Chapter II
Wave: When you want the money you deposit to be safe.
Sue: You mean when you don't use money, when you leave money empty?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: In other words, justice is needed when money is useless
BO: That's right.
Sue: If you want to keep your pruning knife safely, then justice is useful for both public and private purposes;But when you're going to use a pruning knife, the gardener's technique is even more useful.
WAVE: Apparently yes.
Sue: Then when you only want to keep the shield or the lyre, you say that justice is useful;But when you want to use them, the skills of a soldier or virtuoso are even more useful
WAVE: Absolutely. Sue: Then everything else is the same – justice is only useful when they are useless;When they are useful, justice is useless
Bo: That's what it means.
Sue: Then justice won't be of much use. But let's think about it again – is the person who is the most offensive in a boxing match or any fight the best at defending as well?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: Are the people who are the most able to prevent or defend against disease also the most capable of making disease?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: The best guards in that battalion are also the most capable of sneaking up on enemy troops?
OB: That's right. Sue: That guy who is good at keeping things is also a good thief?
WAVE: You can say that.
Sue: So if the righteous are good at keeping money, he's good at stealing it.
BO: That's right.
Sue: The righteous have all become thieves!You didn't learn this from Homer. He once said that Otolikos, Odysseus's maternal grandfather, was the person he admired the most, and praised: "No one can beat him in theft and fraud." So, like Homer and Simonides, you think that justice is the art of stealing, but "do good to your friends and evil to your enemies." Is that what you mean?
BO: No!Of course not!I don't even know what I said, but I always agree with your last sentence, "Treat friends with kindness and enemies with evil."
Sue: Then there's the question, do we mean real friends and enemies, or do we mean superficial friends and enemies?
Bo: People tend to like the good guys in their eyes and hate the bad guys in their eyes.
Sue: Yes, but people often get good and evil wrong, and a lot of people aren't what they seem, right?
Bo: Makes sense.
Sue: Then for these people, the really good guys become enemies, and the bad guys become friends.
WAVE: Yes. Sue: In that case, isn't it right that they "treat their enemies with kindness and their friends with evil"?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: So good people are righteous and will not do anything that violates justice?
OB: That's right. Sue: According to you, it's just to hurt people who haven't done anything bad?
BO: No, Socrates, this statement is immoral.
Sue: Then we should be kind to the righteous and punish the unjust?
BO: That's right.
Sue: But the conclusion is that a lot of people who don't understand the nature of others have bad friends who should be punished and good enemies who should be treated well. But in this way, what we are talking about now is the exact opposite of what Simonides meant.
WAVE: Exactly. I think we seem to have misunderstood the definitions of "friend" and "foe" and need to be corrected. Sue: Polmachis, what's wrong?
OB: We always think of people who look like good people on the surface, or people who we think are good people. Sue: So how do you correct it?
PO: It's better to say that friends are good people who look like them, and bad people who just look like good people can't be called friendsThe same can be said of the enemy.
Sue: You mean that the good guys are our friends and the bad guys are our enemies?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: Instead of simply saying "Treat your friends well and punish your enemies with evil" as you just did, we should say "Treat your friends well and punish your enemies with evil is justice"?
WAVE: yes, that seems to be right.
Sue: But can a righteous person hurt someone else?
OB: There is no doubt that the righteous can harm those who do evil.
Sue: When a horse is injured, does it get better or worse?
Bo: It's going bad.
(Tips: The full text ** can be read by clicking on the card at the end of the article).
Sue: In other words, horses are bad because of horses, not because of dogs.
WAVE: Absolutely. Sue: In the same way, dogs go bad because of dogs, not because of horses?
OB: That's right. Sue: Doesn't that person's virtue become bad if he is injured?
WAVE: Of course it will go bad.
Sue: This kind of virtue is justice, right?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: Then the people who have been hurt must be unjust?
OB: Exactly.
Sue: But can you make people lose track of music theory with their musical skills?
BO: Of course not.
Sue: Can an equestrian make a person unable to ride a horse with his equestrian skills?
Bo: No way.
Sue: So can a righteous person make people unjust by virtue of justice?Or in general, can good people make people bad by virtue of their virtues?
BO: Of course not.
Sue: It's like heat can't be cooled?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: Or like dry can't be humidified?
WAVE: Yes. Sue: So good people can't hurt anyone?
Bo: No. Sue: Are the righteous people good?
WAVE: Absolutely.
Sue: Hurting a friend or someone else is not done by the righteous, but by the unjust?
BO: Socrates, you're right.
SS: It would be unwise for a person to say that justice lies in paying debts, and that "paying debts" means hurting his enemies and helping his friends. Because this is not the case, and obviously, it is never righteous to hurt others.
OB: I agree with you.
Sue: Then we have to be prepared to fight against anyone who puts these words on Simonides, Pyas, Pitazius, or any other wise man or prophet.
BO: I'm ready to fight alongside you.
Sue: Do you want me to tell you who I think said that?
BO: Who?Sue: I think it's the powerful and rich like Perriande, Perdicas, Xerxes, or Ismeneas the Theban who are the ones who take the lead in saying "do good to your friends and do evil to your enemies" because they aim to assert their power.
Bo: Absolutely.
Sue: If this definition doesn't hold water, who can define "justice" again?
While we were talking, Trasimachus tried to interject but was stopped by someone next to him, who wanted to hear the outcome of the debate quickly. But when I was done arguing with Polmacis and there was a pause, he could no longer remain silent. He brace himself and come straight at us, as if a wild beast was about to swallow us in one gulp. We were all scared and panicked. He yelled:
T: Socrates, you are so stupid!Who authorized you to say these things?What are you two boasting about each other here?If you really want to know what justice is, you have to not only ask questions but also answer, you shouldn't use your opponent to crown yourself, you have to have the ability to answer yourself. Because there are many people who can ask questions but can't answer them. Don't talk to me about justice, whether it's a duty, a benefit, or a benefit, because this kind of nonsense won't convince me. Be specific and precise.
I was shocked by his words and shivered as I watched him. If I hadn't been watching him before, I would have been speechless by his sudden roar. But before he gets angry, I have noticed that he is getting more and more indignant, so I can barely open my mouth to answer him. I said tremblingly
Sue: Trasimarcus, don't embarrass us. Polmatis and I may have made some minor mistakes in the debate, but I promise we never meant it. Let's say we're looking for gold, do you think we'll lose the chance to find gold because of mutual praise?And the justice we are looking for is far more precious than gold, and you will still say that we are pretending to flatter and not doing our best to find the truth?Nope!My dear friend, we are the ones who are most eager for the truth, but in reality we cannot do it. Therefore, those of you who know everything should be sympathetic to us, not angry with us.
T: What a typical Socratic answer, that's your usual style of irony!Didn't I foresee it a long time ago?- Didn't I remind you that no matter what you ask him, he will refuse to answer, and try to avoid answering by irony or prevarication?
Sue: Trasimachus, you're a philosopher. You should know that if you ask a person what number can be combined into twelve, be careful not to ask him to answer six times.
Two, four by three, or two.
Six, three times four - "because this kind of nonsense can't convince me". Obviously, if you ask a question like that, then no one will be able to answer you. Suppose the person retorts to you: "Trasimachus, what do you mean by that?"If you can't answer what you think is the right answer, should I answer other wrong answers?Is that what you mean?"And how do you answer him?
Т: It's as if the two situations are the same.
Sue: Isn't it different?Even if it's different, shouldn't the person being questioned say what he thinks is the right answer?Can you and I still stop him from speaking?
TT: I'm guessing you're going to prevaricate me with those unanswerable replies, right?
Sue: I think so, even if it's risky, as long as I think about it and I agree with a certain answer, I will answer it that way.
TR: What if I could give you a better definition of justice?What punishment do you deserve?
Sue: It's to be punished!- Because of my ignorance, I should learn from the wise Xi - this is what I should do.
Te: What?Isn't there any cost?It's a beautiful idea!
Sue: I'll lose money when I have money.
JG: Socrates, you're rich. And you, Trasimachus, don't worry about the money, we'll all have a copy for him.
(Click on the card above to read the full article.)
Thank you for reading, and if you feel that the recommended book meets your taste, please feel free to leave us a comment!
If you want to know more exciting content, pay attention to your continuous recommendation!