I greatly admire the Socratic Method.

It is the same method of argument I use in day to day

philosophical conversations. However, I do not as greatly admire the unrealistic notions
Socrates applies.
In Book I of Platos Republic, Socrates argues against Thrasymachus idea that the unjust
individual is both good and clever. Through an endless barrage of questions, Socrates comes to
the conclusion that, A just person has turned out to be good and clever, and an unjust one
ignorant and bad (350c). To anyone who readily agrees with the common standards of justice
and injustice made by society, Socrates statement is easily acceptable. A just person is good
because justice almost readily appears virtuous and good to us. However, the questions and
ideas that Socrates applied to get to his conclusion are very idealistic and possibly even
unrealistic.
The first obvious problem with Socrates line of thought is his statement, In any branch of
knowledge or ignorance, do you think that a knowledgeable person would try to outdo other
knowledgeable people rather than doing the very same thing as those like him (350a)? The
problem with this thought is that it assumes that knowledgeable people are not in conflict with
one another. If they are not in conflict with one another, then how come philosophers like
Socrates himself is in conflict with other knowledgeable people like the Sophists? If Socrates is
truly not trying to outdo his philosophical peers, but rather only doing the like of them, then
perhaps his argument stands. If he is trying to outdo them then his is being unjust and by his
later findings, lacking virtue. However it is clear by many statements that Thrasymachus, being
a knowledgeable person, is attempting to outdo Socrates. This either makes Thrasymachus
ignorant or an example of the potential fallibility of Socrates argument.

There are other places within the text that Socrates applies ideal and unrealistic logic. He takes
the characteristics of one group and applies to that of another that may in reality be of a very
different nature. We can see this when he first states that a doctor orders what is
advantageous to his patient, and then connects that to a ships captain or ruler order[s]
what is advantageous to a sailor (342d, e). He goes onto to state that a ruler only does what is
advantageous for his or her subjects. The problem here is that a doctor is by nature different
from a ruler. A doctors purpose is to cure and not worsen his patients. Logically speaking, no
doctor would find it profitable ethically or monetarily to harm his patients. However, a ruler may
do whatever he wills because the harm of subjects does not automatically lead to his destruction.
Socrates has thought that the ruler is ideal in nature, only serving the public rather than also
getting benefit from the position he is in. Its therefore evident that Socrates requires a lot of
idealistic thinking to get his point across.