Proto-Nietzsche vs. Socrates
thoughts while reading The Republic
Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates in Book 2 of 'The Republic' has a Nietzschean resonance when viewed through the lens of the Genealogy of Morals.
Glaucon’s assertion that people act justly only because of fear—of punishment or social consequence—reflects Nietzsche’s critique of moral systems as external impositions, originating in power dynamics and the need to control human behavior. Both highlight the tension between morality as an intrinsic good versus morality as a construct of necessity.
Thrasymachus and Glaucon present raw, practical truths about human nature and society, unvarnished by idealism.
Thrasymachus' claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger mirrors Nietzsche’s ideas about power and master morality, while Glaucon’s "Ring of Gyges" thought experiment explores how morality collapses when accountability is removed—an observation Nietzsche might argue exposes the hypocrisy in moral codes.
Socrates’ responses feel evasive and overly abstract. His method of questioning (the elenctic method) resemble Jordan Peterson’s rhetorical style: a refusal to settle on straightforward answers and a tendency to deconstruct arguments without fully resolving them.
For both Socrates and Peterson, this approach frustrates those seeking direct engagement with practical concerns or clear conclusions.
It’s interesting to consider whether Socrates’ reluctance to agree with rational answers stems from a genuine pursuit of truth, a discomfort with oversimplification, or a deeper commitment to the philosophical journey itself.