Socrates, a famous ancient Greek philosopher, is described as ridiculous in Aristophanes' Clouds but equally thoughtful in Plato's Republic. In the first case, he runs a think tank that educates students, and when Pheidippides joins, the right and wrong argue over how best to teach him. In the latter, a young man named Thrasymachus argues with Socrates. Both are arguments about justice versus injustice; however, in The Clouds, unjust discourse, which supports injustice, wins, while in The Republic, Socrates, which supports justice, emerges as the winner. The key similarities between the two topics are rhetoric and belief; the winning sides employ similar techniques, while the losing sides both fail to demonstrate strong belief in their points. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Through anecdote-based argumentation, the winning sides in both conflicts refute every point made by their opponent. In The Clouds, Injust Speech uses argumentation through anecdotes to prove its points. He argues that Heracles, the man for whom Just Speech states "no man can be better than" (Clouds 1050), is associated with natural hot springs and thus cold baths, which Just Speech states "are very evil and make a cowardly man" (Clouds 1046), cannot truly be unjust. The Unjust Speech then states that spending time in the market is not wrong, since "[if] he had been evil, Homer would never have made Nestor an orator" (Clouds 1056 - 1057), in reference to the Iliad. Unjust speech therefore requires anecdotal evidence from just speech by asking, “Who have you ever seen anything good happen to because you are moderate? Speak and refute me by telling me who” (Clouds 1061 - 1062). Just Speech accepts the challenge and nominates Peleus, who received a sword from the god Hephaestus because he was righteous. However, The Unjust Speech emphasizes that Peleus was ultimately unhappy, as his wife later abandoned him (Clouds 1064 - 1069). Similarly, in the Republic, Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' arguments by presenting anecdotal arguments. When Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of being willfully illogical, Socrates responds: “If we were searching for gold we would never willingly push each other's way in the search and would ruin our chances of finding it; do not think therefore that when we seek justice, which is more precious than a great quantity of gold, we will ever foolishly surrender to one another or be as earnest as we can in bringing it to light” (Republic 336e). He also reports a hypothetical in which Thrasymachus asks someone how much twelve is, but rejects any answer that contains an arithmetic expression equivalent to twelve (Republic 337b), in order to demonstrate that Thrasymachus' standards for a "correct" answer make all unacceptable possibilities. Through these anecdotes, both Unjust Discourse and Socrates effectively ground their arguments through concise, accessible, and engaging stories. Furthermore, since it is the prosecutor's job to prove guilt in our legal system, the onus is on Just Speech and Thrasymachus to prove their righteousness. Just Speech must demonstrate that hot baths and markets are unfair, and being “fucked” (Clouds 1084) is terrible. When he fails to do so, he loses. Thrasymachus must demonstrate that justice is simply “the advantage of the stronger” (Republic 339a). Indeed, it is suggested that these characters are somewhat aware of their burdens, as both are visibly agitated and seemingly emotionally involved in thediscussions. In The Clouds, Just Speech begins by passionately expounding all the virtues of justice in long blocks of verse. His responses decrease in length and frequency as the debate continues and Unjust Speech begins to refute each attack. In the end, when Just Speech realizes that they are all "fucked up", he reacts by throwing down his cloak and running away, obviously shocked by his newfound revelation (Clouds 1102 - 1104). On the contrary, the unjust speech remains calm and balanced. Similarly, in The Republic , when Thrasymachus enters into discussion, he is described as “hunched over like a wild beast” who “[hurls] himself…as if to tear [Socrates] to pieces” (Republic 336b). Furthermore, instead of logically refuting Socrates' arguments, Thrasymachus uses ad hominem to prove his point, calling Socrates a “flatterer” (Republic 340d) and suggesting that he is “ironic” (Republic 337a) in asking questions but never giving answers. Thrasymachus seems like an angry child and cannot be taken seriously. Once again, by contrast, Socrates remains calm and rational, and thus clearly emerges victorious. Although both Just Speech and Thrasymachus have more difficult tasks than proving their opponents wrong, rather than simply refuting criticism, their nervous reactions lead to the failure of their arguments. Finally, Just Speech and Thrasymachus fail to win their arguments as they themselves do. not even truly believe it with all my heart. In The Clouds, Just Speech insists that injustice will lead to being "fucked", to which Unjust Speech responds: "And if he is fucked, what harm will he suffer?" (Clouds 1085). Just Speech cannot provide a satisfactory answer; he insists instead that being "fucked" is the greatest evil, but struggles to explain why. If he really believed that being “fucked” was such a terrible thing, he should have been able to explain the reasons why he thought so. Unjust discourse then presents different groups of people, such as public defenders and tragedians, and shows that they are annoyed. By the time Just Speech realizes it, most people are annoyed, yet they don't seem to suffer in any visible way. Therefore, he adopts the mentality of following the herd and throws down his cloak, shouting “I am defecting [to the profligates]!” (Clouds 1104). Therefore, Just Speech was never truly against injustice from a moral point of view; rather, he refrained from committing injustices because he was afraid of the consequences, so once the consequences turned out to be milder than expected, he changed his mind. Similarly, in The Republic, Thrasymachus is also seen to focus on the consequences of injustice with respect to intrinsic moral values. He insists that “injustice is profitable” (Republic 348c) and that individuals should logically fight for injustice, since it will benefit them more. Socrates pushes him to accept that "the unjust man [is] ignorant and evil" (Republic 350c). He does so, but blushes when he agrees, suggesting that while he may believe in injustice on an intellectual level, he is not completely behind it emotionally. Another example of this is when Thrasymachus refuses to oppose Socrates, "so as not to irritate these men here" (Republic 352b). If Thrasymachus fully believed in committing injustice, he would not worry about harming others or the opinions of others; these cases reveal that he still has some obligation to justice. Therefore, both Just Speech and Thrasymachus lose their arguments because they fail to fully defend their opinions with conviction. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay Both Socrates and Unjust.