The Debate of Justice in Politeia and the Challenge of Thrasymachus

Öz

This article examines the debate about justice in Plato’s Politeia in the light of Thrasymachus’ “realist” argument. A more detailed look into Thrasymachus, considered as one of the first representatives of political realism, would allow for a more holistic understanding of the debate of justice in Politeia. Plato’s conception of justice is usually known as the order or harmony in a whole emerging from different elements fulfilling their own roles. However, reducing what Politeia tries to say about justice merely to the definitions of justice advanced in Books I and IV would be incomplete. The challenge of Thrasymachus shows that what is at stake in this work of Plato is more than a mere concern for defining justice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plato, Thrasymachus, justice, injustice, political realism

POLITEIA’DA ADALET TARTIŞMASI VE THRASYMAKHOS’UN MEYDAN OKUMASI

Öz

Bu makale Platon’un Politeia’sındaki adalet tartışmasını Thrasymakhos’un “gerçekçi” argümanı ışığında incelemektedir. Siyasal gerçekçiliğin ilk temsilcilerinden sayılan Thrasymakhos’a detaylı bir bakış Politeia’daki adalet tartışmasını daha bütünsel değerlendirmemizi sağlayacaktır. Platon’un adalet anlayışı genellikle bir bütünde farklı unsurların kendilerine özgü işlevi yerine getirmesiyle ortaya çıkan düzen veya uyum olarak bilinir. Ancak Politeia’da adalete dair anlatılmak isteneni sadece Birinci ve Dördüncü kitaplarda öne sürülen adalet tanımlarına indirgemek eksik olacaktır. Thrasymakhos’un meydan okuması Platon’un bu eserinde adaleti tanımlama çabasından daha fazlasının mevzu bahis olduğunu gösterir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Platon, Thrasymakhos, adalet, adaletsizlik, siyasal gerçekçilik

Kaynakça

1. Austin, Michael. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
2. Balot, Ryan K. Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
3. Barney, Rachel. “Socrates’ Refutation of Thrasymachus.” The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s ‘Republic’ içinde, s. 44-62, der. Gerasimos Santas. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
4. Dyson, R. W. Natural Law and Political Realism in the History of Political Thought. Vol. 1, From the Sophists to Machiavelli. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.
5. Everson, Stephen. “The Incoherence of Thrasymachus.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 16 (1998): 99-131.
6. Frede, Michael. “Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form.” Klagge ve Smith içinde, s. 201-219.
7. Harlap, Shmuel. “Thrasymachus’s Justice.” Political Theory 7.3 (1979): 347- 70.
8. Hourani, George F. “Thrasymachus’ Definition of Justice in Plato’s Republic” Phronesis 7 (1962): 110-120.

9. Johnson, Curtis N. Socrates and the Immoralists. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2005.
10. Klagge, James C. ve Nicholas D. Smith, der. Methods of Interpreting Plato and His Dialogues. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
11. Kosman, Aryeh. “Justice and Virtue: The Republic’s Inquiry into Proper Difference.” Virtues of Thought: Essays on Plato and Aristotle içinde, s. 183-203. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
12. Lane, Melissa. Plato’s Progeny: How Plato and Socrates Still Captivate the Modern Mind. London: Duckworth, 2001.
13. Long, Roderick T. “Thrasymachus and the Relational Conception of Authority.” An Anthology of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 3 içinde, s. 27- 36, der. Patricia Hanna. Athens: ATINER, 2009.
14. Machiavelli. The Prince. Çev. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998.
15. Maguire, Joseph P. “Thrasymachus or Plato?” Phronesis 16.2 (1971): 142-63