We can thus say with confidence that Thrasymachus was also a wise man of considerable sagacity. He knew that Socrates could move people with the power of his speech and was thus completely prepared to meet his barrage of arguments.
I do not think that Socrates won himself a friend or even an admirer in Thrasymachus because the latter looked significantly bored and uninterested. He even said that he was agreeing where he agreed only to make Socrates happy. It seems that Socrates was more interested in pleasing the others on the scene and winning his approval than he was in Thrasymachus because he had come to know very early in the discussion that Thrasymachus could not be convinced.
Socrates' arguments also lack strength if we study them closely. That is one major flaw of his dialogue with Thrasymachus and at times, we might even want to agree with him that Socrates was actually behaving like a bully. He was bullying people with his insistent arguments and logic into submission but Thrasymachus was not to be won. Thus Socrates had been unsuccessful in this case while Thrasymachus remains true to what he believed in.
Machiavelli's view on Justice in the Prince
The Prince is considered one of the most influential books of the medieval era. Written by Niccolo Machiavelli, the book extensively elaborates on the attributes of a ruler. Remember the ruler in Machiavelli is not a good or a bad ruler; he is simply a ruler as Machiavelli saw one. thus the traditional views of justice and fairness simply do not apply to him. Interestingly Machiavelli was so uninterested in the concept of justice that he chose to talk as little about it as possible. But when he did, he saw it as something condescending for a ruler. In Chapter 18 of his book, he writes:
In actions of all men, especially princes, where there is no recourse to...
A prince should only be concerned with conquering or maintaining a state, for the means will always be judged to be honorable and praiseworthy by each and every person, because the masses always follow appearances and the outcomes of affairs, and the world is nothing other than the masses. The few do not find a place wherever the masses are supported."
Machiavelli was of the view that justice was a sign of weakness and no true ruler could ever be successful with justice as one of his principles. He wrote: "From these causes it arose that Marcus [Aurelius], Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end..." (Chapter 19)
Views of justice differ between ages and sages. When thinkers focus on the issue of justice, many related subjects such as compassion, social good etc. must also be considered. Machiavelli however was not bothered by traditional view of justice. He believed in presenting a realistic picture of a ruler who was often too powerful to be compassionate and too awe-inspiring. He was someone who believed in getting his commands enforced with force and by inducing fear. Justice was a lost concept in Machiavelli's book. But it has a significant place in Plato and Socrates' views. And thus they pay considerable attention to the subject. Confucius on the other hand was more concerned with justice that resulted in improvement of the social condition of mankind. His view of justice encompassed far more than just oneself though he was equally interested in a man's personal stand on justice and the resulting fair behavior.
References
Plato. Republic. (1994). Translated by Robin Waterfield; Oxford University Press. Oxford Nicolo Machiavelli. The Prince Written c. 1505, published 1515 translated by W.K. Marriott
