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?
It certainly is curious that Thrasymachus was so neatly pacified, that he has yet to raise any significant points.
ReplyDeleteI think that he didn't want to just pacify Thrasymachus' argument, which would allow Thrasymachus to just come back later with more arguments. He wanted to make Thrasymachus really curious, to involve him in the dialectic by showing him how he taught the other students. Thrasymachus is as much a student here as the rest; Socrates is using him as a pawn to keep the other students in check, and he's also using the rest of the students to prove a point to Thrasymachus.
Well put, both of you, and well noticed that his pacified role is largely inconsistent with his character and what we know of his person. This is a limitation, perhaps, of the dramatic scenario Plato has constructed. Is it really credible that a bullying, successful know-it-all could so suddenly become curious, fascinated by Socrates' story-telling? Or can we think of some other motivation that might keep him there, attentive but largely silent?
ReplyDelete