The Republic. Plato

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ try irony or any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?

      You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, I replied, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,'—then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you. But suppose that he were to retort, 'Thrasymachus, what do you mean? If one of these numbers which you interdict be the true answer to the question, am I falsely to say some other number which is not the right one?—is that your meaning?'—How would you answer him?

      Just as if the two cases were at all alike! he said.

      Why should they not be? I replied; and even if they are not, but only appear to be so to the person who is asked, ought he not to say what he thinks, whether you and I forbid him or not?

      I presume then that you are going to make one of the interdicted answers?

      I dare say that I may, notwithstanding the danger, if upon reflection I approve of any of them.

      But what if I give you an answer about justice other and better, he said, than any of these? What do you deserve to have done to you?

      Done to me!—as becomes the ignorant, I must learn from the wise—that is what I deserve to have done to me.

      What, and no payment! a pleasant notion!

      I will pay when I have the money, I replied.

      SOCRATES - THRASYMACHUS - GLAUCON

      But you have, Socrates, said Glaucon: and you, Thrasymachus, need be under no anxiety about money, for we will all make a contribution for Socrates.

      Yes, he replied, and then Socrates will do as he always does—refuse to answer himself, but take and pull to pieces the answer of some one else.

      Why, my good friend, I said, how can any one answer who knows, and says that he knows, just nothing; and who, even if he has some faint notions of his own, is told by a man of authority not to utter them? The natural thing is, that the speaker should be some one like yourself who professes to know and can tell what he knows. Will you then kindly answer, for the edification of the company and of myself?

      Glaucon and the rest of the company joined in my request and Thrasymachus, as any one might see, was in reality eager to speak; for he thought that he had an excellent answer, and would distinguish himself. But at first he to insist on my answering; at length he consented to begin. Behold, he said, the wisdom of Socrates; he refuses to teach himself, and goes about learning of others, to whom he never even says thank you.

      That I learn of others, I replied, is quite true; but that I am ungrateful I wholly deny. Money I have none, and therefore I pay in praise, which is all I have: and how ready I am to praise any one who appears to me to speak well you will very soon find out when you answer; for I expect that you will answer well.

      Listen, then, he said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger. And now why do you not me? But of course you won't.

      Let me first understand you, I replied. Justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this? You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us?

      That's abominable of you, Socrates; you take the words in the sense which is most damaging to the argument.

      Not at all, my good sir, I said; I am trying to understand them; and I wish that you would be a little clearer.

      Well, he said, have you never heard that forms of government differ; there are tyrannies, and there are democracies, and there are aristocracies?

      Yes, I know.

      And the government is the ruling power in each state?

      Certainly.

      And the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust. And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger.

      Now I understand you, I said; and whether you are right or not I will try to discover. But let me remark, that in defining justice you have yourself used the word 'interest' which you forbade me to use. It is true, however, that in your definition the words 'of the stronger' are added.

      A small addition, you must allow, he said.

      Great or small, never mind about that: we must first enquire whether what you are saying is the truth. Now we are both agreed that justice is interest of some sort, but you go on to say 'of the stronger'; about this addition I am not so sure, and must therefore consider further.

      Proceed.

      I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just or subjects to obey their rulers?

      I do.

      But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?

      To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err.

      Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not?

      True.

      When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that?

      Yes.

      And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects—and that is what you call justice?

      Doubtless.

      Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse?

      What is that you are saying? he asked.

      I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider: Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted?

      Yes.

      Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger?

      Nothing can be clearer, Socrates, said Polemarchus.

СКАЧАТЬ