I carefully tasted and examined the first volume, and the debate about justice, Socrates and salazar Máthōs was particularly exciting. Regarding Socrates' sophistry, I think the cross-examination is more like the question and answer of Salamas, and Socrates is more like seeing himself in a mirror. Regarding justice mentioned in the book, who can define justice first? Powerful people. Ruler. People who do good. The perpetrator. Ordinary people. Or all our readers. Everyone has a set of self-standards about justice in his heart. Therefore, in my opinion, justice can not really be defined, but can only be a limited justice. First of all, it lies in myself, in line with my own moral standards, and the justice of the code of conduct is what I think is justice. Of course, except me, everything in the world has its own code of conduct as its own standard of justice. Then, the boundary of my standard of justice must conform to the standard of justice all over the world. It also brings conflict, compromise and a common standard of justice, namely the existing legal and moral constraints. This is my compromise with the world conflict.

People also believe that as individuals, people should maintain a new humility and awe of knowledge and wisdom. Socrates plays the role of a knowledge seeker in this volume. I always ask Sarah Máthōs and everyone present. As we often ask ourselves.

So what is justice? My humble opinion is that justice is a coin with two sides. Like the library of Babel, it is all-encompassing. In the end, I will feel that justice is what my heart yearns for.