Socrates and Glaucon (Plato's eldest brother) came to Piraeus to attend the goddess sacrifice and watch the game at the same time. This goddess is Bendis, the god of hunting in Thrace. Some people think this is Plato's irony, because Socrates was accused of "disrespecting God and introducing new gods". This background points out that the Athenians did not respect their own gods and introduced foreign gods.

Socrates and Glaucon should have returned to Athens after offering sacrifices and watching performances, such as Lu Yu Bole Máthōs and Adementos (Plato's other brother). What made Socrates stay? Aderman Toth suggested "torch race"; Polemajos said, "You can meet many local young people and have a good talk." Polemajos voted for Socrates, and Ge Laokong immediately took over: "It seems that we have to stay." Socrates pushed the boat with the current: "Good!"

Fallows is Polemahos's father, and they are Syracuse businessmen living in Piraeus port. Fallows was very old. He complained that Socrates didn't come to see them often. Socrates asked about the future of the elderly in fallows. Fallows believes that old age is not too painful for people if they have good personalities. Socrates deliberately challenged him: Is he getting old because of wealth? This leads to the discussion of wealth, which should be very targeted for businessmen.

Socrates first despised the money maker for "praising only money". After being approved by fallows, Socrates asked fallows for advice on the benefits of wealth. Cofalos replied: Money can make people become "people with a clear conscience". In the Chinese translation of the business version, Cofalos did not directly say the word "justice". He said some concrete examples, such as: with money, you don't have to cheat, you don't have to cheat; You don't owe God's sacrifice and people's debt. Socrates led to the discussion of justice. What is justice? Is there really a photo of debt or justice? But Socrates immediately denied this simple definition with counterexamples.

Fallows didn't say the word "justice" directly. He explained that people should live with a clear conscience through their fears and doubts before death (the concepts of hell and sin), and quoted Pindar's poem (522 BC-442 BC): "... eternal hope points to light. "To illustrate the life that people should live.

Comparative English Translation (Loeb Classical Library No.237);

When a person lives a just and pious life ... justice is for people and piety is for God. According to the English translation, fallows has talked about "justice" and Socrates took over to discuss what justice is.

Summary: fallows's justice and piety are based on the existence of hell and sin. This is quite interesting.

Socrates will return to this topic again in the tenth volume.

G fallows went to sacrifice, and his son Polemahos continued to talk to Socrates instead of his father. Polemahos quoted the poet Szimonidesz (556 BC-467 BC) as saying: "Paying off debts is justice". To quote a poet is to quote an authority. Simone lived nearly a hundred years before Socrates, so it can be considered that morality at that time was not corrupt, or the starting point of moral corruption. Szimonidesz lived in the Persian War and earlier. It is worth noting that Szimonidesz was invited to Athens by Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant or tyrant Hipparchus. The assassination of Hipparchus was an important event in the history of Athens. The tyrant Hippias was even more cruel to the people after losing his brother. A few years later, Hippias was overthrown, and the Democrats in Athens prevailed. After losing the protection of Hipparchus, Simone had to leave Athens for Thessaly. "Paying off debts" is the justice of businessmen, but there are debt abolition movements in both China and the West. For example, an important part of Solon's reform is to cancel farmers' debts. )

Socrates soon understood that "justice means paying off debts" means something else, not a simple literal meaning. Socrates said that justice is to give everyone a proper reward (retribution), which is called "paying off debts".

Polemajos revised his definition: justice means "giving good to friends and evil to enemies."

Socrates followed the train of thought of Polje Mayoz and came to the conclusion that "justice is only useful for useless things". The dialogue seemed to be in trouble, so Socrates asked for another train of thought. People who are the best at managing money are also the best at stealing money. So justice seems to be something similar to stealing, but it just rewards friends with kindness and enemies with evil.

All this assumes that people can correctly identify friends and enemies, so Socrates got: if friends are really good people, treat them well, if enemies are really bad people, treat them badly. Even if this is a definition, it is an inconvenient definition. )

Socrates continued to ask, will the righteous hurt others? When a person is hurt, will he get worse? Socrates concluded that "a musician can't make people ignorant of music by his music" and "a just man can't make people unjust by his justice". Then come to the conclusion that hurting friends or anyone is not the function of the just, but the function of the unjust.

Socrates concluded that "justice means helping friends and hurting enemies" is the opinion of those who think they are rich and powerful, such as King Xue Xisi of Persia and eastman Nias of Thebes.

So far, a satisfactory definition of justice has not been found. Socrates' argument here is to expand the definition and find that the concept that can be used in a small scope has lost its meaning in general. So force yourself to find a better definition, otherwise talking about justice in general will be confusing (or misleading).

Máthōs, regardless of the people around him, rushed up to interrupt. Sarah Máthōs first attacked Socrates' way of dialogue, that is, he didn't answer questions, but only asked questions for other people's answers, taking pleasure in refuting other people's answers. This is a question about reducing to absurdity. The so-called reduction to absurdity can be exemplified as:

This is a reduction to absurdity in practice (ethics) and mathematics. For example, the diagonal length of a square with a unit side length cannot be expressed as the ratio of two natural numbers. The reduction to absurdity in the field of mathematics was well known to the ancient Greeks, and Plato himself was a mathematician. Through reduction to absurdity, we can find reliable knowledge in the field of mathematics, but can we also find reliable knowledge in the field of practice (such as ethics)? Or is it difficult (or impossible) to get an optimal definition of justice or virtue? This seems very difficult or impossible. What Socrates seems to be doing is to drive the interlocutor into a dead end by reducing to absurdity, and then he has to start over and find a new angle and way to discuss "justice". Socrates often doesn't know the destination in advance.

As a wise man, Máthōs should naturally know the power of reduction to absurdity, and he forced Socrates to give the answer. Sarah Syrian Máthōs denied an answer, that is, defining justice as responsibility, expediency or interest. Because these are just another name, but they still don't directly say what justice is. (This is equivalent to saying that goodness is beauty, or changing one abstract concept to be defined into another. If the two concepts are different, this definition is not appropriate. If the two concepts are exactly the same, it is still marking time. )

Note: Thrasymachus opposes the definition of synonym substitution (see Clitophon 409c). He asked for an analysis of the potential facts (338d-e), as given in a later book.

Salah Máthōs opposes the definition of synonym substitution, and he demands that fact analysis be the basis of this concept.

Socrates lured Salazar Máthōs to give his own definition: "Justice is the interest of the strong."

Under the oppression of Socrates, Salah Máthōs further clarified that there are three forms of government: individual rule (dictator), minority rule (aristocrat) and majority rule (civilian). Every kind of rulers make laws that are beneficial to them, civilian governments make democratic laws, dictatorial governments make dictatorial laws and so on. Law-abiding by the people is beneficial to the government, fair to the people, and unjust if not. Therefore, justice represents the interests of the rulers, who naturally have rights, and justice is naturally the interests of the strong.

Socrates complained that since justice is interest, why did Máthōs refuse Socrates to provide such an answer? Is it because of the "strong" condition? Socrates agrees that justice is interest, but the condition of being "strong" needs to be examined.

Socrates still uses reduction to absurdity:

This is just the opposite of the original definition of justice "the interests of the strong". Is it just or unjust to obey the law against the strong? If you are the ruler, what do you want your people to do? Abide by or not?

At this time, the observers of the debate, Credotte Von and Bo Jorge Lema Hors, chimed in and agreed with Socrates' questioning of Salazar Maas' definition.

Credotte von and Socrates further asked whether justice is what the strong think is good for them, regardless of the facts.

The Syrian Máthōs strongly denies this claim. A person who makes mistakes, how strong is he when he makes mistakes?

Máthōs complained that Socrates was actually a sophist who idealized the definition of a ruler (an ideal triangle). Strictly speaking, when a ruler is really a ruler, he is not wrong, and to what extent he is wrong is not commensurate with his title. Salazar Máthōs also pointed out that rulers need to have enough knowledge to avoid making mistakes. Máthōs still emphasized that "justice is the interest of the strong".

Socrates asked Máthōs to clarify that the strong refers to the strong in the strict sense, not the strong who will make mistakes in the general sense.

Socrates and salazar Máthōs discuss the essence of the strong (strictly defined, pointing to the essence of the ruler).

At this time, the definition of justice has been reversed, from the interests of the strong to the interests of subordinates.

Salad Syria Máthōs long retorted:

Máthōs's conclusion is that justice serves the interests of the strong, but not justice benefits individuals.

After making a long speech in Máthōs, Salazar left without arguing. This is also the skill of a wise man's argument. After giving his opponent a fatal blow, he left with the approval of the audience, without giving his opponent a chance to refute. Winning the approval of the audience is an important purpose of the debate, which is related to the democratic system in ancient Greece. After both sides express their opinions, it is up to the listener to judge which side agrees. )

Socrates lamented that Salazar Máthōs had raised a sharp question. What kind of people should we be? Since injustice is good for individuals, why don't we be unjust people? Socrates is very disgusted with wise men arguing for money (teaching debating skills). Of course, he will regard this problem (life trajectory problem) as a major challenge, which is no small matter.

Socrates began to respond to Salazar Máthōs's tirade:

At this point, Socrates ended the discussion that "justice is the interest of the strong" and turned to the more serious problem that "unjust people live better than just people".

One way to prove that a just life or an unjust life is beneficial to individuals is to list all the benefits that justice and injustice can bring, and then let a third party choose. This is the so-called "definitive statement" (History of Herodotus, Volume VIII, Section 83). Another way is that the two sides of the debate gradually reach an agreement in the dialogue, so that there is no need for a third party to act as a referee.

Socrates asked Glaucon what kind of debate he liked, and Glaucon chose the latter, that is, the debate without a third party.

Socrates asked Máthōs whether justice and injustice were good or evil, and if so, which was good and which was evil.

Salazar Máthōs evaded the concept of good and evil. He described justice as "honest and naive nature" and injustice as "shrewd judgment".

Salazar Máthōs further explained that unjust people are thieves, and even thieves can naturally benefit as long as they are not caught.

Salazar Máthōs classified injustice as virtue and wisdom and justice as the opposite of virtue, which shocked Socrates. Máthōs's reaction here is unforgettable: "Is this what I really think? What's it to you?"? Can you overturn this statement? "

Socrates began his argument:

Socrates concluded: the just do not seek to defeat the same kind, but seek to defeat the unjust. And unjust demands are more than similar and different demands. The unjust are clever and kind, and the just are stupid and bad.

Socrates continues to prove:

Socrates went on to say, "Are the unjust powerful?"

Socrates concluded that justice can make people live in harmony, while injustice can make people split, hate and fight. For the group (actually the Athens city-state), the unjust in the unjust mission can't act in unison at first, then they are enemies of each other, and then they are enemies of the just. The same is true for individuals. Injustice makes them self-contradictory, self-contradictory and unable to act, and then they are enemies of themselves and the just.

Socrates further said: If there is an absolutely unjust person, then he can never do anything. People who say injustice can do something because there is some justice in them.

Socrates went on to demonstrate whether the just live better and happier than the unjust.

Socrates concluded that justice is the virtue of the mind and injustice is the evil of the mind. Just mind, just life is better, and unjust people are worse. Just people are happy, but unjust people are miserable.

It is worth noting that since [350d], Salazar Máthōs no longer opposes Socrates' argument, but basically agrees with it. Socrates himself thinks that he deviated from the original goal of discussion and discussed too many problems like a glutton. In the end, we still don't know what justice is.

@ Ji Jiangyan