Winning an argument is easy, winning a soul is hard. Too often Internet dialog seems content to “hit and run,” but transforming and really persuading a person is harder. That requires being open to the possibility of being wrong and to staying around for discussion. Plato’s Republic teaches this lesson.
The Republic is a dialogue of surprises, often it seems to come to an end only to restart. At 336b, one these startling moments occur with the interruption of a wild man. Thrasymachus of Chalcedon was in
Thrasymachus defends the allegedly realistic position that injustice is more profitable than justice. He will defend the right of the strong to do as they please. “Justice is the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Thrasymachus claims that the entire Socratic method is a dodge. “. . . since it is easier to ask questions than to answer them.” (336d) His eroticism makes Socrates afraid and Socrates resorts to ever dialectical trick he knows to tame him. Thrasymachus will defend the tyrant against philosophy. In a sense, he is the lawyer for Alcibiades. Throughout their discussion the other listeners openly root for Socrates. Thrasymachus call Socrates every name in the book and behaves like a “lion.” (341c)
Socrates points out that the tyrants often command things that bring harm to themselves in their ignorance. He also argues that the arts are for the benefit of the weak and not the strong. The shepherd acts for the benefit of the sheep, including the weakest. Thrasymachus does not want to discuss his claims with Socrates. In an impassioned diatribe, he reasserts that the injustice is best, because it leads to the good of the ruler. After this speech, Thrasymachus gets ready to leave. He wants to make speeches and then depart from the discussion, but the other members of the community force him to stay. Eventually Socrates forces Thrasymachus, sweating and blushing, to admit that only justice allows a ruler to act in the ruler’s best interest. He is forced to admit that even thieves who acted unjustly would destroy themselves. Eventually Socrates questions wear Thrasymachus down and he becomes cooperative. (351c)
Book I ends badly. Socrates claims that they have a feast of words, but through his own fault “he has dined like a glutton.” (354b) Thrasymachus burst into the discussion like Alcibiades at the end of Symposium. Socrates once again tames the tyrant, but at great cost. His arguments are not persuasive. As is often the case, the simplicity of the unjust man defies easy refutation. Thrasymachus’ speech is forceful and brutal. Defeating it is hard, since any objections sound weak next to the stark praise of power. A philosopher may silence and embarrass a particular unjust man, but the audience knows what has happened. Socrates recognizes this saying, “So that for me the present outcome of the discussion is that I know nothing. For if I don’t know what the just is, I shall hardly know whether it is a virtue or not, and whether its possessor is or is not happy.” (356c) Thrasymachus has been silenced. One suspects he scarcely understands what has happened to him. In a role reversal from most of the dialogues, Socrates ends the first book in bewilderment!
Whatever community had been forced on Socrates is dying or dead by the start of Book II. The first word of this section of text is “I.” Socrates stands alone, but most important he says a frightening and uncharacteristic thing. Socrates, the founder of philosophy, reports that he thought he was “done with the logos.” He believes the discussion is concluded because his bewilderment will not let him continue. He has acted harshly and silenced Thrasymachus more by the power of his rhetoric than by his argument. Plato will not appear in his own dialogue, but he has his two brothers force his old master to defend his position.
These brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, restore Socrates to the logos. The two young men refuse to give up as easily as Thrasymachus, because they recognize the importance of really defeating injustice. Many practical political men agree with Thrasymachus that “might makes right.” Glaucon and Adeimantus want to defeat Thrasymachus’ view point, not just Thrasymachus. Better still would be to somehow co-opt a person like Thrasymachus and make him part of the moral community. The erotic power of this “wild men” can accomplish much and should not be wasted. Somehow it must be harnessed to the needs of the philosophic community. This they succeed in doing, but only because they do not stop with Book I. Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus end up partners standing together to pursue the logos.
Christians are apt to be content with “winning arguments.” Too often we prize debates between theists and atheists not for the truth that might emerge from them, but because we want to see the home team score a knock out punch. We persuade ourselves, but none of the onlookers. These people may be sympathetic with our position, but they want to be truly persuaded and not just bludgeoned into agreement. Socrates is willing to go forward, because the souls of the eager young men are at stake. In the same way, in coffee shops and in classrooms, I hope Christian educators (some of whom get paid for the work!) are willing to engage in open ended long term discussion with any one willing to follow the argument (the divine Logos!) where it leads.