>>>>It's a measure of Plato's greatness as
a philosopher that he was able to understand
the true nature and the true extent of the
Sophists and their challenge to traditional
morality. And in fact the single greatest
statement of the Sophistic challenge to traditional
morality is preserved in Plato's "Republic".
"The Republic" is a dialogue in which Socrates
will interact with various conversation partners
in an exploration for the true nature of justice.
But in the context of this conversation, Plato
evokes the teachings of the Sophists, and
in fact he gives them fine expression. He
provides a powerful, even persuasive account
of the kinds of challenges that the Sophists
made to traditional morality. Now "The Republic"
is a dialogue it's set at the house of an
Athenian named Polemarchus and it begins in
conversation. In fact Socrates starts by having
a conversation with a very elderly man named
Cephalus. And this man was wealthy, and Socrates
asks him, "What was the point of your wealth?
What was the good about the wealth that you
enjoyed in your life?" And the old man says:
"Well my wealth was good because it allowed
me to be just. The fact that I was wealthy
meant that I was able to avoid lying and cheating
and stealing and allowed me to live a just
life." And this actually raises a profound
philosophical question that Socrates is quick
to exploit. Is that what justice is? Is simply
not hurting others? Paying back your debts?
Is is justice simply remaining even with society?
Paying back what you're what you've been given
and somehow refuse refusing to hurt others?
Is justice no more than simply not committing
wrongs like theft, like injury? And this results
in a conversation with another one of the
interlocutors present at this dialogue: a
man named Thrasymachus. And as you read "The
Republic" pay particular attention to Thrasymachus.
He's an extraordinary creation of Plato, and
he gives air to the challenge of the Sophists
in its most radical form. And maybe you like
Thrasymachus, maybe you don't. He's certainly
an aggressive figure. He's a brash figure.
And as he enters the conversation he says
what many readers of Plato have thought which
is: "Socrates, I'm tired of all your posturing
your pretending to know nothing. There you
go again Socrates." and Thrasymachus says:
"Let's be honest in this conversation let's
cut through all the, the fancy moral language
and state things as they truly are." "Justice,
Thrasymachus says, is simply what is in the
interest of the stronger party." That's a
radical claim. He says, in fact, "There is
no such thing as morality. There is only self-interest
and justice is simply the names that we give
to the rules that powerful people create in
their own benefit." If we restate this in
20th, 21st century language we might say,
"Justice is simply the laws that the rich
people have created so that they can milk
the rest of society. Justice is simply a set
of conventions. It has no real grounding.
We can't say that the gods care about justice.
We can't say that tradition has any truth
value. There's simply self-interest. People
competing in their own interest and out of
that competition the rich people create rules
so that the poor people have to obey them
and that it's in their higher interest and
there is no morality." Thrasymachus gives
simple expression to an amoral position. Amorality
- the idea that there is no morality. There
simply isn't a grounding for it. There is
no divine basis for it, there's no natural
basis for it. Tradition is simply a set of
inherited conventions that have been created
by those who are rich and powerful. It's an
unsettling provocation and Plato gives air
to it here precisely because he believes that
the Sophists have made a serious challenge
to the very idea of morality by saying that
it simply does not exist.
