Philosophy as Abstraction

Throughout the two weeks that we have spent discussing the meaning of "justice" and Plato's writings I have struggled with grasping how we could ever really come to an answer that everyone could agree on, especially after hearing Thrasymachus' response to it. In reality and in our country, justice really is what the strongest say it is, and obeying that meaning of justice would require the "instrumental" value of it. People only act "just"without "Gyges' ring." I think when trying to define a word that can be viewed as a virtue or a value there will always be different views that you can take. In Thrasymachus' and Gyges' point of view they define it in a way that focuses on society versus personal gain.

Plato attempts to point out that you cannot only examine words that are as layered as "justice" is as only allowing set of standards or rules, but instead to view it from a philosophical point of view one must accept abstraction. Abstract, as defined in the dictionary, is "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." I feel as though Thrasymachus almost attempted to make his definition concrete in the way that he could point out the concrete documents and law makers who created their own "justice." While there is merit and truth within his definition, it is not necessarily the philosophical definition. As the "love of wisdom" to think philosophically would require taking abstract ideas and peeling back each layer until one can thoroughly explain how something is intrinsically good as opposed to fleeing from the value once we can invent Gyges' ring.