NIETZSCHE AND THRASYMACHUS V. DESMOND AND SOCRATES

Nietzsche and Thrasymachus v. Desmond and Socrates: To Serve or To Be Served?

Nietzsche and Thrasymachus v. Desmond and Socrates: To Serve or To Be Served?

This paper will attempt to compare and contrast Nietzsche's understanding of the “strong and weak wills” and “the will to power” as well as Thrasymachus' idea of justice, with Desmond's understanding of “freedom” as “agapeic service” and Socrates' “prisoner” who is “dragged up” out of the “cave” and becomes “enlightened”. In order to do so, the paper will present concise yet comprehensive insights into their perceptions of freedom, concluded by a comparison.

Because of Nietzsche's perception of free will, he is often classified as one of the philosophers who believed in determinism. However, Nietzsche clearly refrains from joining this particular group of philosophers. This is mainly because of the fact that Nietzsche's understanding of “strong and weak wills” and “the will to power” goes on to take a highly critical approach towards the deterministic notion of un-freedom of will. This is where Nietzsche's notion of "strong and weak wills” takes on a significant position (Nietzsche, 1967). If a holistic perspective was to be adopted in an attempt to understand Nietzsche's idea of free will, then it can be stated that Nietzsche in fact seeks to assert that each individual is eventually responsible for his/her own self; through the strengths and weaknesses of his/her own will.

In order to compare Nietzsche with other philosophers in the area of their perception of free will, it is essential to highlight that while Nietzsche did not advocate in favor and/or in defense of free will himself, he did not completely support those who chose to negate it; mainly because he believed that the anti camp exaggerates the degree to which free will is essentially free. Therefore, it can be asserted that Nietzsche's idea of free will rested on the individual to a significant extent; making room for unique and rare cases rather than considering a generalized perspective towards the extent to which free will is free.

Thrasymachus' perception of justice is three pronged. For one, Thrasymachus believes that justice in itself is nothing more than the prevalence of the stronger elements in society. Furthermore, Thrasymachus also clearly believes that most of the stronger elements in society are those that influence the rules and regulations that society refers to as laws. In this regard, Thrasymachus suggests that the adherence to these laws and regulations is in fact justice. This is Thrasymachus' perception of justice. It can be observed that Thrasymachus' perception of justice is clearly if a nature such that it clashes with the perception that Socrates holds and advocates.

It can be observed that Thrasymachus chooses very little to no consideration to the idea of free will. Instead, Thrasymachus asserts that the social tapestry of society is limited in its essential context to the desires of the stronger elements. It would not be incorrect to assert that Thrasymachus' ideas are essentially directed towards social and political theory; with regard ...