Thrasymachus on the Dramatic Level

In class today the presence, or rather lack thereof, of Thrasymachus, presents an interesting question, especially from the literary perspective on character development in the Republic.

In Book I, Thrasymachus is clearly a powerful force, as Socrates alludes to in his descriptions.  Of course, one can doubt that Socrates was actually frightened of Thrasymachus, but surely it is reasonable to assume that he was at least a forceful and obstinate counterpart to Socrates.  Moreover, unlike Adeimantus, Polemarcus, and Glaucon, Thrasymachus has already chosen a career, quite successfully, as a sophist.

With that being said, why does he vanish from the dialogues?  He virtually disappears, and through books II-VI, only chimes in with the other three briefly once, merely to agree with the others, and then later in Book VI Socrates jokingly evokes his name, although there is no response by Thrasymachus himself.

Clearly, Plato establishes Thrasymachus as someone whose presence in the room is necessary, for indeed there is no mention of his leaving the room at all after Book I, and furthermore, Plato establishes the character of Thrasymachus as a bold and ambitious sophist, also in the first book.  How does his disappearance in the later books explain this?  It seems as though the Thrasymachus we had come to know in Book I would surely not sit idly by throughout the many conversations had by Socrates, Adeimantus, Polemarcus, and Glaucon.

Thoughts?

PE: The Incentive of Glaucon

In book IV of The Republic, Socrates clearly calls the motives of Glaucon in question.  In other words, Socrates attacks his inner assumptions about the truth, in his poignant view, that the truth is something easily hidden from the soul.  In fact, Socrates seems to counter the view of Glaucon, that a lie to the soul, when resting in the latter, is detrimental to the person.  Now, when Socrates poses the idea that the lie within the soul (the lie resting in the soul) is actually the worst form of the lie, Glaucon, who seems to, by Plato's dramatic interpretation of Glaucon's character, disagree fundamentally with this statement by Socrates, ends up agreeing with him wholeheartedly.

I think, for the purposes of this class, the 'classroom' medium that Socrates utilizes to draw out the vocal thinking processes of Glaucon is one that often times produces the answer most logically desirable, whereas, an atmosphere like a lecture hall or a correspondence course would not.  Socrates is able to draw out logical conclusions from Glaucon in this medium in particular, which could say something for the dynamic of the Socratic classroom; one which might serve teachers well in classes specifically involving active student discussion.

PE: A Common Process

To begin, I just want to say that I look forward to our class this year.  I think one common thread we've drawn this far is the emphasis on the process of interaction of students and teacher as vital to education.  This process is something quite evident in the rising and falling of arguments in the Republic; I think the process, with respect to it's dialogical nature, is something that we can employ in in our class as well.