It is clear however that he has been affected by Thrasymachus' tone and style, as there still is a "hitch," but only a slight one, in his voice when he asks his opponent to forgive any shortcomings in himself and Polymarchus when conducting their debate. He argues that they have been arguing in a manner that would most likely bring them to the truth regarding the nature of justice. He strengthens his control over the argument by asserting that justice is more precious than gold and that the style of argumentation was aimed at finding this precious piece of truth. Furthermore, rather than directly saying that Thrasymachus was mistaken in his argumentation, he asks him the reasons for the specific manifestation of his outburst.
When proceeding to the following sections of the work, Thrasymachus continues the scathing nature of his side of the debate, yet it is clear that Socrates maintains the upper hand. He asserts that he has indeed been clear in his attempts to explicate the nature of Justice.
In determining the nature of the Socratic debate, this section of the Republic is a good starting point. Firstly, the Section begins by explaining the nature of the preceding debate, which has gone without unnecessary hostility. Each participant accepted the answer of the other, and used it to build further argument upon. A negative element is introduced with Thrasymachus' outburst. He is negative towards Socrates and Polymarchus' style of debate, terming it ineffectual in terms of finding the specific truth. Nevertheless, Socrates returns his argument with further questions. These are aimed at finding the truth regarding Thrasymachus' outburst, which Socrates eventually does, despite continued hostility.
This section of the debate then shows the most powerful ways of conducting a question-answer sequence of learning and teaching. Socrates' answer relates to handling conflict in the
The central conflict in this section of the Republic relates to a difference of opinion between Socrates and Thrasymachus. According to the latter, the former has been too lenient in conceding to answers from the other party in the debate, while supplying his own answers would have given a greater indication of the great man's knowledge.
According to Socrates, however, the point of a debate is to learn from the other party. In this sense, conducting a debate only to impress others with one's own answers would be, according to the philosopher, pointless. The aim of the debate is after all to obtain knowledge rather than prestige. This is another point at which Socrates differs in ideology from Thrasymachus. The latter holds that his answer to the question is far more specific and hence far greater in quality than that of Socrates. By answering his objections with questions rather than antagonism, Socrates however shows Thrasymachus the logic of his own and Polymarchus' argumentation - to obtain the truth behind the answers rather than to impress each other.
This can be applied to the teaching situation when using the Socratic method in the classroom. It should be emphasized that questions and answers are not meant to impress, but rather to arrive at a central truth of the issue. By asking learners questions, teachers give them the opportunity to find the truth of the matter for themselves and also to learn critical thinking. Critical thinking is an essential skill in the professional world. Socrates in the debate is also teaching Thrasymachus this valuable truth; rather than eagerly attempting to supply one's own supposedly brilliant brand of the truth, it is better to listen for the truth in the other's assertion. If objections are however raised, these can also be used to learn from. In this way all participants benefit.
Sources
Garlikov, Rick. The Socratic Method: Teaching by asking instead of by telling. 2006. http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
Plato. The Republic. Section 336b. Available online at http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168:book=1:section=336b
The Critical Thinking Community. Socratic Thinking. 2006. http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/crit3.html
