Chapter 2 volume one

Socrates: Yesterday I came to the port of Piraeus with Glaucon, the son of Ariston, to participate in the sacrifice to the goddess and to watch the games.Because it was the first time for them to celebrate this festival.It seemed to me that the local people's games were well run, but no better than the Thracians, and we made a sacrifice and were heading back to town after the show. ① Seven kilometers southwest of Athens, it is the most important port of Athens. ② This goddess refers to the hunting god Pondis in Thrace. At this time, Polemachus, the son of Cefalus, saw us from afar, and he sent his own servants to catch up with us and detain us.The house slave grabbed my cloak from behind and said:

"Polemachus, please wait a moment." I turned to him and asked, "Where is the master?" The slave said, "The master is right behind. Please wait a moment." Glaucon said, "Okay, let's wait!" After a while, Polemachus arrived, accompanied by Adimantus, brother of Glaucon, Nikolatos, son of Nikias, and several others, all of whom had obviously seen Come on show. Bo: Socrates, it looks like you are going to leave here and hurry back to the city. Sue: You guessed right. Bo: Hello!Look how many of us are there? Su: I see. Bo: That's great!Either stay here, or fight the battle.

Su: There is a second way.Wouldn't it be better if we politely persuaded you to let us go back? Bo: See you can!Do you have the ability to persuade those of us who do not want to be taught? G: Of course not. Bo: Then you should give up your mind!Anyway, we are unconvinced. A: Don't you really know that there will be a torch race tonight? Su: On a horse?This is fresh.Is it a relay race on horseback with torches in hand?Or do you mean something else? Bo: That's it, and they also have a celebration party - it's worth seeing!After dinner, we went shopping and watched performances. We can meet many young people here, and we can have a good chat.Don't go, that's it.

G: Looks like we'll have to stay. Su: All right!Since you said so, let's do it! [So we followed Polymachus to his house, and saw his brothers Lysias and Eurodemus, and Thrasymachus of Cacedon, and Haman of Paenea Thedes, Cretophon, son of Aristoneumus.Also at home was Cephalus, the father of Polemachus.I haven't seen him for a long time, he looks very old.He sat on a cushioned chair and wore a wreath on his head.Just came back from the temple. There were chairs all around the room, and we sat down next to him.Cefalus saw me and immediately greeted me. 〕K: Dear Socrates, you don't often come to see us in the port of Piraeus, you really should.If I were a bit stronger, and could walk into town easily and quickly, I wouldn't need you to come up here, I'd see you.But now, you should come to me more often!I'll tell you, as the demands of physical enjoyment subsided, I fell in love with witty chatter, and more and more.I really beg you to come here more often, treat this place as your own home, and make friends with these young people.

SOCRATES: Seriously, Cefalus, I like talking to you elderly people.I see you as old travelers after a long journey in life.Most of us will have to embark on this road in the near future. I should ask you: Is this road rough and bumpy, or is it a smooth road?Cefalus, your age has already entered what poets call "the gate of old age". Is late life painful or what? K: I would love to tell you how I feel.Dear Socrates, We who are about the same age like to meet often.Just like the old saying goes: Respond with the same voice, seek with the same breath.Everyone complains when they meet.Thinking of all the eating, drinking, and having fun when I was young, I feel like I have lost my treasure. I always feel that the life in the past was good enough, and the life now is not worth mentioning.Some people complain that because they are getting old, they are even ridiculed by their relatives and friends, and they are very sad.So they see old age as a source of suffering.But in my opinion, the problem does not lie in age.If what they say is true, then I, and people of my age, deserve it all the more.But in fact, I have met many people who don't feel that way.Take the poet Sophocles for example!Once, when I was with him, someone asked him:

"Sophocles, how are you doing with love, courting women at this age?" He said, "Don't mention it! Wash your hands! Thank God, I seem to be from a crazy and cruel It’s as if he broke free from the hands of his slave master.” I thought what he said was reasonable at the time, and I think it’s even more so now.Old age is indeed calming, quiet and ascetic.When the heart is ascetic and the strings are no longer so tight, this state is really like what Sophocles said, like getting rid of the shackles of a group of vicious slave owners.Socrates, there is only one reason for the many pains mentioned above, including the dissatisfaction of relatives and friends, and it does not lie in people's old age, but in people's character.If they are generous and even-tempered people, old age is not a great pain to them.Otherwise, young people will still have troubles.

① One of the three Greek tragic poets.495-406 BC. [Su: I am quite impressed by what Kefalus said.Because I wanted to arouse his eloquence, I deliberately provoked him.I said:] Dear Cefalus, I think most people will not take your words seriously.They will think that you feel old and blessed, not because of your character, but because of your wealth.They will say, "Of course a man has a lot of comfort when he has money." K: That's right. They don't believe what I say, and they have their reasons.However, they are talking too much.I can answer them as Themistockles answered the Serifos.The Serifers slandered Themistocles, saying that he was famous not because of his own merits, but because he was an Athenian.You know how he replied: "If I were from Serifos, I would not be famous, but if you were from Athens, you would not be famous either." Respond to them with the same words.It is certainly not easy for a good person to endure poverty and old age at the same time, but although a bad person is rich, his heart will not be satisfied and peaceful when he reaches old age.

① Thermistoke Le (about 514 BC - 449 BC).Famous politician in Athens.In the early days of the Hippo-Persian War, he carried out democratic reforms in Athens, which changed the composition of the aristocratic conference. SOCRATES: O Cefalus!Do you inherit most of your huge fortune? Or did you earn it yourself? K: Socrates, in terms of making money for yourself, then I would say that you are somewhere between grandfather and father.My grandfather, Cefalus, inherited as much property as I had, and multiplied it several times, while my father, Lusalius, reduced it to even less than it is now.As for me, I would be content to bequeath to these younger generations no less than I have inherited—perhaps a little more.

Su: I don't think you look like a miser, that's why you ask this question.Most people who don't make money with their own hands are not greedy for money; those who make money with their own hands have a penny and a penny.Like poets love their poems, and parents love their children, so earners love their money, not only because it is useful, but because it is their own product. This kind of person is really annoying.They praise nothing but money. K: You are right. Su: Really, I have one more question to ask you.According to your opinion, what is the biggest advantage of having Wanguan family wealth?

K: This is the greatest benefit, but many people may not believe it.But, Socrates, when a man thinks that he is going to die soon, a fear like never before haunts him.All kinds of legends about hell, as well as stories about doing evil in the mortal world and going to the underworld to be punished, were considered nonsense before, but now I feel uneasy when I think about it—maybe these are true! Whether it was old age and infirmity, or the thought of his approaching another world, he saw these scenes more clearly, filled with fear and doubt. He began to ask himself, did he harm anyone somewhere?If he finds that he has committed a lot of crimes in his life, he will often wake up from his dream like a child at night, which is infinitely terrifying.But a man with a clear conscience, as Pindar said:

The partner in his later years is close to his heart, Eternal hope points to the light. He described it well, and perhaps the chief benefit of money lies here.I am not saying that everyone is like this, I am saying that for a reasonable person, if he has money, he does not need to cheat on purpose or because of necessity.When he is about to go to another world, he will not have to be terrified of being owed to God's sacrifices and human debts.In my opinion, being rich has various advantages, but in comparison, for a sensible person, the advantages I mentioned above are his greatest advantages. ① Pindar (about 522 BC-442 BC).Greece's most famous lyric poet. SOCRATES: Cefalus, you speak very well.But when it comes to "justice", what exactly is justice?Is it just to tell the truth and pay off debts? Is it sometimes just and sometimes not just to do so?For example!For example, if you have a friend who once gave you a weapon when he was sane; if he later went mad and asked you to return it, anyone would say he couldn't give it back.It would be unjust if it was returned to him.It is also unjust to tell the madman the whole truth. K: You are right. Su: From this point of view, to be honest, it is not the definition of justice to take something from someone else and return it. Polemachus puts in: This is the definition of justice, if we believe Simonides. ① Simonides (556-467 BC), one of the Greek lyric poets. K: Good!it is good!I leave the subject to him and you.Because it's time for me to offer sacrifices. SOCRATES: Then Polemachos is your successor, isn't he? K: Of course, of course! (As he spoke, he went to sacrifice with a smile) SOCRATES: Then go on, Mr. Debate Successor, what is the definition of justice that Simonides refers to? Bo: He said that "paying debts is justice".I think he's right. SOCRATES: Yes, it is not easy to suspect a man of such great wisdom and wisdom as Simonides.But you may understand what he meant, but I don't.He obviously didn't mean what we just said - the original owner was out of his mind, and he had to return to him whatever was in custody, even though the thing in custody was indeed a debt.right? Bo: Yes. Su: When the original owner is out of his mind, it should not be returned to him anyway, right? Bo: Really, it shouldn't be returned to him. SOCRATES: In this way, Simonides's statement that "justice is the payment of a debt" has something else to say. Bo: Undoubtedly, it has something else to say.He believes that friends should be kind to others and should not be evil to others. Su: I see.If the parties are friends, and if returning the money to the original owner would be detrimental to the recipient or the repaying party, it is not repayment of the debt.You see, does this fit what Simonides meant? Bo: Indeed. Su: Then, should we pay back what we owe the enemy? Bo: You should pay it back.But I think the enemy owes nothing but evil to the enemy, for that is what is proper. SOCRATES: Simonides, like other poets, is vague about what justice is.What he really means is that justice is giving everyone what is due. This is what he calls "paying debts." Bo: So, what do you think? Sue: My God!If we asked him: "Simonides, what is the proper reward for medical skills? To whom? To what?" How would he answer? Bo: Of course he answered: Medicine gives medicine, food, and drink to the human body. SOCRATES: What is the proper reward that gastronomy gives?To whom? What did you give? Bo: Give delicious food to food. SOCRATES: So, what is the proper reward of justice?To whom? Bo: Socrates, if we want to be consistent in our words, then justice is "to give good to friends and evil to enemies." Su: Is that what he meant? Bo: I think so. SOCRATES: When someone is sick, who is best able to bestow goodness on a friend and evil on an enemy? Bo: Doctor. Su: What about when sailing encounters rough seas and dangers? Bo: the helmsman. SOCRATES: Then, in what action and for what purpose does a just man most benefit his friend and harm his enemy? Bo: When fighting with friends and attacking enemies in war. Su: Very good!But, brother Polemachus!Doctors are useless when people are not sick. Bo: Really. SOCRATES: A helmsman is useless when men are not sailing. Bo: Yes. SOCRATES: Then the just man is useless when there is no war? Bo: I don't think so. Su: In your opinion, is justice useful in ordinary times? Bo: Yes. Sue: Farming is also useful, isn't it? Bo: Yes. S: To harvest crops. Bo: Yes. Su: It is also useful to do shoe art. Bo: Yes. SOCRATES: To make shoes—you would say so. Bo: Of course. Su: Good!So tell me, what needs does justice usually meet and what benefits is it useful for? Bo: On matters such as signing a contract and making a contract, Socrates. Su: By signing a contract and making a contract, do you mean a partnership or something else? Bo: Of course it is a partnership. Su: When playing chess, is a good and useful partner a righteous person or a chess player? Bo: A chess player. Su: In the matter of laying bricks and tiles, is it better and more useful for a righteous person to be a partner than a bricklayer? Bo: Of course not. SOCRATES: When playing music, the luthier is a better companion than the just.In what partnership, then, is the just man a better partner than the luthier? Bo: I think it's about money. SOCRATES: I am afraid, Polemachos, except how the money is spent.For example, in the horse trade, I think a horse dealer is a better partner, isn't it? Bo: It seems so. SOCRATES: As for the sale and purchase of ships, is not a shipwright or a helmsman a better partner? Bo: I'm afraid so. SOCRATES: So when money is used in partnership, a just man is a better partner? Bo: When you want to keep money properly. SOCRATES: Does that mean when you don't use money, but save money? Bo: Yes. SOCRATES: Doesn't this mean that justice is useful when money is useless? Bo: It seems to be the case. SOCRATES: When you keep your pruning knife, justice is useful both public and private; But the gardener's technique is even more useful when you use a knife to trim the branches. Bo: It seems so. Su: You will also say that justice is useful when you keep the shield and the harp, but the skills of the soldier and the harpist are more useful when you use them. Bo: Of course. SOCRATES: So, is everything like this? ——They are useful, but justice is useless, and they are useless, but justice is useful? Bo: It seems so. Sue: Dude!If justice is useful only for what is useless, then justice is nothing.Let's discuss this issue in another way!When it comes to fighting, whether it's fists or punches, isn't the person who is best at attacking also the best at defending? Bo: Of course. SOCRATES: Is he who is good at preventing or avoiding disease, that is, he who is good at causing it? Bo: I think so. SOCRATES: Is he a man who is good at defending positions, that is, a man who is good at sneaking up on the enemy—no matter how cleverly planned and arranged? Bo: Of course. SOCRATES: Is it the good guard of a thing, that is, the clever thief of such things? Bo: It seems that it is. SOCRATES: Then, a just man is good at managing money, and also good at stealing it? Bo: Logically speaking, that's the case. Su: Such a righteous man turns out to be a thief in the end!You probably learned this from Homer.Because Homer admired Odysseus ①'s grandfather Autolycus, saying that he was unparalleled in the world in terms of stealing, treachery, crossing rivers and destroying bridges.So justice seems to be something like stealing, as you and Homer and Simonides mean.But this kind of theft is indeed done in order to reward friends with kindness and enemies with evil. Isn’t that what you mean? ① One of the main heroes in Homer's epic, the protagonist of "Odyssey". Bo: My God!no.I was so dazed I had no idea what I was talking about.Anyway, I think it is just to help friends and hurt enemies. SOCRATES: By friends do you mean those who look good, or do you mean those who are really good?Do you mean by enemies those who look bad, or do you mean those who don't look bad but are actually really bad? Bo: Does that need to be said?A man always loves what he thinks is good and hates what he thinks is bad. Su: Then, don't ordinary people make mistakes, mistaking bad people for good people and good people for bad people? Bo: There will be such a thing. Su: Then don't you think of good people as enemies and bad people as friends? Bo: Undoubtedly. Su: In this way, is it not just to help bad people and harm good people? Bo: It seems to be. Su: But good people are just, and they don't do unjust things. Bo: Yes. Su: According to you, it is just to hurt those who do not do injustice? Bo: No!No!That statement, Socrates, cannot be right. Su: Then hurting the unjust and helping the just, can it be considered justice? Bo: This statement seems to be better than the one just now. SOCRATES: For those who do not know good and evil, Polemachus, it is just to hurt their friends and help their enemies—for some of their friends are bad and some of their enemies are good.Therefore, we draw a conclusion that is exactly the opposite of what Simonides meant. Bo: Really!It turned out like this.This is let's revisit it. This is probably because we have not defined "friend" and "enemy" well. SOCRATES: Polemachos, where is the definition wrong? Bo: The mistake is to regard a seemingly reliable person as a friend. S: So how should we reconsider now? Bo: We should say that friends are not just people who seem reliable, but people who are really reliable.People who look good but are not really good can only be regarded as friends in appearance, not real friends.The same goes for enemies. Su: According to this principle, good people are friends, and bad people are enemies. Bo: Yes. Su: We originally said that repaying friends with kindness and repaying enemies with evil is justice.At this point, do we have to add another point, that is, if a friend is really a good person, he should be treated with kindness, and if an enemy is really a bad person, he should be treated with evil, and this is justice? Bo: Of course.I think that's a good definition. Sue: Take it easy, can a just man hurt others? Bo: Sure, he should hurt the bad enemy. Su: Let's take a horse for example!What about the wounded horse getting better?Or has it gone bad? Bo: It's gone bad. Su: Is this why horses become bad for horses?Or are dogs bad for dogs? Bo: The horse has become bad for the sake of the horse. Su: In the same way, when a dog is injured, it is because the dog becomes bad for the dog, not because the horse becomes bad for the horse, isn’t it? Bo: Needless to say! Su: Excuse me, can we say this: when a person is hurt, the reason why he is a person becomes bad, and his virtue becomes bad? Bo: Of course you can say that. SOCRATES: Is justice a human virtue? Bo: This is undeniable. Sue: My friend!It cannot be denied that people become more unjust when they are hurt. Bo: It seems so. SOCRATES: Now, can a musician use his musical technique to make people not understand music? Bo: Impossible. SOCRATES: Can a rider, then, use his skill to make a man less able to ride a horse? Bo: Impossible. SOCRATES: Then can the just man make unjust with his justice?In other words, can a good man use his virtue to make someone bad? Bo: Impossible. SOCRATES: I think chills are not a function of heat, but of the opposite of heat. Bo: Yes. Su: Moisture is not a function of dryness, but a function of the opposite of dryness. Bo: Of course. S: Harm is not the function of the good man, but the function of the opposite of the good man. Bo: It seems so. Su: Aren't the just people good? Bo: Of course he is a good person. SOCRATES: O Polemachos!It is not the function of the just to hurt a friend or anyone, but the function of the opposite of the just, the function of the unjust. Bo: Socrates, your reason seems very good. SOCRATES: If someone says that justice is repaying debts, and the so-called "repaying debts" means hurting one's enemies and helping one's friends.Well, I don't think it's possible for people who say these things to be smart.For we have shown that it is always unjust to hurt anyone. Bo: I agree. SOCRATES: If anyone thinks that this statement is settled by Simonides, or Pias, or Pitacus, or any other sage, then we will beat the drum together and attack it. ① Born in the middle of the 6th century BC, one of the "Seven Sages" of Greece. ②The year of birth is unknown, and he died in 569 BC.One of the "Seven Wise Men" of Greece. Bo: I'm ready to fight. Su: You know that "justice means helping friends and harming enemies". Whose idea is this?You know who I'm guessing? Bo: Who is it? SOCRATES: I think it is the opinion of Periandro, or Perdicca, or Zerzes, or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and self-important man. Bo: You are absolutely right. Su: Very good.Since this definition of justice cannot be established, who can give another definition? [While we were talking, Thrasymachus tried several times to break into the debate, but was stopped by those around him, who were anxious to hear the truth.When I finished speaking the above words and paused for a while, he couldn't bear it anymore. He pulled himself together and rushed forward, as if a wild beast was going to swallow us up, scaring Boller and me. Mahos was at a loss.He roared loudly:] Color: Socrates, what the hell have you seen?If you really want to know what justice is, you shouldn't just ask questions and try to refute other people's answers.You are brilliant!You know it's easier to ask questions than to answer them.You should answer for yourself what you think justice is.Don't talk nonsense about justice being a duty, or an expedient, or an advantage, or a reward for profit.You have to say straight up what exactly you are referring to. I don't want to hear that nonsense. [After hearing what he said, I was very shocked, staring at him with instinctive fear.If I hadn't seen him there before, he would have been taken aback by the jerk.Fortunately, when he first got angry with us, I looked at him first, so I could barely answer him.I said tremblingly: "Dear Thrasymachus, don't let us get down. If there is a mistake in the back and forth discussions between Polemachus and I, it is definitely not our intention. If our purpose is to seek gold, we will never miss the opportunity to find gold just to flatter each other. Now the justice we are looking for is worth more than gold. How can we be so stupid, just please each other and not try hard Search for it? My friend! We are working with all our hearts, but we cannot do what we want. You clever people should sympathize with us, but don't criticize us!" After hearing my words, he burst into laughter, and then said with a smile:] Color: Hercules ① testifies!You are using the famous Socratic antigrammar.I've been taught this before, and I've greeted people here--you're always reluctant to answer when you're asked a question, preferring to use sarcasm or some other clumsy method to avoid answering the question directly. ①A hero in ancient Greek mythology. SOCRATES: O Thrasymachus!You are a smart man.You know, if you ask someone "How did you get twelve?" and at the same time say to him, "Don't answer two times six, three times four, six times two, or four times three. I don’t want to listen.” I think you know well that this way of asking clearly means that no one can answer your question.But if he asks you: "Thrasymachus, what do you mean? Can't I tell you what you don't want me to answer? If one of the answers happens to be correct, should I discard the correct answer?" Instead, answer with a wrong answer? Didn’t you intentionally make people answer wrong? What is your plan?” Then how should you answer them? Color: hum!Are these two things similar? SO: There is no reason why they should not be similar.Even if they are not similar, and the person being asked thinks that one of the answers seems to be correct, can we still stop them from talking? Color: Do you really want to do this?Do you have to answer me with one of my forbidden answers? SOCRATES: If I do it, it's nothing to be surprised at, as long as I think about it and think it's right. Color: OK.If it is about justice, I will give you a different and more brilliant answer, you say how you should be punished! SOCRATES: Is there anything else but to accept the punishment of ignorance?And to be punished by ignorance is obviously that I learn from wise men. Hue: You are very naive, you should learn.But money still has to be punished. Su: If you have money, of course you will be fined. G: That's no problem.Thrasymachus, you don't have to worry about the fine. We are all willing to share it for Socrates as you go on. Color: Look!Socrates is at it again.He refused to answer it himself, but when someone else said it, he came to overturn the other person's words. Su: My brilliant friend!How can a person answer under such circumstances?First, he didn't know, and he admitted that he didn't know.Second, even if he wanted to say something, he was silenced by someone with authority.Now, of course, it would be more appropriate for you to speak.Because you say you know and have the answers.Then please don't be reluctant to give Glaucon and us a lot of advice, of course I am even more grateful. [While I have reached this point, Glaucon and the others also ask Thrasymachus to speak to them.He was eager to try it, wanted to show his hand, and thought he had a brilliant answer.But he pretended to insist that I speak first, and finally gave in. 〕色: This is the shrewdness of Socrates. He refused to teach others anything, but learned from others everywhere. After learning, he didn't even say thank you. SOCRATES: Thrasymachus, you say that you learn from others, which is true; but you say that I don't even thank you, which is not right.I was trying to express my gratitude, but because I was penniless, I had to pay lip service to praise.How glad I am to compliment a man who I think has answered well.As soon as you answer me, you will know it yourself; for I think you will answer well. Color: Well, listen!I say that justice is nothing but the interests of the strong. ——Why don't you clap your hands?Of course you don't want to! Su: I have to understand what you mean before I can express my opinion.But right now I still don't understand.You said that benefiting the strong is justice.O Thrasymachus!What the hell do you mean by that?That’s not what it means: because Prydamas is an athlete and stronger than all of us, eating beef every now and then is good for his body, so it’s just; while it’s good for those of us who are weak to eat beef, but Unjust? Color: You are so bad!Socrates, you have deliberately muddied the waters and done the most damage to this debate. Su: Absolutely not.My sir, I just beg you to explain what you mean. Color: Don't you know that the people who rule every country are some dictators, some commoners, and some nobles? Su: Why don't you know? Color: The government is the ruler of every city-state, is it not? Su: Yes. Color: Isn't it the strong who rules?Each kind of ruler makes laws in his favor, civilian governments make democratic laws, dictatorships make dictatorial laws, and so on.They formulated laws to tell everyone that whatever is beneficial to the government is just to the people; whoever does not obey it will be guilty of breaking the law and be called unjust.So, I mean, in any country, what is called justice is the interest of the government at that time.The government certainly has the right, so the only reasonable conclusion should be to say: Wherever it is, justice is the interest of the strong. Sue: Now I see what you mean.Is this meaning correct? I want to investigate.You yourself said, Thrasymachus, that justice is interest, but you forbade me to say so.Of course, you added the condition of "of the strong" before "benefits". Color: This is probably an insignificant condition. Su: It is hard to say whether it is important or not.But obviously we should consider whether you are right.It should be noted that I also agree with saying that justice is an interest.However, I don't understand the condition that you added "of the strong", so I have to think about it. Color: Just think about it! SOCRATES: I think, didn't you say that it is just to obey the ruler? Color: Yes. SOCRATES: Are the rulers of all countries always right, or are they bound to make mistakes? Color: Of course they are bound to make mistakes. Su: Then, when they legislate, will some laws be right and some laws be wrong? Color: I think so. Su: The so-called right law is beneficial to them, and the so-called wrong law is not good for them, don’t you think so? Color: Yes. Su: No matter what laws they make, the people must abide by them. This is what you call justice, isn't it? Color: Of course it is. Su: Then according to your theory, it is not only justice to abide by the law that is beneficial to the strong, but it is also justice to obey the law that is unfavorable to the strong. Se: What did you say? SOCRATES: I think I'm just repeating what you said.Let us consider it more carefully.When rulers issue orders to the common people, they sometimes make mistakes, and the result is against their own interests.But the common people must obey their orders, because this is justice.Don't we agree on this? Color: Yes. SOCRATES: Please think again: according to your own admission, sometimes justice is against the ruler, that is, the strong, and the ruler will unintentionally prescribe ways that are harmful to himself; It is justice to do it in the way prescribed by the author.Now, wisest Thrasymachus, is not that the exact opposite of your original definition of justice?Isn't it clear that the weak are ordered to do things that are not good for the strong? Bo: Socrates, you couldn't have said it more clearly. Clertophon interrupted: Then you might as well be a witness. Bo: Why do we need witnesses?Thrasymachus himself admits that rulers sometimes prescribe ways that are harmful to themselves; and it is justice that the common people observe these ways. Köhler: O Polemachos!Thrasymachus simply said that it is justice to obey the orders of the ruler. Bo: Yes, Clertophon!But at the same time, he also said that justice is the interest of the strong. After acknowledging these two items, he also admitted that the strong sometimes order the weak—that is, their people—to do things that are not good for the strong themselves.According to this view, justice is the benefit of the strong, and it may also be the harm of the strong. Koehler: The so-called interests of the strong are things that the strong think are beneficial to themselves, and are also things that the weak must do.This is Thrasymachus' definition of justice. Bo: He didn't say that. Sue: It doesn't matter.If Thrasymachus says so now, let us take it for granted that he meant it.Thrasymachus, is what you call justice the interests of the strong? Whether you say it or not, can we say that is what you mean? Color: Absolutely not, how can you think I call a person who makes mistakes a strong person when he makes mistakes? Sue: I think that's what you mean.Because you admit that rulers are not always right and sometimes make mistakes, and that implies that. 色：苏格拉底，你真是个诡辩家。医生治病有错误，你是不是正因为他看错了病称他为医生？或如会计师算帐有错，你是不是在他算错了帐的时候，正因为他算错了帐才称他为会计师呢？no.这是一种马虎的说法，他们有错误，我们也称他们为某医生、某会计，或某作家。实际上，如果名副其实，他们是都不得有错的。严格讲来——你是喜欢严格的——艺术家也好，手艺人也好，都是不能有错的。须知，知识不够才犯错误。错误到什么程度，他和自己的称号就不相称到什么程度。工匠、贤哲如此，统治者也是这样。统治者真是统治者的时候，是没有错误的，他总是定出对自己最有利的种种办法，叫老百姓照办。所以象我一上来就说过的，现在再说还是这句话——正义乃是强者的利益。 苏：很好，色拉叙马霍斯，你认为我真象一个诡辩者吗？ 色：实在象。 苏：在你看来，我问那些问题是故意跟你为难吗？ 色：我看透你了，你决捞不着好处。你既休想蒙混哄骗我，也休想公开折服我。 苏：天哪，我岂敢如此。不过为了避免将来发生误会起见，请你明确地告诉我，当你说弱者维护强者利益的时候，你所说的强者，或统治者，是指通常意思的呢？还是指你刚才所说的严格意义的？ 色：我是指最严格的意义。好，现在任你耍花招使诡辩吧，别心慈手软。不过可惜得很，你实在不行。 苏：你以为我疯了，居然敢班门弄斧，跟你色拉叙马霍斯诡辩？①①色拉叙马霍斯是诡辩派哲学家。 色：你刚才试过，可是失败了！ 苏：够了，不必噜嗦了。还是请你告诉我：照你所说的最严格的定义，一个医生是挣钱的人，还是治病的人？请记好，我是问的真正的医生？ 色：医生是治病的人。 苏：那么舵手呢？真正的舵手是水手领袖呢？还是一个普通的水手？ 色：水手领袖。 苏：我们不用管他是不是正在水上行船，我们并不是因为他在行船叫他水手的。我们叫他舵手，并不是因为他在船上实行航行，而是因为他有自己的技术，能领导水手们。 色：这倒是真的。 苏：每种技艺都有自己的利益，是不是？ 色：是的。 苏：每一种技艺的天然目的就在于寻求和提供这种利益。 色：是的。 苏：技艺的利益除了它本身的尽善尽美而外，还有别的吗？ 色：你问的什么意思？ 苏：如果你问我，身体之为身体就足够了呢，还是尚有求于此外呢？我会说，当然尚有求于外。这就是发明医术的由来，因为身体终究是有欠缺的，不能单靠它自身，为了照顾到身体的利益，这才产生了医术，你认为这样说对不对？ 色：很对。 苏：医术本身是不是有欠缺呢？或者说，是不是任何技艺都缺某种德性或功能，象眼之欠缺视力，耳之欠缺听力，因此有必要对它们提供视力和听力的利益呢？这种补充性技艺本身是不是有缺陷，又需要别种技艺来补充，补充的技艺又需要另外的技艺补充，依次推展以至无穷呢？是每种技艺各求自己的利益呢？还是并不需要本身或其他技艺去寻求自己的利益加以补救呢？实际上技艺本身是完美无缺的。技艺除了寻求对象的利益以外，不应该去寻求对其他任何事物的利益。严格意义上的技艺，是完全符合自己本质的，完全正确的。你认为是不是这样？——我们都是就你所谓的严格意义而言的。 色：似乎是这样的。 苏：那么，医术所寻求的不是医术自己的利益，而是对人体的利益。 色：是的。 苏：骑术也不是为了骑术本身的利益，而是为了马的利益，既然技艺不需要别的，任何技艺都不是为它本身的，而只是为它的对象服务的。 色：看来是这样的。 苏：但是，色拉叙马霍斯，技艺是支配它的对象，统治它的对象的。 〔色拉叙马霍斯表示同意，但是非常勉强。〕苏：没有一门科学或技艺是只顾到寻求强者的利益而不顾及它所支配的弱者的利益的。 〔色拉叙马霍斯开始想辩驳一下，最后还是同意了。〕苏：一个医生当他是医生时，他所谋求的是医生的利益，还是病人的利益？——我们已经同意，一个真正的医生是支配人体的，而不是赚钱的。这点我们是不是一致的？ 色：是的。 苏：舵手不是一个普通的水手，而是水手们的支配者，是不是？ 色：是的。 苏：这样的舵手或支配者，他要照顾的不是自己的利益，而是他部下水手们的利益。 〔色拉叙马霍斯勉强同意。〕苏：色拉叙马霍斯啊！在任何政府里，一个统治者，当他是统治者的时候，他不能只顾自己的利益而不顾属下老百姓的利益，他的一言一行都为了老百姓的利益。 〔当我们讨论到这儿，大伙都明白，正义的定义已被颠倒过来了。色拉叙马霍斯不回答，反而问道：〕色：苏格拉底，告诉我，你有奶妈没有？ 苏：怪事！该你回答的你不答，怎么岔到这种不相干的问题上来了？ 色：因为你淌鼻涕她不管，不帮你擦擦鼻子，也不让你晓得羊跟牧羊人有什么区别。 苏：你干嘛说这种话？ 色：因为在你想象中牧羊或牧牛的人把牛羊喂得又肥又壮是为牛羊的利益，而不是为他们自己或者他们主人的利益。 你更以为各国的统治者当他们真正是统治者的时候，并不把自己的人民当作上面所说的牛羊；你并不认为他们日夜操心，是专为他们自己的利益。你离了解正义不正义，正义的人和不正义的人简直还差十万八千里。因为你居然不了解：正义也好，正义的人也好，反正谁是强者，谁统治，它就为谁效劳，而不是为那些吃苦受罪的老百姓，和受使唤的人效劳。不正义正相反，专为管束那些老实正义的好人。老百姓给当官的效劳，用自己的效劳来使当官的快活，他们自己却一无所得。头脑简单的苏格拉底啊，难道你不该好好想想吗？正义的人跟不正义的人相比，总是处处吃亏。先拿做生意来说吧。正义者和不正义者合伙经营，到分红的时候，从来没见过正义的人多分到一点，他总是少分到一点。再看办公事吧。交税的时候，两个人收入相等，总是正义的人交得多，不正义的人交得少。等到有钱可拿，总是正义的人分文不得，不正义的人来个一扫而空。要是担任了公职，正义的人就算没有别的损失，他自己私人的事业也会因为无暇顾及，而弄得一团糟。他因为正义不肯损公肥私，也得罪亲朋好友，不肯为他们殉私情干坏事。而不正义的人恰好处处相反。我现在要讲的就是刚才所说的那种有本事捞大油水的人。你如愿弄明白，对于个人不正义比起正义来是多么的有利这一点，你就去想想这种人。如果举极端的例子，你就更容易明白了：最不正义的人就是最快乐的人； 不愿意为非作歹的人也就是最吃亏苦恼的人。极端的不正义就是大窃国者的暴政，把别人的东西，不论是神圣的还是普通人的，是公家的还是私人的，肆无忌惮巧取豪夺。平常人犯了错误，查出来以后，不但要受罚，而且名誉扫地，被人家认为大逆不道，当作强盗、拐子、诈骗犯、扒手。但是那些不仅掠夺人民的钱财、而且剥夺人民的身体和自由的人，不但没有恶名，反而被认为有福。受他们统治的人是这么说，所有听到他们干那些不正义勾当的人也是这么说。一般人之所以谴责不正义，并不是怕做不正义的事，而是怕吃不正义的亏。 所以，苏格拉底，不正义的事只要干得大，是比正义更有力，更如意，更气派。所以象我一上来就说的：正义是为强者的利益服务的，而不正义对一个人自己有好处、有利益。 〔色拉叙马霍斯好象澡堂里的伙计，把大桶的高谈阔论劈头盖脸浇下来，弄得我们满耳朵都是。他说完之后，打算扬长而去。但是在座的都不答应，要他留下来为他的主张辩护。我自己也恳求他。〕苏：高明的色拉叙马霍斯啊！承你的情发表了高见。究竟对不对，既没有充分证明，也未经充分反驳，可你就要走了。 你以为你说的是件小事吗？它牵涉到每个人一生的道路问题——究竟做哪种人最为有利？ 色：你以为我不晓得这件事情的重要性吗？ 苏：你好象对我们漠不关心。我们由于没有你自称有的那些智慧，在做人的问题上，不知道怎么做才算好，怎么做算坏，可你对这个，一点儿也不放在心上。请你千万开导我们一下，你对我们大家做的好事，将来一定有好报的。不过，我可以把我自己的意见先告诉你，我可始终没让你说服。即使可以不加限制，为所欲为把不正义的事做到极点，我还是不相信不正义比正义更有益。我的朋友啊！让人家去多行不义，让人家去用骗术或强权干坏事吧。我可始终不信这样比正义更有利。也许不光是我一个人这样想，在座恐怕也有同意的。请你行行好事，开导开导我们，给我们充分证明：正义比不正义有益的想法确实是错的。 色：你叫我怎么来说服你？我说的话你一句也听不进去。 你让我还有什么办法？难道要我把这个道理塞进你的脑袋里去不成？ 苏：哎哟，不，不。不过，已经说过了的话请你不要更改。 如果要更改，也请你正大光明地讲出来，可不要偷梁换柱地欺骗蒙混我们。色拉叙马霍斯，现在回想一下刚才的辩论，开头你对真正的医生下过定义，但是后来，你对牧羊人却认为没有必要下个严格的定义。你觉得只要把羊喂饱，就算是牧羊人，并不要为羊群着想，他象个好吃鬼一样，一心只想到羊肉的美味，或者象贩子一样，想的只是在羊身上赚钱。不过我认为，牧羊的技术当然在于尽善尽美地使羊群得到利益，因为技艺本身的完美，就在于名副其实地提供本身最完美的利益。我想我们也有必要承认同样的道理，那就是任何统治者当他真是统治者的时候，不论他照管的是公事还是私事，他总是要为受他照管的人着想的。你以为那些真正治理城邦的人，都很乐意干这种差事吗？ 色：不乐意干。I know this. 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，这是为什么？你注意到没有，一般人都不愿意担任管理职务？他们要求报酬。理由是：他们任公职是为被统治者的利益，而不是为他们自己的利益。且请你回答我这个问题：各种技艺彼此不同，是不是因为它们各有独特的功能？我高明的朋友，请你可不要讲违心的话呀，否则我们就没法往下辩论了。 色：是的，分别就在这里。 苏：是不是它们各给了我们特殊的，而不是一样的利益，比如医术给我们健康，航海术使我们航程安全等等？ 色：当然是的。 苏：是不是挣钱技术给我们钱？因为这是挣钱技术的功能。能不能说医术和航海术是同样的技术？如果照你提议的，严格地讲，一个舵手由于航海而身体健康了，是不是可以把他的航海术叫做医术呢？ 色：当然不行。 苏：假如一个人在赚钱的过程中，身体变健康了，我想你也不会把赚钱的技术叫做医术的。 色：当然不会。 苏：如果一个人行医得到了报酬，你会不会把他的医术称之为挣钱技术呢？ 色：不会的。 苏：行。我们不是已经取得了一致意见吗：每种技艺的利益都是特殊的？ 色：是的。 苏：如果有一种利益是所有的匠人大家都享受的，那显然是因为大家运用了一种同样的而不是他们各自特有的技术。 色：好象是这样的。 苏：我们因此可以说匠人之得到报酬，是从他们在运用了自己特有的技术以外又运用了一种挣钱之术而得来的。 〔色拉叙马霍斯勉强同意。〕苏：既然得到报酬的这种利益，并不是来自他本职的技术，严格地讲，就是：医术产生健康，而挣钱之术产生了报酬，其他各行各业莫不如此，——每种技艺尽其本职，使受照管的对象得到利益。但是如果匠人得不到报酬，他能从自己的本职技术得到利益吗？ 色：看来不能。 苏：那么工作而得不到报酬，那对他自己不是确实没有利益吗？ 色：的确没有利益。 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，事情到此清楚了。没有一种技艺或统治术，是为它本身的利益的，而是像我们已经讲过的，一切营运部署都是为了对象，求取对象（弱者）的利益，而不是求取强者的利益。所以我刚才说，没有人甘愿充当一个治人者去揽人家的是非。做了统治者，他就要报酬，因为在治理技术范围内，他拿出自己全部能力努力工作，都不是为自己，而是为所治理的对象。所以要人家愿意担任这种工作，就该给报酬，或者给名，或者给利；如果他不愿意干，就给予惩罚。 格劳孔：苏格拉底，你这说的什么意思？名和利两种报酬我懂得，可你拿惩罚也当一种报酬，我可弄不明白。 苏：你难道不懂得这种报酬可以使最优秀的人来当领导吗？你难道不晓得贪图名利被视为可耻，事实上也的确可耻吗？ 格：我晓得。 苏：因此，好人就不肯为名为利来当官。他们不肯为了职务公开拿钱被人当佣人看待，更不肯假公济私，暗中舞弊，被人当作小偷。名誉也不能动其心，因为他们并没有野心。于是要他们愿意当官就只得用惩罚来强制了。这就怪不得大家看不起那些没有受到强迫，就自己想要当官的人。但最大的惩罚还是你不去管人，却让比你坏的人来管你了。我想象，好人怕这个惩罚，所以勉强出来。他们不是为了自己的荣华富贵，而是迫不得已，实在找不到比他们更好的或同样好的人来担当这个责任。假如全国都是好人，大家会争着不当官，象现在大家争着要当官一样热烈。那时候才会看得出来，一个真正的治国者追求的不是他自己的利益，而是老百姓的利益。所以有识之士宁可受人之惠，也不愿多管闲事加惠于人。因此我绝对不能同意色拉叙马霍斯那个“正义是强者的利益”的说法。关于这个问题，我们以后再谈。不过他所说的，不正义的人生活总要比正义的人过得好，在我看来，这倒是一个比较严重的问题。格劳孔，你究竟站在哪一边，你觉得哪一边的话更有道理？ 格：我觉得正义的人生活得比较有益。 苏：你刚才有没有听到色拉叙马霍斯说的关于不正义者的种种好处？ 格：我听到了，不过我不信。 苏：那么我们要不要另外想个办法来说服他，让他相信他的说法是错的。 格：当然要。 苏：如果在他说完了之后，由我们来照他的样子，正面提出主张，叙述正义的好处，让他回答，我们来驳辩，然后两方面都把所说的好处各自汇总起来，作一个总的比较，这样就势必要一个公证人来作裁判；不过如果象我们刚才那样讨论，采用彼此互相承认的办法，那我们自己就既是辩护人又当公证人了。 格：一点不错。 苏：你喜欢哪一种方法？ 格：第二种。 苏：那么色拉叙马霍斯，请你从头回答我。你不是说极端的不正义比极端的正义有利吗？ 色：我的确说过，并且我还说明过理由。 苏：你对于这个问题的看法究竟怎样？你或许认为正义与不正义是一善一恶吧！ 色：这是明摆着的。 苏：正义是善，不正义是恶？ 色：我的朋友，你真是一副好心肠。象我这样主张不正义有利，而正义有害的人，能说这种话吗？ 苏：那你怎么说呢？ 色：刚刚相反。 苏：你说正义就是恶吗？ 色：不，我认为正义是天性忠厚，天真单纯。 苏：那么你说不正义是天性刻薄吗？ 色：不是。我说它是精明的判断。 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，你真的认为不正义是既明智又能得益吗？ 色：当然是的。至少那些能够征服许多城邦许多人民极端不正义者是如此。你或许以为我所说的不正义者指的是一些偷鸡摸狗之徒。不过即就是小偷小摸之徒吧，只要不被逮住，也自有其利益，虽然不能跟我刚才讲的窃国大盗相比。 苏：我想我并没有误会你的意思。不过你把不正义归在美德与智慧这一类，把正义归在相反的一类，我不能不表示惊讶。 色：我的确是这样分类的。 苏：我的朋友，你说得这样死，不留回环的余地，叫人家怎么跟你说呢？如果你在断言不正义有利的同时，能象别人一样承认它是一种恶一种不道德，我们按照常理还能往下谈； 但是现在很清楚，你想主张不正义是美好和坚强有力；我们一向归之于正义的所有属性你要将它们归之于不正义。你胆大包天，竟然把不正义归到道德和智慧一类了。 色：你的感觉真是敏锐得了不起。 苏：你怎么说都行。只要我觉得你说的是由衷之言，我决不畏缩、躲避，我决定继续思索，继续辩论下去。色拉叙马霍斯，我看你现在的确不是在开玩笑，而是在亮出自己的真思想。 色：这是不是我的真思想，与你有什么相干？你能推翻这个说法吗？ 苏：说得不错。不过你肯不肯再回答我一个问题：你认为一个正义者会不会想胜过别个正义者？ 色：当然不会。否则他就不是现在的这个天真的好好先生了。 苏：他会不会想胜过别的正义行为？ 色：不会。 苏：他会不会想胜过不正义的人，会不会自认为这是正义的事？ 色：会的，而且还会想方设法做，不过他不会成功的。 苏：成不成功不是我要问的。我要问的是，一个正义的人不想胜过别的正义者，但是他想胜过不正义者，是不是？ 色：是的。 苏：那么不正义者又怎么样呢？他想不想胜过正义的人和正义的事呢？ 色：当然想。须知他是无论什么都想胜过的。 苏：他要不要求胜过别的不正义的人和事，使自己得益最多？ 色：要求的。 苏：那么我们就可以这样说了：正义者不要求胜过同类，而要求胜过异类。至于不正义则对同类异类都要求胜过。 色：说得好极了。 苏：于是不正义者当然就又聪明又好，正义者又笨又坏了。 色：这也说得好。 苏：那么，不义者与又聪明又好的人相类，正义者则和他们不相类，是不是？ 色：当然是的。性质相同的人相类，性质不同的人不相类。 苏：那么同类的人是不是性质相同？ 色：怎么不是？ 苏：很好！色拉叙马霍斯，你能说有的人“是音乐的”，有的人是“不音乐的”吗？ 色：能说。 苏：哪个是“聪明的”，哪个是“不聪明的”呢？ 色：“音乐的”那个当然是“聪明的”，“不音乐的”那个当然是“不聪明的”。 苏：你能说一个人聪明之处就是好处，不聪明之处就是坏处吗？ 色：能说。 苏：关于医生也能这么说吗？ 色：能。 苏：你认为一个音乐家在调弦定音的时候，会有意在琴弦的松紧方面，胜过别的音乐家吗？ 色：未见得。 苏：他有意要超过一个不是音乐家的人吗？ 色：必定的。 苏：医生怎么样？在给病人规定饮食方面，他是不是想胜过别的医生及其医术呢？ 色：当然不要。 苏：但是他想不想胜过一个不是医生的人呢？ 色：当然想。 苏：让我们把知识和愚昧概括地讨论一下。你认为一个有知识的人，想要在言行方面超过别的有知识的人呢？还是有知识的人所言所行在同样的情况下，彼此相似呢？ 色：势必相似。 苏：无知识的人怎么样？他想同时既胜过聪明人又胜过笨人吗？ 色：恐怕想的。 苏：有知识的人聪明吗？ 色：聪明的。 苏：聪明的人好吗？ 色：好的。 苏：一个又聪明又好的人，不愿超过和自己同类的人，但愿超过跟自己不同类而且相反的人，是不是？ 色：大概是的。 苏：但是一个又笨又坏的人反倒对同类和不同类的人都想超过，是不是？ 色：显然是的。 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，你不是讲过不正义的人同时想要胜过同类和不同类的人吗？ 色：我讲过。 苏：你不是也讲过，正义的人不愿超过同类而只愿超过不同类的人吗？ 色：是的。 苏：那么正义者跟又聪明又好的人相类似，而不正义的人跟又笨又坏的人相类似，是不是？ 色：似乎是的。 苏：我们不是同意过，两个相象的人性质是一样的吗？ 色：同意过。 苏：那么现在明白了——正义的人又聪明又好，不正义的人又笨又坏。 〔色拉叙马霍斯承认以上的话可并不象我现在写的这么容易，他非常勉强，一再顽抗。当时正值盛暑，他大汗淋漓浑身湿透，我从来没有看见他脸这么红过。我们同意正义是智慧与善，不正义是愚昧和恶以后，我就接着往下讲了。〕苏：这点算解决了。不过我们还说过，不正义是强有力。 色拉叙马霍斯，你还记得吗？ 色：我还记得。可我并不满意你的说法。我有我自己的看法。但是我说了出来，肯定你要讲我大放厥词。所以现在要么让我随意地说，要么由你来问——我知道你指望我作答。但是不管你讲什么，我总是说：“好，好。”一面点点头或摇摇头。 就象我们敷衍说故事的老太婆一样。 苏：你不赞成的不要勉强同意。 色：你又不让我讲话，一切听你的便了，你还想要什么？ 苏：不要什么。既然你打定了主意这么干，我愿意提问题。 色：你问下去。 苏：那我就来复述一下前面的问题，以便我们可以按部就班地继续研究正义和不正义的利弊问题。以前说过不正义比正义强而有力，但是现在既然已经证明正义是智慧与善，而不正义是愚昧无知。那么，显而易见，谁都能看出来，正义比不正义更强更有力。不过我不愿意这样马虎了事，我要这样问：你承不承认，世界上有不讲正义的城邦，用很不正义的手段去征服别的城邦，居然把许多城邦都置于自己的奴役之下这种事情呢？ 色：当然承认。尤其是最好也就是最不正义的城邦最容易做这种事情。 苏：我懂，这是你的理论。不过我所要考虑的乃是，这个国家征服别的国家，它的势力靠不正义来维持呢，还是一定要靠正义来维持呢？ 色：如果你刚才那个“正义是智慧”的说法不错，正义是需要的。如果我的说法不错，那么不正义是需要的。 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，我很高兴，你不光是点头摇头，而且还给了我极好的回答。 色：为的是让你高兴。 苏：我非常领情，还想请你再让我高兴一下，答复我这个问题：一个城邦，或者一支军队，或者一伙盗贼，或者任何集团，想要共同做违背正义的事，如果彼此相处毫无正义，你看会成功吗？ 色：肯定不成。 苏：如果他们不用不正义的方法相处，结果会好一点吗？ 色：当然。 苏：色拉叙马霍斯，这是因为不正义使得他们分裂、仇恨、争斗，而正义使他们友好、和谐，是不是？ 色：姑且这么说吧！我不愿意跟你为难。 苏：不胜感激之至。不过请你告诉我，如