Thursday, July 13, 2006

Socrates vs Thrasymachus
Though I feel as if Socrates and Thrasymachus both displayed convincing arguments, it is a given that Socrates was the most successful in his attempts. Not only did he control how long the conversation drew out, but also the general direction of where it went. His incessant use of logos and his connection to ethos with his painstakingly obvious reasoning pretty much rendered Thrasymachus speechless. Socrates' reasoning flowed not only with a valid point, but with endless words. Thrasymachus obviously hesitated numerous times and replied only with a few words. This made him look weaker, less prepared, and less convincing. Socrates' pathos was also superior to that of Thrasymachus'. His calm demeanor and roundabout way of going over and over his point surpasses Thrasymachus' counterattack with his angry points on injustice. Thrasymachus shows no signs of using eunoia with his disrespectful and offensive behavior, and that puts him at an immediate disadvantage. Socrates is the only one actually making a valid argument from his own and only counterattacks w hen it is absolutely necessary. However, even then Socrates comes up with an entire new point and idea. His arguments are clear, understandable, and exhibit general common wisdom- using phronesis quite well. Thrasymahcus, I feel, just continuously tries to defend his arguments without actually coming up with anything original on his own. Socrates wins by default: his civil and utterly calm disposition far outweighs Thrasymachus' harsh and almost rude unconvincing counterattacks.