TITLE

A FOUCAULDIAN APPRAISAL OF THRASYMACHUS JUSTICE

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we present the appreciation and appraisal of Thrasymachus notion of
justice through the contemporary perspective of Michel Foucault. The objective of this study is
to comprehend the idea of Thrasymachus justice in relation to contemporary structures of power
relations. We aim to show and emphasize the significance of this outrageous yet realistic theory
of justice and how it is applicable in practices and institutions. For the limitation of this study, it
binds its treatment of Thrasymachus philosophy within the conceptual tools provided by Michel
Foucault. This paper will show us an evaluation of and bring about esteem for this ancient theory
of justice.
KEYWORDS: Justice, Power, Governmentality, The Republic, Thrasymachus, Foucault
INTRODUCTION
Anyone who reads the Platos Republic would never forget the character of
Thrasymachus, his outrageous theory of justice and his equally explosive manner at presenting it.
Thrasymachus was a sophist that has an arrogant attitude and confident of his arguments most
especially his argument on Justice. During a gathering in Polemarchus House, he came in like a
wild beast, seeking to devour his comrades. (Plato, 1973) He manifested his arrogance and
stated his argument I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.
(Plato, 1973)
Although Socrates, through an elaborate cross-examination, has reduced Thrasymachus
into silence and seeming submission, the rebuttal has neither been complete and convincing.
Socrates himself at the end of Book 1 expresses his discontent. And the result of the whole
discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am
not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy.
(Plato, 1973) Socrates has proposed certain questions so as to clarify certain things as regards to
Thrasymachus defense on his claims but Thrasymachus closed his mind which resulted to the
debate being an unfinished and unclosed argument also resulting to Socratess discontentment of
the discussion.
Present studies on Thrasymachus on the Republic periodically go back to this unresolved
controversy or debate on the concept of justice. Justice is something that was never given a
definition and was not given a real concept, rather justice was being talked about to see how it
could have given profit to the ones who really benefit from it. (Hourani, 1962) Author or
commentators, in discussing Thrasymachus notion of justice are now keen on pointing out the
merits of his notion of justice. Justice is for the interest of the stronger (Plato, 1973) the notion
of Thrasymachus justice could be related in modern era, and could somehow be seen very
realistic in many ways. For instance, in the Philippine government setting we could see that the
people we vote for the position they are in right now, are the reasons why we the citizens,
experience a uplift in the economy, little by little we see how they give us back the ease and
comfort that was meant for us. (Calica, 2015) In the school setting we could see that the

administration would use their power so that order may be implemented and see to it that the
students would follow what they want. (Khumalo, 2011) As a setting in the view of the world,
the powerful are those who are in the first world countries they use the power over the 2 nd and
third world countries so that they could blind us with the peace and unity they bring, but
realistically what they want from a country like ours is the natural resources. (Conversation,
2015)
Alongside the above researcher, the present study aims at emphasizing the significance of
Thrasymachus justice by providing a new perspective for its analysis. By adopting the
Foucaldian perspective in the analysis of conception of justice as well as the general approach
taken by Thrasymachus, the study intends to bring about a contemporary appraisal and
appreciation at this ancient theory.
Even this study will use two philosophers in its discussion; it will not be a comparative
one. Rather we will present the parallelism of two philosophers namely Thrasymachus and
Mitchel Foucault. The object of Thrasymachus philosophy is mainly radical and realistic in
nature having said this words, I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the
stronger. (Plato, 1973) This quote alone encapsulates the entire of Thrasymachus philosophy,
he speaks of stronger not as Physical strength, rather he talks about the strong who are, in the
sense powerful or influential in the society. Radical as it may seem but we come to realize the
applicability of this in our present reality. First is Omnipresence of power since his idea of power
is related in Thrasymachus. Power for Foucault is that there is no one outside to power, everyone
has power and everyone has power applied against him or her which proves Thrasymachus
claim that justice is for the advantage of the stronger. Secondly Power Relations in line with
Thrasymachus is that Foucault power relations can obtain only among human beings because
they possess rational capacities that set them apart from other animals. Lastly is the History of
sexuality since sex is the object of knowledge which we can free ourselves from repression.
The choice of Michel Foucault philosophy as a viable perspective to be used on
Thrasymachus is justified by the following points. Thrasymachus justice is defined as justice is
for the benefit of the stronger, likewise Michelle Foucaults Power Relation talks about power
that is there but is not being utilized by the weak it is then used by those who have the capacity
to use this power, namely those who are strong. Thrasymachus points out that justice is also for
the advantage of the other. Foucault also states in his Omnipresence of power that power is
everywhere and in its omnipresence the strong use it not only for their own benefit, since that
would be an exploitation of the weak but the strong use power for the benefit of the other as well.
In Thrasymachus justice he emphasizes that an unjust man lives a better life which is also
reiterated in Foucaults History of sexuality.
The study will limit it application of Foucaldian philosophy to three concepts, namely,
Power-Relations, Governmentalities, and the creation of docile bodies. These concepts
surprisingly coincide with the three senses of justice that is often attributed to Thrasymachus. In
Foucaults power relation, it talks about power that is utilized by the strong. Just like
Thrasymachus notion of justice is only for the stronger. It bears strong resemblance of
Foucaults Power Relation. It is then such a strong absurdity to leave this sort of premonition
hanging. Thrasymachus other notion of justice is that an unjust man lives a better life. In line
with this, our present day government exemplifies biases, which are leaning towards those in
power. It is also in Foucaults history of sexuality that one must go out or rather go beyond the
idealistic point of view of justice just as what is stated by Thrasymachus. Foucaults

Omnipresence of power supports Thrasymachus justice, namely that of justice being for the
other. Omnipresence of power talks about the power that is present everywhere but is only
utilized by the strong. Since the weak cannot or does not make use of the power that is present
around them it is, then, the job or rather the obligation of the stronger to utilize this power in
order for them to benefit.
This paper will constitute to this study in answering several questions which entail and
stick to the study of the notion of justice. These are the questions that the study will answer. First,
What are the notions of power in attaining justice? Second, How can the Contemporary
Philosophy appreciate the notion of Thrasymachus justice? And lastly, How can the notion of
Thrasymachus justice are seen in the modern and contemporary time? These are the question
that, generally, gives significance to the study.
The Book I of the Republic is reliable in answering the questions because only in Book I
of the Republic where the character of Thrasymachus was stressed. In this book, Thrasymachus
defended his notion that justice is only for the advantage of the stronger. His notion was
examined and questioned by Plato and other philosophers and defended it. This book contained
all the explanations and elaborations of what did Thrasymachus really mean about his Justice.
There are many works about Thrasymachus but this book was the foundation of those other
works and journals about Thrasymachus. On the other hand, the books for Foucault which are the
History of Sexuality and Discipline and punish are reliable sources for this research. In The
History of sexuality, Foucault uses sex as the object of knowledge, and with that knowledge we
can liberate ourselves from repression. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault seeks to analyze
punishment, and to examine how changing power relations affected punishment. With these
books, the research is able to live up to its title which is to use Foucault to enforce and to
empower the Thrasymachus Justice because the books can be used to know the notions of power
to attain Justice.
THRASYMACHUS NOTION OF JUSTICE
There was a time when a wise man yet boisterous, named Thrasymachus, challenged the
ideal definition of justice which corresponds to equality, where both the leader and the people
earn justice; while, Thrasymachus concept of justice is more realistic, wherein it focuses on the
benefit of the stronger.
On this contemporary setting, we can see that Thrasymachus notion of justice is still
manifested, for example, the FIBA Asia Cup 2015 which was held in Changsha, China, where
the Chinese Players have all the advantages of the Tournament. During the Championship
Match, China and Philippines were the teams to compete for the title and for the Olympic berth
in Rio De Janeiro. China won, but ended up having a controversial victory against Philippines.
Heres why, before the clash, odds have been stacked up against Team Philippines. Firstly the
team had played back to back late games in the quarterfinals and semi-finals. As a result, it gave
the team less than 20 hours of rest before the championship match. Secondly, the electric bus that
was the only transport for the team to the arena suddenly stopped midway because it failed to
charge the night before. Thirdly, while the team was having their warm-up, they were stopped
because the officials decided to fix their side of the ring. Fourthly, Assistant Coaches had
difficulties in getting inside the arena as they were not given tickets. Lastly, during the game,
unreasonable calls were made against the Philippine Team (Citation). Isnt this example of

present-day situation a clear manifestation of Thrasymachus notion of justice? With this

example given, can we claim, from the assumption of Thrasymachus, that his notion of justice
challenges us to accept that it is for the benefit of the stronger?
In this paper, we would expound and exhaust Thrasymachus notion of justice through
three essences which are, justice is for the stronger, unjust man lives a better life, and justice is
the advantage of the others.
I.

JUSTICE IS FOR THE STRONGER

A common/usual definition of justice states that the maintenance or administration of what

is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited
rewards or punishments. But before this definition, there was a different claim on the notion of
justice by a sophists, named Thrasymachus, who stated I proclaim that justice is nothing else
than the interest of the stronger (Plato, 1973). This statement, as his definition of justice, is a
good way to begin in understanding and discussing justice. Thrasymachus used the word,
stronger not in a literal sense but rather a metaphorical one which he used to refute Socrates by
saying you take the words in the sense which is most damaging to the argument (Plato, 1973).
The metaphor entails indirect identification to the authorities which pertains to the leaders and
rulers. But, said Cleitophon, he meant by the interest of the stronger what the stronger thought
to be his interest,this was what the weaker had to do; and this was affirmed by him to be
justice (Plato, 1973). The understanding or interpretation of Cleitophon is more precise and
detailed for Thrasymachus proposition; however, Thrasymachus doesnt agree to Cleitophons
amendment. Thrasymachus may also have been afraid that if he admitted Cleitophons formula
it would enable Socrates to destroy the generalization of which he was so proud (Hourani,
1962). Thrasymachus stays in a more complex and broader idea so as to question It may be
asked why at this point he chooses to qualify his definition of just action in a way which limits it
and makes it more complex (Hourani, 1962). For example, Tanim bala scam is about airport
personnels being involved in planting bullets in the outgoing passengers luggages and then
accusing them of violating the law. They isolate the victims in a room, scare them with threats of
filing serious charges against them, preventing them from boarding their flights which are about
to depart. It is easy then for those who are in charge to extort money from the victims since they
are scared of having records or in a hurry to catch their flight (citation). This example alone
manifests Thrasymachus idea of justice about the stronger taking advantage of the weak
specifically in the Philippine context. Barney to would agree with Thrasymachus idea him
giving the idea that, The effects of justice are an equally cynical thesis about the language of
justice: namely that one important way in which the politically strong take advantage of the
weak is by manipulatively attaching a self-serving sense to this powerful term. (Barney, 2011).
II.

UNJUST MAN LIVES A BETTER LIFE

In the Philippines, it has been or it is very evident on how the unjust lives a better life. It
just goes to show politics turns into a trend rather than a mission to serve its constituents.
Callicles tell us that Might is right, and nature intends him to get all he wants. (W.K.C.Guthrie,
1969, p. 106), given this notion of Callicles we are at a point where we begin to realize how
power has become something that which is for the advantage of the strong. It is to say that
whatever they do, they do it for their own good or for their own favor. Everything a ruler does or

orders, it is for his own good, given that he is the ruler he has the luxury of being able to justify
whatever it is they do, be it good or bad for their subjects, it is of great importance that he is the
ruler and whatever he says is just. Given this assertion we can see how Thrasymachus tells us
that the stronger uses its power over others to justify their acts which in return, turn to their own
advantage. This is to say that their subjects would then have an illusory happiness because as to
what Thrasymachus says; Obviously, The strongest ruler is the one who constantly seeks his
own advantage, just as in financial dealings or in paying taxes, the unjust person always operates
to gain the upper hand. And so, injustice, when on a sufficient scale, has more strength and
freedom than Justice (Gondin, pp. 27-28). An example would be that of the Binays issues
regarding corruption. We can see how they built their mansions and other infrastructures and
gains good amount of incentive which works on their favor. The news would tell us how they are
able to manipulate certain things and they try to appeal to pity so as to let the people be
compassionate about them which work in their favor. In the presidential election, it cannot be
denied that it is a tactic which works on their favor (citation). Given this example it proves the
assertion that the different forms of Government make laws democratically, aristocratically,
tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for
their own interests are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses
them they punish as a breaker of the law and unjust. And that is what I mean when I say that in
all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the
government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere
there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger. (Kagan, 1965, p. 175).
III.

ADVANTAGE OF THE OTHER

Thrasymachus notion of justice is not based on pure greed and self-satisfaction. He

emphasized that not only the stronger may have all the advantages, rather, it may have an altereffect or that advantage may be used against the stronger. Therefore it led Socrates to a statement
which made Thrasymachus think twice. Then Justice, according to your argument, is not only
obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse (Plato, 1973). Obedience to the law does
not necessarily entail the interest of the ruler, but it may be for the interest of the weaker. It also
entails that one cant exist as a strong being and a weak being at the same time. In Platos
hierarchy one must focus on their level in the society. Rulers may sometimes command what is
not for their own interest, and that for subjects to obey them is justice (Plato, 1973). Take for
instance the movie Hunger Games. In the movie there are 12 districts, each district would
focus on the production of goods that would be supplied to each district. The strong district is the
district one because the capitol and all the rulers reside there. Though district 1 is the strongest
amongst all the districts, they are still dependent on the weaker districts because the weaker
districts produce the goods they consume, and without them there will be no one to govern. This
sort of situation also emphasizes that the strong could never exist without the weak, simply
because there wont be any comparison. Justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice
is a mans own profit and interest (Plato, 1973).
MICHEL FOUCAULTS CONCEPT OF POWER
The objective of this paper is to revitalize and empower the ancient notion about justice
through a contemporary perspective about the notion of power. Michel Foucaults view of power

was the most fit in understanding Thrasymachus notion of justice. In this section, we will
introduce and expound how power, as envisioned by Foucault, manifests in and circumscribes
every individual.
I.

OMNIPRESENCE OF POWER: BIO-POWER, PANOPTICON, DOCILE BODIES

The omnipresence of power implies that power is present everywhere. This means to say
that everyone finds himself in a relation of power or influence, that in any given situation one
either applies it or you succumbs to it. Let us look at the teacher-student relationship as an
example. Both the teacher and the student possess power but there must always be one who
would exercise his power at a greater level over the other which is a necessary consequence of
power being omnipresent. This means that power does not consolidate everything or embrace
everything; rather it emerges as immanent in all kinds of social relations (Lynch, 1998). Power,
then, is not total in the sense that it exerts a complete influence on something and consequently
limits all possible resistance. Power is always a function of assertion and acceptance. Thus,
power is always dynamic and relational.
Bio-power is a form of power that is concerned with the management of life, its
preservation, the utilization of resources, and the avoidance of factors that would put it at risk. In
simpler terms, bio-power is the control of population and its safeguarding. One example of the
application of bio-power is the Nazi regime. The Nazi regimes goal is to preserve the Arian race
through the elimination of the other races since they see other races as inferior to it. They
believed that racism is a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under powers
control: the break within what must live and what must die (Fiaccadori, 2015). The Nazis even
went further by applying the concept of eugenics to achieve the optimal state of the Arian race.
Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the
occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.
The Panopticon is a power that is represented by a structure. It is actually the name of a
prison model developed by the English utilitarian thinker, Jeremy Bentham. But more than a
building, the Panopticon represents a mode of power, a logic of subjugation. This structure is
composed of cells around a central wall, from which prisoners/interns are observed at all times.
It is a circular building where each floor is divided into a single layer of cells. In the middle of
this circular building is a center tower that could see everything that is going on in each cell. But
because the cells at the outer side of the building are brighter than the central tower which is in
the middle, the inmates in the cells are perpetually visible although the guard in the central tower
remains invisible. In effect, the prisoners become their own police. An illustrative example of
panopticism is an institutions implementation of monitoring employees. Some universities or
colleges have checkers or employees whose job is to monitor the presence or absence of
teachers in their respective classrooms. The teacher is subjected to the power of the authority by
virtue of his or her visibility. It is to ensure that the obligations and the tasks given to him or her
are properly done in order to respond in accordance with what is required.
A docile body, as a product of panopticism and other corollary mechanisms of power,
refers to bodies that are malleable or programmable. These people, seen and related to as mere
bodies, can be modified and suited to particular ends. Instead of an undefined mass of confused
and undifferentiated bodies, a disorderly group of people, a docile body is an individualized unit
that has been trained to function in highly specified and predetermined ways. Discipline makes

individuals; it is not a triumph of power rather it is a modest, suspicious power, which functions
as a calculated but permanent economy (Foucault, 1975). This submits a person under anothers
power and thus subjected, is seen as an object which can be used, transformed, and improved for
the person who holds power over him. Going back to the Nazi regime we could deduce that its
goal is to produce docile bodies since it made use of bio-power as a means of utilizing the
resources and other means concerning life to achieve the optimal state of the Arian race, simply a
docile body.
II.

POWER KNOWLEDGE: POWER RELATIONS, AND GOVERNMENTALITY,

SUBJECTIVITY

"[A]ll possesses power and that power is used for purposes we like and dislike (Malecki,
2011). Whether people like it or not, whether people acknowledge it or not, they are always
circumscribed within different types and levels of power-relations. Not only is this powerrelation social in nature, in Foucaults view, it is likewise intrapersonal for in relating to oneself,
we exercise power over our own subjectivity. Power is constantly in use whether people are
conscious in using it or not. In relation to the societys status quo, it can be interpreted that the
direction of power relation has always on a particular side, towards the people who have long
been in power. Thus the balance of power, that is, the relative position of the dominant and the
subjugated, becomes cemented.
Power-relations imply that power is present to all but there is still someone who
dominates over the other. The person is never deprived of his/ her own freewill, but rather the
individual has the position to either decline or accept the power of the dominant. Power is never
simply a matter of intentions or decisions or a phenomenon of mass and homogenous
domination, on the other hand it circulates in networks and individuals are in a position to both
submit and exercise this power (Fiaccadori, 2015). As what was said the earlier ideas, citing an
example for the present day, we could see that the government of the Philippines is ruled by
people who we would call as bourgeoisie, rich people who control the people and the system.
They limit the resources which are rightfully for the people with the people not well aware of
their situation. Hence, dominion is in action. In here, politics plays a significant role, where
power is an indubitable thing that coincides with it. Thus giving us the idea that power is not
something that one possesses, but rather something one exercises (Lynch, 1998). Everyone has
power within themselves and they use it for their own advantages. Politicians realized that they
have the ability to exercise power and that not all citizens are capable of handling that power.
This is how they rise above the rest and govern the people not courageous enough to use the
power they have always possessed. Politics, omnipresent as it is, can be seen in many different
ways and areas. Politics itself is manifested even in the simplest form of group like the family
which could be seen as a form of a government. With this being said, we refer to Foucaults
redefinition of politics through his concept of governmentality in which he includes not only
state politics but a wide range of control techniques in family, military, economics, etc. The
government no matter how venerable it is, or how reasonable and moderate its laws and
institutions, it will always be enmeshed in the striving for power. On the contrary, Foucault
points out that power is the main source for a person to change how the society would be
governed or how the society would put order to how the government would work, wrong use of
power leads to wrong governance, right use of power would give a higher chance for governance
to become better and the society to become united. With this being said Foucault tries to be

specific by showing us the idea of subjectification wherein it is the process of self-formation: the
way of which the human turns himself into a subject. Subjectification entails that as individuals,
each is endowed a capacity, a power, to shape ones being and destiny. Through this active effort
at self-constitution, one arises over the hold of existing power blocs and evades attempts of
subjection. For instance, a person is constrained with the biases of his group about the LGBT
community, the person then realizes that he must not be attached to what is perceived by his
group, rather he forms himself to build his own beliefs. The function of an individual is to be a
subject which he can form his own identity but with consideration to his social identity. The
rules of power and the powers of true discourses can be said more or less to have formed the
general terrain of my concern. (Foucault, 1972). Foucault would point out that a person would
have a grasp on the power that exists within the self, and that we have the power to question
everything since power is omnipresent.

Bibliography
Calica, A. (2015, june 21). www.philstar.com. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/06/21/1468304/govt-determinedimprove-economy
Conversation, T. (2015, july 22). upliftconnect.com. (S. ALEXANDER, Editor)
Retrieved from http://upliftconnect.com/economic-growth/
Daldal, A. (2014, June). Power and Ideology in Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci:
A Comparative Analysis. Review of History and Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 2,,
pp. 149-167.
Erwin, S. (2015, June). Political Technique, the Conflict of Umori, and Foucaults
Reading of Machiavelli in Scurit, Territoire, Population. Focault Studies, 172190.
Foucault, M. (1972). Power/ Knowledge. (C. Gordon, Ed., & L. M. Colin Gordon,
Trans.) New York: Pantheon Books.
Hourani, G. F. (1962). Thrasymachus' Definition of Justice in Plato's Republic.
Phronesis, VII, 110-120.
Khumalo, G. (2011, april 10). http://www.sanews.gov.za/. Retrieved from
http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/teachers-parents-unite-uplift-sowetoschools
Lynch, R. A. (1998). Is Power All there Is? Michel Foucault and the "Omnipresence" of
Power Relations. Philosophy Today, 65-70.
Montelibano, J. M. (2015, October 16). Inquirer.net. Retrieved October 17, 2015,
from Philippine Daily Inquirer: http://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/jose-mamontelibano

Plato. (1942). Republic. In B. Jowett, & L. R. Loomis (Ed.), Five Great Dialogues (B.
Jowett, Trans.).
Plato. (1973). Plato's Republic. (B. Jowett, Trans.) New York: Anchor Books.
Plato. (1973). the republic (1973 ed.). (b. jowett, Trans.) new york: anchor books.
Plato. (1973). The Republic. (B. Jowett, Trans.) New York: Anchor Books.
Thompson, K. (2014). Comments on Johanna Oksala's Foucault, Politics, and
Violence. Philosophy Today, 278-307.
W.K.C.Guthrie. (1969). A History of Greek Philosophy (Vol. Volume 3). London:
Cambridge University Press.