Though obviously crucial, this belief rests on surprisingly weak foundations, and since confusion about the occasion of a speech can only hinder analysis, my first task is to reconstruct its context.8 Contrary to received opinion, I propose that Thrasymachus spoke on behalf of his native Chalcedon after an unsuccessful revolt from Athens; his main brief, I shall argue, was to persuade Athens to permit his city to retain substantial au- tonomy.9 This resistance to Athenian imperialism, moreover, is parallelled in other evidence of his speeches and actions, and even in his claims in the Republic, all of which show Thrasymachus a consistent opponent of outside 4. W. K. C. Guthrie. A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1969), 88-97, in a section entitled The Realists; cf. Klaus Doring, Platons Darstellung der politischen Theorien des Thrasymachos und des Protagoras, AU 3 (1993): 13-26. Ralf Dahrendorf, In Praise of Thrasymachus, in his Essays the Theory of Society (Stanford, 1968), 129-50, even proclaims him a forerunner of modern liberalism. 5. Cf. Doring, Platons Darstellung, 18: Resp. 1 by itself yields ein vollig falsches Bild. J. H. Quincey, Another Purpose for Plato, Republic 1, Hermes 109 (1981): 300-15, proposes a rationale for the distortion: Plato sought to dramatize the psychological superiority of Socratic dialectic to emotional rhetoric; but his case is seriously weakened by his assumption that Thrasymachus specialized inforensic rhetoric, which is nowhere attested and contradicted by A13 (Dion. Hal. Isae. 20; see n. 14 below). 6. Dionysius reports that Theophrastus considered Thrasymachus the first to arrange and bring it to its present orderliness (Dem. 3). If the speech predates Lysias 34 (from 403), then it is also probably the earliest surviving specimen of deliberative oratory; cf. n. 15 below. 7. For a minute analysis of his stylistic virtues, see F. W. Blass, Die Attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1887), 244-58, and H. C. Gotoff, Thrasymachus of Calchedon and Ciceronian Style CP 75 (1980): 297- 311; still useful for the argument of B1 is K. E. Oppenheimer, Thrasymachos 1, RE 6A (1937): 584-92, esp. 586-88. 8. Neglect of context weakens the admiring discussion by E. A. Havelock, The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics (New Haven, 1957), 230-39; Guthrie, History, 294-98, more cautiously contends that B1 reads like a genuine contribution to a debate. 9. For the significance and scope of this term, see Martin Ostwald, Autonomia: Its Genesis and Early History (Chico, 1982). This content downloaded from 207.233.32.18 on Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:48:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THRASYMACHUS THE DIPLOMAT 309 aggression and a champion of local autonomy. Platos caricature notwith- standing, Thrasymachus was a gifted speaker, and however rude he may have been in private and among friends, he was evidently capable of shrewd diplomacy in his public oratory. I. OCCASION AND CONTEXT First, a brief overview of the fragment. For convenient reference and to clarify the train of thought, I divide it into two paragraphs of five sentences each: first a proem explaining why the speaker must speak out; then a preview of what he plans to say. Thrasymachus opens with an elaborate an- tithesis, which develops an apology for speaking into a stinging indictment of his citys recent leaders (?1). After further antitheses proclaim the sever- ity of the crisis (??2-4), an abrupt apostrophe darkens the picture with a cry of outrage (?5). Turning to his argument, he first rebukes everyone else for thoughtless partisan bickering (??6-7), then announces the resolution he proposes for the crisis: his city should adhere to its ancestral constitution (??8-10). [la] ?PoUX6[tfv [t?v, ) AO lvciot, [tETa-cXE1V KEiVoU TOO Xp6voU TOO ZTakatOO KaCTjV 7[pa7[t6T(OV fViKa Ct 1O)dV (!Xpf T01c VVEOT?pOt1, TOV T? Rpacy[iTVOV0uK dvayKaC6v6O d7OpE6EtV KCat TrdV ZTpECTPUT?pOV 6POd6 T-V ZT6kIv ?TUTpo 6U0Tu V-U [lb] ?Tcu6i 6 ?i TOIOiTOV f[td; dv?OETo Xp6vov o 6ait(ov dSaT-r (vac. ca. 20 litt.) Trs ZT6XkE; dKO6FAV, Tas 6? uu[tpop6; (vac. ca. 15 litt.) a6To6U, Kat T0oT(OV T6 1aTTa n OECOv Epy7 vai tT6 Trs Tz6)Xl dX& TCiV ?tilt[tETOOVToV, &vdyKTl & k?y7tv. [2] i y7p &vaiaOfrTo f1 KapTEP6TCTo ?CTTV OC&M1 ?8a[taptdviVv ?aU-T6V ?Tt ap?&,Et T1oi POUXO[tVOt Kai T15 ?Trp(V ?TRPouX T? Kai KaKiac a6Tos 7I)ocYxTXcCT? Tas aiTias. [3] &kt1 yap ?tiv 6 iEapO EoMv Xp6VOV Kat dvri VT?t l iv EpiAv ?v 1Tko1tq 7EV?Cflat KCti KIV66Vp0, ?i5 T6V6E T6v Xp6VOV TlV [t?V RapEkOoi5cOav fVuOpav 7yaWt[ct, TliV 6 ?TRoi5CTaV 6E6&0CRV, CvVT 6 6jOvoiaw Ei5 X(OpaV KCLi TapaXad 7CpO5 cLX?&1O)U5 (ptlK?cYOat. [4] Kai T01) [t1V &kkO0U) TO6 1Tk305 TCi)v 6yaO76 6ppi4?AV T? [01?1 KCLi CcTTaCWli4V, 1tEl? 6R [tETt [t1V TCi)V 6ya06v oCRppvOO5[tEv, ?v 6R T0I5 KaKOI; ?[1aVllj[EV, a TOU5 &kouU GMppOVi4?1V ETWOEv. [5] Ti 6bTa ,?kkot Tts &v 0 7t17V6)CYK?t Ei7CEIV, OTCq) 7E kuTIECfal ati T015 T lt p0UCIt KCti tVO[ti4?V EXEtV Tt TOIOUTOV C) [tfl&V ?Tt TOtOUTOV ECSTUR; [6] GTpCi)TOV [t1V OUIV TOU5 6iwpEpO[t?VOU5 Rp6O dkkkoUo KCai TC)V plrTp6pV KCti TCO)V &kwov daTo6EiWo y7 Rap& k6yov 1Tcuov606Ta5 uTP6o dkkou, Oll?p IVayKf TIUs aV?U Yv(O1TN (ptkOVK0UVTa5 RtcyX?1v [7] oiO6U?vOI yap ?VaVTia k?y7tv adkkriot 0K aiCad- VOVTCat T& aTz TIpiTTOVTE5 Oi TOV TC6V TgpOv X6o0v ?V TCi) CpET?pp kX67T 9v6VTa. [8 cYK?WacLyO? y&p 9& dpXil a EtlTOUCY1V ?KaTcpOI. [9] T[pCi)TOV [tEV fl 7laTptO TIOktTEia TapaXvV aUTOI ilapXZt p6CYTTll 7VOi)CTVat KCLi KOIVOT6T7l TOL TokiTatu ouicya zTacytv. [10] 5n6cya [t1V OU1V ?1EKF1Va T1 i[tET?pa5 76V(I1t5 9CYTiV, &KOU?1V dvd7KTj XOy67o)V TCi)V akato- T?pWV, 6n&yaa 6 auT6oi ?7060V Oi 0IpEaT|UpTEOt,TaOTa & Rapa TCiV d666ToV IUV0VaECTOat.0 la Jt) AOrlvalot Sylburg: w0 codd. lb lac. codd.: (T&u vlv ?unpa,ias) ... (6pav) Blass: (QT?pWV ,Uv dpX6VT(OV) ... ( Purchase answer to see full attachment