And others who are tongueless hearers. The scene is laid in the house of Cephalus at the Piraeus ; and the whole duologue is narrated by Socrates the twenty-four hours after it really took topographic point to Timaeus Hermocrates. Critias. and a unidentified individual. who are introduced in the Timaeus. I WENT down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon. the boy of Ariston. that I might offer up my supplications to the goddess ; and besides because I wanted to see in what man- ner they would observe the festival. which was a new thing.
I was delighted with the emanation of the dwellers ; but that of the Thracians was every bit. if non more. beautiful. When we had finished our supplications and viewed the spectacle. we turned in the way of the metropolis ; and at that instant Polemarchus. the boy of Cephalus. chanced to catch sight of us from a distance as we were get downing on our manner place. and told his retainer to run and offer us wait for him. The servant took clasp of me by the cloak behind. and said. Polemarchus desires you to wait. I turned unit of ammunition. and asked him where his maestro was.
There he is. said the young person. coming after you. if you will merely wait. Certainly we will. said Glaucon ; and in a few proceedingss Polemarchus appeared. and with him Adeimantus. Glaucon’s brother. Niceratus. the boy of Nicias. and several others who had been at the emanation. Polemarchus said to me. I perceive. Socrates. that you and your comrade are already on your manner to the metropolis. You are non far incorrect. I said. But do you see. he rejoined. how many we are? Of class. And are you stronger than all these? for if non. you will hold to stay where you are.
May there non be the alternate. I said. that we may per- suade you to allow us travel? But can you carry us. if we refuse to listen to you? he said. Certainly non. replied Glaucon. Then we are non traveling to listen ; of that you may be assured. Adeimantus added: Has no 1 told you of the torch-race on horseback in award of the goddess which will take topographic point in the eventide? With Equus caballuss! I replied. That is a freshness. Will horsemen transport torches and go through them one to another during the race? Yes. said Polemarchus ; and non merely so. but a festival will be celebrated at dark. which you surely ought to see.
Let us lift shortly after supper and see this festival ; there will be a assemblage of immature work forces. and we will hold a good talk. Stay so. and make non be perverse. Glaucon said. I suppose. since you insist. that we must. Very good. I replied. Consequently we went with Polemarchus to his house ; and there we found his brothers Lysias and Euthydemus. and with them Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian. Charmantides the Paeanian. and Cleitophon. the boy of Aristonymus. There excessively was Cephalus. the male parent of Polemarchus. whom I had non seen for a long clip. and I thought him really much aged.
He was seated on a cushiony chair. and had a Garland on his caput. for he had been giving in the tribunal ; and there were some other chairs in the room arranged in a hemicycle. upon which we sat down by him. He saluted me thirstily. and so he said: You don’t come to see me. Socrates. every bit frequently as you ought: If I were still able to travel and see you I would non inquire you to come to me. But at my age I can barely acquire to the metropolis. and therefore you should come oftener to the Piraeus. For. allow me state you that the more the pleasances of the organic structure fade off. the greater to me are the pleasance and appeal of conversation.
Do non. so. deny my petition. but do our house your re- kind and maintain company with these immature work forces ; we are old friends. and you will be rather at place with us. I replied: There is nil which for my portion I like better. Cephalus. than discoursing with aged work forces ; for I regard them as travelers who have gone a journey which I excessively may hold to travel. and of whom I ought to ask whether the manner is smooth and easy or rugged and hard. And this is a inquiry which I should wish to inquire of you. who have arrived at that clip which the poets call the “threshold of old age” : Is life harder toward the terminal. or what study do you give of it?
I will state you. Socrates. he said. what my ain feeling is. Work force of my age flock together ; we are birds of a plume. as the old adage says ; and at our meetings the narrative of my familiarity normally is: I can non eat. I can non imbibe ; the pleasances of young person and love are fled off ; there was a good clip one time. but now that is gone. and life is no longer life. Some complain of the rebuffs which are put upon them by dealingss. and they will state you unhappily of how many evils their old age is the cause. But to me. Socrates. these whiners seem to fault that which is non truly in mistake.
For if old age were the cause. I excessively. being old. and every other old adult male would hold felt as they do. But this is non my ain experi- ence. nor that of others whom I have known. How good I remember the elderly poet Sophocles. when in reply to the inquiry. How does love suit with age. Sophocles — are you still the adult male you were? Peace. he replied ; most lief have I escaped the thing of which you speak ; I feel as if I had escaped from a mad and ferocious maestro. His words have frequently occurred to my head since. and they seem every bit good to me now as at the clip when he uttered them.
For surely old age has a great sense of composure and freedom ; when the pas- Zions relax their clasp. so. as Sophocles says. we are freed from the appreciation non of one mad maestro merely. but of many. The truth is. Socrates. that these declinations. and besides the ailments about dealingss. are to be attributed to the same cause. which is non old age. but men’s characters and piques ; for he who is of a composure and happy nature will barely experience the force per unit area of age. but to him who is of an opposite temperament young person and age are every bit a load.
I listened in esteem. and desiring to pull him out. that he might travel on — Yes. Cephalus. I said ; but I instead suspect that people in general are non convinced by you when you speak therefore ; they think that old age sits lightly upon you. non because of your happy temperament. but because you are rich. and wealth is good known to be a great sympathizer. You are right. he replied ; they are non convinced: and there is something in what they say ; non. nevertheless. so much as they imagine.
I might reply them as Themistocles answered the Seriphian who was mistreating him and stating that he was celebrated. non for his ain virtues but because he was an Athenian: “If you had been a indigen of my state or I of yours. neither of us would hold been celebrated. ” And to those who are non rich and are impatient of old age. the same answer may be made ; for to the good hapless adult male old age can- non be a light load. nor can a bad rich adult male of all time have peace with himself.
May I ask. Cephalus. whether your luck was for the most portion inherited or acquired by you? Acquired! Socrates ; do you desire to cognize how much I acquired? In the art of doing money I have been halfway between my male parent and gramps: for my gramps. whose name I bear. doubled and trebled the value of his patrimony. that which he inherited being much what I possess now ; but my male parent. Lysanias. reduced the belongings below what it is at present ; and I shall be satisfied if I leave to these my boies non less. but a little more. than I received.
That was why I asked you the inquiry. I replied. because I see that you are apathetic about money. which is a characteristic instead of those who have inherited their lucks than of those who have acquired them ; the shapers of lucks have a 2nd love of money as a creative activity of their ain. resembling the fondness of writers for their ain verse forms. or of parents for their kids. besides that natural love of it for the interest of usage and net income which is common to them and all work forces.
And hence they are really bad company. for they can speak about nil but the congratulationss of wealth. That is true. he said. Yes. that is really true. but may I inquire another inquiry? — What make you see to be the greatest approval which you have reaped from your wealth? One. he said. of which I could non anticipate easy to convert others.
For allow me state you. Socrates. that when a adult male thinks himself to be close decease. frights and attentions enter into his head which he ne’er had before ; the narratives of a universe below and the penalty which is exacted there of workss done here were one time a riant affair to him. but now he is tormented with the idea that they may be true: either from the failing of age. or because he is now pulling nearer to that other topographic point. he has a clearer position of these things ; intuitions and dismaies crowd thickly upon him. and he begins to reflect and see what wrongs he has done to others.
And when he finds that the amount of his evildoings is great he will many a clip like a kid start up in his slumber for fright. and he is filled with dark premonitions. But to him who is witting of no wickedness. sweet hope. as Pindar charmingly says. is the sort nurse of his age: “Hope. ” he says. “cherishes the psyche of him who lives in justness and sanctity. and is the nurse of his age and the comrade of his journey — hope which is mightiest to rock the ungratified psyche of adult male. ” How admirable are his words!
And the great approval of wealths. I do non state to every adult male. but to a good adult male. is. that he has had no juncture to lead on or to victimize others. either deliberately or accidentally ; and when he departs to the universe below he is non in any apprehensiveness about offerings due to the Gods or debts which he owes to work forces. Now to this peace of head the ownership of wealth greatly contributes ; and there-fore I say. that. puting one thing against another. of the many advantages which wealth has to give. to a adult male of sense this is in my sentiment the greatest.
Well said. Cephalus. I replied ; but as concerning justness. what is it? — to talk the truth and to pay your debts–no more than this? And even to this are at that place non exclusions? Sup- airs that a friend when in his right head has deposited weaponries with me and he asks for them when he is non in his right head. ought I to give them back to him? No 1 would state that I ought or that I should be right in making so. any more than they would state that I ought ever to talk the truth to one who is in his status. You are rather right. he replied.
But so. I said. talking the truth and paying your debts is non a right definition of justness. Quite right. Socrates. if Simonides is to be believed. said Polemarchus. interposing. I fear. said Cephalus. that I must travel now. for I have to look after the forfeits. and I manus over the statement to Polem- archus and the company. Is non Polemarchus your inheritor? I said. To be certain. he answered. and went off express joying to the forfeits. State me so. O thou inheritor of the statement. what did Simonides say. and harmonizing to you. truly say. about justness?
He said that the refund of a debt is merely. and in stating so he appears to me to be right. I shall be regretful to doubt the word of such a wise and divine adult male. but his significance. though likely clear to you. is the re- poetry of clear to me. For he surely does non intend. as we were merely now stating. that I ought to return a sedimentation of weaponries or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is non in his right senses ; and yet a sedimentation can non be denied to be a debt. True. Then when the individual who asks me is non in his right head I am by no agencies to do the return? Surely non.
When Simonides said that the refund of a debt was jus- tice. he did non intend to include that instance? Surely non ; for he thinks that a friend ought ever to make good to a friend. and ne’er evil. You mean that the return of a sedimentation of gold which is to the hurt of the receiving system. if the two parties are friends. is non the refund of a debt — that is what you would conceive of him to state? Yes. And are enemies besides to have what we owe to them? To be certain. he said. they are to have what we owe them ; and an enemy. as I take it. owes to an enemy that which is due or proper to him–that is to state. immorality.
Simonides. so. after the mode of poets. would look to hold spoken darkly of the nature of justness ; for he truly intend to state that justness is the giving to each adult male what is proper to him. and this he termed a debt. That must hold been his significance. he said. By Eden! I replied ; and if we asked him what due or proper thing is given by medical specialty. and to whom. what answer do you believe that he would do to us? He would certainly answer that medical specialty gives drugs and meat and imbibe to human organic structures. And what due or proper thing is given by cooking. and to what?
Seasoning to nutrient. And what is that which justness gives. and to whom? If. Socrates. we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the preceding cases. so justness is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies. That is his significance. so? I think so. And who is best able to make good to his friends and immorality to his enemies in clip of illness? The doctor. Or when they are on a ocean trip. amid the hazards of the sea? The pilot. And in what kind of actions or with a position to what consequence is the merely adult male most able to make injury to his enemy and good to his friend?
In traveling to war against the one and in doing confederations with the other. But when a adult male is good. my beloved Polemarchus. there is no demand of a doctor? No. And he who is non on a ocean trip has no demand of a pilot? No. Then in clip of peace justness will be of no usage? I am really far from believing so. You think that justness may be of usage in peace every bit good as in war? Yes. Like farming for the acquisition of maize? Yes. Or like shoemaking for the acquisition of places — that is what you mean? Yes. And what similar usage or power of acquisition has justness in clip of peace?
In contracts. Socrates. justness is of usage. And by contracts you mean partnerships? Precisely. But is the merely adult male or the adept participant a more utile and better spouse at a game of checkerss? The adept participant. And in the laying of bricks and rocks is the merely adult male a more utile or better spouse than the builder? Quite the contrary. Then in what kind of partnership is the merely adult male a better spouse than the harp-player. as in playing the harp the harp- participant is surely a better spouse than the merely adult male? In a money partnership.
Yes. Polemarchus. but certainly non in the usage of money ; for you do non desire a merely adult male to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a Equus caballus ; a adult male who is cognizing about Equus caballuss would be better for that. would he non? Surely. And when you want to purchase a ship. the shipbuilder or the pilot would be better? True. Then what is that joint usage of Ag or gold in which the merely adult male is to be preferred? When you want a sedimentation to be kept safely. You mean when money is non wanted. but allowed to lie? Precisely. That is to state. justness is utile when money is useless?
That is the illation. And when you want to maintain a pruning-hook safe. so justness is utile to the person and to the State ; but when you want to utilize it. so the art of the vine-dresser? Clearly. And when you want to maintain a shield or a lyre. and non to utilize them. you would state that justness is utile ; but when you want to utilize them. so the art of the soldier or of the instrumentalist? Surely. And so of all other things —justice is utile when they are useless. and useless when they are utile? That is the illation. Then justness is non good for much.
But allow us see this farther point: Is non he who can outdo work stoppage a blow in a boxing lucifer or in any sort of contending best able to guard off a blow? Surely. And he who is most adept in forestalling or get awaying from a disease is best able to make one? True. And he is the best guard of a cantonment who is best able to steal a March upon the enemy? Surely. Then he who is a good keeper of anything is besides a good stealer? That. I suppose. is to be inferred. Then if the merely adult male is good at maintaining money. he is good at stealing it. implied in the statement. That is Then after all. the merely adult male has turned out to be a stealer.
And this is a lesson which I suspect you must hold learnt out of Homer ; for he. speech production of Autolycus. the maternal grand- male parent of Odysseus. who is a favourite of his. affirms that “He was first-class above all work forces in larceny and bearing false witness. ” And so. you and Homer and Simonides are agreed that justness is an art of larceny ; to be practised. nevertheless. “for the good of friends and for the injury of enemies” — that was what you were stating? No. surely non that. though I do non now know what I did state ; but I still stand by the latter words. Well. there is another inquiry: By friends and enemies do we intend those who are so truly. or merely in looking?
Surely. he said. a adult male may be expected to love those whom he thinks good. and to detest those whom he thinks evil. Yes. but do non individuals frequently err approximately good and evil: many who are non good seem to be so. and conversely? That is true. Then to them the good will be enemies and the immorality will be their friends? True. And in that instance they will be right in making good to the immorality and immorality to the good? Clearly. But the good are merely and would non make an unfairness? True. Then harmonizing to your statement it is merely to wound those who do no wrong? Nay. Socrates ; the philosophy is immoral.
Then I suppose that we ought to make good to the merely and injury to the unjust? that better. I like But see the effect: Many a adult male who is ignorant of human nature has friends who are bad friends. and in that instance he ought to make injury to them ; and he has good enemies whom he ought to profit ; but. if so. we shall be stating the really op- posite of that which we affirmed to be the significance of Simonides. Very true. he said ; and I think that we had better correct an mistake into which we seem to hold fallen in the usage of the words “friend” and “enemy. ” What was the mistake. Polemarchus? I asked.
We assumed that he is a friend who seems to be or who is thought good. And how is the mistake to be corrected? We should instead state that he is a friend who is. every bit good as seems. good ; and that he who seems merely and is non good. merely seems to be and is non a friend ; and of an enemy the same may be said. You would reason that the good are our friends and the bad our enemies? Yes. And alternatively of stating merely as we did at first. that it is merely to make good to our friends and injury to our enemies. we should further state: It is merely to make good to our friends when they are good. and injury to our enemies when they are evil?
Yes. that appears to me to be the truth. But ought the merely to wound anyone at all? Undoubtedly he ought to wound those who are both wicked and his enemies. When Equus caballuss are injured. are they improved or deteriorated? The latter. Deteriorated. that is to state. in the good qualities of Equus caballuss. non of Canis familiariss? Yes. of Equus caballuss. And Canis familiariss are deteriorated in the good qualities of Canis familiariss. and non of Equus caballuss? Of class. And will non work forces who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtuousness of adult male? Surely. And that human virtuousness is justice? To be certain.
Then work forces who are injured are of necessity made unfair? That is the consequence. But can the musician by his art make work forces nonmusical? Surely non. Or the equestrian by his art do them bad equestrians? Impossible. And can the merely by justnesss make work forces unfair. or talking by and large. can the good by virtuousnesss make them bad? Assuredly non. Any more than heat can bring forth cold? It can non. Or drought wet? Clearly non. Nor can the good injury anyone? Impossible. And the merely is the good? Surely. Then to wound a friend or anyone else is non the act of a merely adult male. but of the opposite. who is the unfair?
I think that what you say is rather true. Socrates. Then if a adult male says that justness consists in the refund of debts. and that good is the debt which a merely adult male owes to his friends. and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies — to state this is non wise ; for it is non true. if. as has been clearly shown. the injuring of another can be in no instance merely. I agree with you. said Polemarchus. Then you and I are prepared to take up weaponries against anyone who attributes such a stating to Simonides or Bias or Pittacus. or any other wise adult male or visionary? I am rather ready to make conflict at your side. he said.
Shall I tell you whose I believe the stating to be? Whose? I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban. or some other rich and mighty adult male. who had a great sentiment of his ain power. was the first to state that justness is “doing good to your friends and injury to your enemies. ” Most true. he said. Yes. I said ; but if this definition of justness besides breaks down. what other can be offered? Several times in the class of the treatment Thrasymachus had made an effort to acquire the statement into his ain custodies. and had been put down by the remainder of the company. who wanted to hear the terminal.
But when Polemarchus and I had done speech production and there was a intermission. he could no longer keep his peace ; and. garnering himself up. he came at us like a wild animal. seeking to devour us. We were rather panicky at the sight of him. He roared out to the whole company: What folly. Socrates. has taken ownership of you all? And why. sillybillies. make you strike hard under to one another? I say that if you want truly to cognize what justness is. you should non merely inquire but answer. and you should non seek award to yourself from the defense of an opposition. but have your ain reply ; for there is many a 1 who can inquire and can non reply.
And now I will non hold you say that justness is responsibility or advantage or net income or addition or involvement. for this kind of bunk will non make for me ; I must hold clarity and truth. I was panicky at his words. and could non look at him without trembling. Indeed I believe that if I had non fixed my oculus upon him. I should hold been struck dense: but when I saw his rage lifting. I looked at him foremost. and was hence able to answer to him. Thrasymachus. I said. with a frisson. don’t be difficult upon us. Polemarchus and I may hold been guilty of a small error in the statement. but I can guarantee you that the mistake was non in- tentional.
If we were seeking for a piece of gold. you would non conceive of that we were “knocking under to one another. ” and so losing our opportunity of happening it. And why. when we are seeking for justness. a thing more cherished than many pieces of gold. make you state that we are decrepit giving to one another and non making our uttermost to acquire at the truth? Nay. my good friend. we are most willing and dying to make so. but the fact is that we can non. And if so. you people who know all things should feel for us and non be angry with us. How characteristic of Socrates! he replied. with a acrimonious laugh ; that’s your ironical manner!
Did I non anticipate — have I non already told you. that whatever he was asked he would decline to reply. and seek sarcasm or any other shuffling. in order that he might avoid replying? You are a philosopher. Thrasymachus. I replied. and good cognize that if you ask a individual what Numberss make up 12. taking attention to forbid him whom you ask from replying twice six. or three times four. or six times two. or four times three. “for this kind of bunk will non make for me” — so evidently. if that is your manner of seting the inquiry. no 1 can reply you. But suppose that he were to come back: “Thrasymachus. what do you intend?
If one of these Numberss which you interdict be the true reply to the inquiry. am I falsely to state some other figure which is non the right one? — is that your significance? ” — How would you reply him? Merely as if the two instances were at all likewise! he said. Why should they non be? I replied ; and even if they are non. but merely look to be so to the individual who is asked. ought he non to state what he thinks. whether you and I forbid him or non? I presume so that you are traveling to do one of the interdicted replies? I dare say that I may. notwithstanding the danger. if upon contemplation I approve of any of them.
But what if I give you an reply about justness other and better. he said. than any of these? What do you merit to hold done to you? Done to me! — as becomes the ignorant. I must larn from the wise — that is what I deserve to hold done to me. What. and no payment! A pleasant impression! I will pay when I have the money. I replied. But you have. Socrates. said Glaucon: and you. Thrasyma- chus. need be under no anxiousness about money. for we will all do a part for Socrates. Yes. he replied. and so Socrates will make as he ever does — decline to reply himself. but take and draw to patch the reply of person else.
Why. my good friend. I said. how can anyone reply who knows. and says that he knows. merely nil ; and who. even if he has some weak impressions of his ain. is told by a adult male of authorization non to express them? The natural thing is. that the talker should be person like yourself who professes to cognize and can state what he knows. Will you so kindly answer. for the sophistication of the company and of myself? Glaucon and the remainder of the company joined in my petition. and Thrasymachus. as anyone might see. was in world tidal bore to talk ; for he thought that he had an first-class reply. and would separate himself.
But at foremost he affected to take a firm stand on my answering ; at length he consented to get down. Behold. he said. the wisdom of Socrates ; he refuses to learn himself. and goes about larning of others. to whom he ne’er even says. Thank you. That I learn of others. I replied. is rather true ; but that I am thankless I entirely deny. Money I have none. and hence I pay in congratulations. which is all I have ; and how ready I am to praise anyone who appears to me to talk good you will really shortly happen out when you answer ; for I expect that you will reply good.
Listen. so. he said ; I proclaim that justness is nil else than the involvement of the stronger. And now why do you non praise me? But of class you won’t. Let me first understand you. I replied. Justice. as you say. is the involvement of the stronger. What. Thrasymachus. is the significance of this? You can non intend to state that because Polyd- amas. the pancratiast. is stronger than we are. and finds the feeding of beef conducive to his bodily strength. that to eat beef is hence every bit for our good who are weaker than he is. and right and merely for us?
That’s abominable of you. Socrates ; you take the words in the sense which is most detrimental to the statement. Not at all. my good sir. I said ; I am seeking to understand them ; and I wish that you would be a small clearer. Well. he said. have you ne’er heard that signifiers of govern- ment differ — there are dictatorships. and there are democracies. and there are nobilities? Yes. I know. And the authorities is the governing power in each State? Surely.
And the different signifiers of authorities make Torahs demo- cratical. blue. oppressive. with a position to their several involvements ; and these Torahs. which are made by them for their ain involvements. are the justness which they deliver to their topics. and him who transgresses them they punish as a ledgeman of the jurisprudence. and unfair. And that is what I mean when I say that in all States there is the same rule of justness. which is the involvement of the authorities ; and as the authorities must be supposed to hold power. the lone sensible decision is that everyplace there is one rule of justness. which is the involvement of the stronger.
Now I understand you. I said ; and whether you are right or non I will seek to detect. But allow me note that in specifying justness you have yourself used the word “interest. ” which you forbade me to utilize. It is true. nevertheless. that in your definition the words “of the stronger” are added. A little add-on. you must let. he said. Great or little. ne’er mind about that: we must first ask whether what you are stating is the truth. Now we are both agreed that justness is involvement of some kind. but you go on to state “of the stronger” ; about this add-on I am non so certain. and must therefore see further.
Proceed. I will ; and foremost state me. Make you acknowledge that it is merely for sub- jects to obey their swayers? I do. But are the swayers of States perfectly infallible. or are they sometimes apt to mistake? To be certain. he replied. they are apt to mistake? Then in doing their Torahs they may sometimes do them justly. and sometimes non? True. When they make them justly. they make them pleasantly to their involvement ; when they are mistaken. contrary to their in- terest ; you admit that? Yes. And the Torahs which they make must be obeyed by their sub- jects–and that is what you call justness?
Doubtless. Then justness. harmonizing to your statement. is non merely obeisance to the involvement of the stronger. but the contrary? What is that you are stating? he asked. I am merely reiterating what you are stating. I believe. But allow us see: Have we non admitted that the swayers may be mistaken about their ain involvement in what they command. and besides that to obey them is justness? Has non that been admitted? Yes. Then you must besides hold acknowledged justness non to be for the involvement of the stronger. when the swayers accidentally command things to be done which are to their ain hurt.
For if. as you say. justness is the obeisance which the topic renders to their bids. in that instance. O wisest of work forces. is at that place any flight from the decision that the weaker are commanded to make. non what is for the involvement. but what is for the hurt of the stronger? Nothing can be clearer. Socrates. said Polemarchus. Yes. said Cleitophon. interposing. if you are allowed to be his informant. But there is no demand of any informant. said Polemarchus. for Thrasymachus himself acknowledges that swayers may some- clip command what is non for their ain involvement. and that for topics to obey them is justness.
Yes. Polemarchus — Thrasymachus said that for topics to make what was commanded by their swayers is merely. Yes. Cleitophon. but he besides said that justness is the involvement of the stronger. and. while acknowledging both these propositions. he farther acknowledged that the stronger may command the weaker who are his topics to make what is non for his ain involvement ; whence follows that justness is the hurt rather every bit much as the involvement of the stronger. But. said Cleitophon. he meant by the involvement of the stronger what the stronger thought to be his involvement — this was what the weaker had to make ; and this was affirmed by him to be justness.
Those were non his words. rejoined Polemarchus. Never head. I replied. if he now says that they are. allow us accept his statement. State me. Thrasymachus. I said. did you intend by justness what the stronger thought to be his involvement. whether truly so or non? Surely non. he said. Do you say that I call him who is mistaken the stronger at the clip when he is mistaken? Yes. I said. my feeling was that you did so. when you admitted that the swayer was non infallible. but might be sometimes mistaken. You argue like an betrayer. Socrates.
Make you intend. for illustration. that he who is mistaken about the sick is a doctor in that he is mistaken? or that he who errs in arithmetic or grammar is an arithmetician or grammarian at the clip when he is doing the error. in regard of the error? True. we say that the doctor or arithmetician or grammarian has made a error. but this is merely a manner of speech production ; for the fact is that neither the grammarian nor any other individual of accomplishment of all time makes a error in so far as he is what his name implies ; they none of them err unless their accomplishment fails them. and so they cease to be skilled creative persons.
No creative person or sage or swayer errs at the clip when he is what his name implies ; though he is normally said to mistake. and I adopted the common manner of speech production. But to be absolutely accurate. since you are such a lover of truth. we should state that the swayer. in so far as he is a swayer. is unerr- ing. and. being inerrable. ever commands that which is for his ain involvement ; and the topic is required to put to death his com- mands ; and hence. as I said at first and now repetition. justness is the involvement of the stronger. Indeed. Thrasymachus. and do I truly appear to you to reason like an betrayer?
Surely. he replied. And do you say that I ask these inquiries with any de- mark of wounding you in the statement? Nay. he replied. “suppose” is non the word — I know it ; but you will be found out. and by absolute force of statement you will ne’er predominate.