Chapter 3 volume two

Su: I said so many things, I thought I said all that should be said.Who knew this was just the beginning!Glaucon was always brave and fierce.He disapproved of Thrasymachus's easy surrender.He said: G: Socrates, you say that justice is better than injustice anyway, are you really trying to convince us, or are you just pretending to persuade us? Sue: If I had to choose, I would say that I really wanted to do it. G: You just think so, but you don't do it.Do you agree or disagree: There is such a kind of good that we are willing to want, just for itself, not for its consequences.Like pleasure and harmless entertainment, for example, which have no consequence but pleasure.

Su: Yes, it seems that there is such a thing. G: There is another kind of good which we love both for its own sake and for its consequences.For example, understand the truth, have good eyesight, and be healthy.I think we welcome these things for two reasons. Su: Yes. Ge: Have you seen the third kind of goodness?For example, doing physical exercise, and seeking medical treatment when you are sick, so you have medical skills. Generally speaking, it is the art of making money, all of which fall into this category. These things are hard work to say, but there are benefits, and we love them not for their own sake, but for the reward and all the other benefits that come with it.

Su: Ah!Yes, there is a third, but so what? Ge: What kind of justice do you think belongs to? SOCRATES: In my opinion, justice is of the best kind.One has to love it if one is to be happy—both for its own sake and for its consequences. G: Most people don't think that way. They think justice is a chore. They worked desperately for its fame and fortune.As for justice itself, people are afraid and want to avoid it as much as possible. Su: I also know that most people think so.It is precisely because Thrasymachus has seen through all these that he simply belittles justice and praises injustice.But I hate myself for being so stupid that I can't learn from him if I want to.

G: Let me say a few more words and see if you agree.I think Thrasymachus is as bewildered by you as a snake, and yields too quickly to you.But I am still dissatisfied with your arguments about justice and injustice.I would like to know what is just and what is unjust; what power each of them produces in the mind;If you support it, we will do it.I intend to repeat the arguments of Thrasymachus.First, I will first talk about the essence and origin of justice that most people think; second, I will say that all those who put justice into action are not willing to do it, and they do it out of necessity, not because justice itself is good. ; Thirdly, I say that they have some truth in their view of justice in this way, for it sounds from their talk that the unjust are much better off than the just.Don't misunderstand me, Socrates, for this is not my own idea.But my ears are full of arguments like this, both from Thrasymachus and from all sorts of other people, and this confuses me.On the contrary, I have never heard anyone decently say a good word for justice, proving that justice is better than injustice, which can satisfy me.I'd love to hear it!It seems that the only hope has to be pinned on you.Therefore, I will do my best to praise the unjust life.Use this method to let you look at me to praise justice and criticize injustice.Do you agree to do this?

Sue: Nothing could make me happier.And what subject is it that a sensible man delights in talking and talking about, and listening to and listening to? ① It is about the definition of justice and injustice, that is, the "essence" of justice and injustice as mentioned below. ② It is the "influence" on the mind mentioned later. G: Great.So let me turn to the first point just raised—the nature and origin of justice.People say: doing injustice is gain, suffering injustice is harm. The harm gained from suffering injustice outweighs the benefits gained from doing injustice.Therefore, people have tasted both the sweetness of doing injustice and the bitterness of suffering injustice in their interactions with each other.After having tasted both flavors, those who cannot only taste the sweetness but not the bitterness, feel that it is best for everyone to form a contract: neither to gain from injustice nor to suffer from injustice.From this time on, legal contracts were made among them.

They call law-abiding and covenant lawful and just.This is the essence and origin of justice.The essence of justice is a compromise between the best and the worst—the best is to do bad things without punishment; the so-called worst is to suffer without being able to retaliate.People say that since justice is a compromise between the two, it is accepted and approved not because it is really good in itself, but because these people have no power to do injustice, and no one who really has the power to do evil will Will be willing to make some kind of contract with others, promising to neither harm nor harm—unless he is crazy.Thus, Socrates, they say, such is the nature and origin of justice.

Speaking of the second point.Those who do righteous things do not do so willingly, but simply because they are incapable of doing evil.It couldn't have been clearer.Suppose we imagine this: There are two people in front of us, one is just and the other is unjust. We give them the right to do whatever they want, and then stand aside and see where each person's desire leads them?We can see right there and there that the just are doing the unjust.If people are not for themselves, heaven and earth will perish!People are only under the coercion of the law to walk on the road of justice.By free will I mean a power such as that of the ancestors of Cygose the Lydian.It is said that he was a shepherd who served the ruler of Lydia at that time.One day after a storm, followed by an earthquake, the earth's crust cracked open where he was grazing sheep, and there was an abyss below.Although he was startled, he went on.The story goes like this: he saw a lot of novel things in it, the most special one was a hollow bronze horse with small windows on it.He peeped in and saw a corpse inside, larger than average, wearing nothing but a gold ring on his hand.He took off the gold ring and came out.These shepherds have a rule to hold a meeting once a month and then report the condition of the flock to the king.He went to the meeting wearing a gold ring.He was sitting with the others, and he happened to turn the gemstone on the ring towards the palm of his hand.This time, no one else could see him, and they all assumed that he had already left.

He himself was baffled, and accidentally turned the gemstone outwards, and others saw him again.After that, he tried again and again to see if he had the ability to hide himself.Sure enough, it has been tried and tested, as long as the gem is turned inward, others will not be able to see him.Turn outward and you can see him.With this certainty, he tried every means to find a position and became the king's envoy.When he got to the king, he seduced the queen, conspired with her, killed the king, and seized the throne.Viewed in this way, suppose there were two such rings, one for the just and one for the unjust, in which case it is conceivable that no one could be steadfast in continuing to do what is just, nor There will be no one who can restrain himself from taking other people's property. If he can take whatever he wants without fear in the market, can walk through houses at will, flirt with women at will, kill people and rob prisons at will, in short, he can act like the Almighty If you act like your own god and act as you want, at this time, the behavior of the two people will be exactly the same.Therefore, we can say that this is a strong evidence that no one regards justice as a good thing for himself and is willing to practice it, and doing justice is reluctant.In any case, if a person can do bad things, he will do them.It is obvious to all that the individual benefits more from injustice than from justice.

Everyone who believes in this can speak plausibly and say a whole lot of truth.If whoever has the power does not commit crimes or steal money from others, then he will be regarded as the number one fool in the world, although people still praise him in front of him—people always deceive each other like this because they are afraid of losing money with.That's all for now. If we contrast the most just life with the most unjust, we shall be able to judge both lives justly.How can we clearly contrast it?This is how we do it: We do not reduce injustice from the unjust, nor justice from the just, but let them each do his own thing, and each according to his ability.

First, we let the unjust man act as if he had a special skill, such as the best helmsman or the best doctor, and within the sphere of his skill he could discern what was possible and what was impossible , choosing the possible and discarding the impossible.Even when things go wrong occasionally, he can make up for them.Just wait and see!He'd do it so well that no one would notice.If he's caught, we've got to think of him as a bum.The highest state of injustice is to talk about benevolence and morality, while men steal women and prostitutes in their stomachs.Therefore, we should give a completely unjust person complete injustice without any discount; we must also give the most righteous reputation to a person who has committed bad deeds; .If he is condemned for his bad deeds, let him muster his tongue and persuade people.If force is needed, he has courage and strength, as well as wealth and crony.

Next to this unjust man, let us theoretically establish an image of a just man: simple and upright, just like the poet Aeschylus said, "a man who is not good in appearance, but really good".So we have to get rid of this "look" of him.Because, if everyone regards him as a righteous person, he will be famous and profitable for it.In this case, we don't know whether he is just for justice or for fame and fortune.So we have to get rid of all appearances on him, leaving only justice itself, to oppose the fake good guy and the real bad guy mentioned earlier.Let him not do bad things and be known as treason, so that justice itself can be tested.Although the people of the country are said to be slain, he is still righteous, bows to martyrdom, and dies; he is willing to risk the world's injustice, insists on justice, and will never change his life. This allows justice and injustice to go to extremes, and we can judge which of the two is happier. Sue: God bless!My dear Glaucon, what pains you have spent in shaping this pair of figures, they are like a pair of sculptures entered in the competition. G: I did my best and it finally worked out.I figured that if this was the nature of both, then it would be easy to discuss the prospects of both lives.So I have to go on.If I speak rudely, Socrates, do not think that I am speaking, but that you are speaking of someone who exalts injustice and devalues ​​justice.They will say something like: A righteous man in that case would be tortured, put in chains, burned his eyes, suffered all kinds of pain, and finally he would be crucified.It was only when he was about to die that he realized that a person should not be a true person, but a false righteous person.The lines of Aeschylus seem to apply more to the unjust.The man who is said to be unjust is really a man who is practical and does not seek fame—he does not want to be a hypocrite, but a true man, and his heart is fertile and deep; Sophistication grows from here, Shrewd ideas are born from this heart. ① ① See Aeschylus' tragedy "Seven Generals Attacking Thebes" 574. In the name of justice, he first wants to be an official and rule the country; secondly, he wants to marry the daughter of the family he likes, and marry his children to any family he likes; he also wants to marry any suitable person Partnered in business, and in all these things reaped the advantages, for he had no scruples of being accused of injustice.It is believed that if there is a lawsuit, whether public or private, the injustice always wins, and thus he grows richer and richer.He can benefit his friends and harm his enemies.He worshiped the gods with a decent appearance and rich sacrifices.Regardless of treating people with respect to God, as long as he is willing, he is much better than a righteous person.In this way, it is natural for the gods to take care of him more than the righteous.So people will say, Socrates!The gods and the people, they arrange a much better life for the unjust than for the just. [SO: Glaucon finished speaking, and I was about to say a few words in my mind, but his brother Ademantus interrupted. 〕A: Socrates, of course you don't think that this question has been explained thoroughly! Sue: Is there anything else to say? A: The most important thing to talk about has not been mentioned yet. Su: I see.As the saying goes: "Brothers are of one mind!" If he misses something, you can fill it in for him.For me, though, what he said was enough to knock me to the ground and make me want to stand up for justice. A: Stop talking nonsense and listen to me.We must sort out the views that others praise justice and criticize injustice.In my opinion, this will make Glaucon's meaning clearer.The father told his son that all those responsible for education have earnestly warned: one must be righteous.But their earnest exhortations do not glorify justice itself, but only the good name that comes from justice.Because as long as he has this good reputation, he can occupy a high position, marry into a family, and get all the advantages that an unjust man just mentioned from a good reputation can get from a good reputation.Much more has been said about the question of good name.For example, they associate people's good reputation with the gods, saying that the gods will reward pious people with a lot of good things.Take, for example, the words of the poets Hesiod and Homer, the former saying that the gods made the oak tree blossom and bear fruit for the righteous: Acorns grow in the tops of the trees, honey bees buzz among the trees, There are sheep under the tree, and the flock is like white clouds. ① ①Hesiod's "Work and Farming Time" below 232. He said that the just have other such pleasures.Homer said the same thing: Wise kings, fearing the gods, Uphold justice, the crops will be plentiful, The earth is fertile, and its branches are heavy, There are many fish in the sea, and sheep breed. ① ① "Odyssey" XIX 109 and below. Messeus and his sons sang the gods to bless the righteous, or better yet.They say that the gods guide the righteous people to the underworld, hold a banquet and entertain them, and invite them to recline on the couch, wear flower crowns on their heads, drink a cup and chant, so as to pass away the eternal sun.Drunkenness, it seems, is the best reward for virtue.Still others say that the gift of heaven to virtue extends to posterity.They say that those who worship the gods and keep their oaths will have many children and grandchildren for a hundred generations.They bury the blasphemous and the unjust in the earth of the underworld, and force them to fetch water in baskets: toil in vain; so that the unjust, while they live, are notorious, and suffer what Glaucon enumerated, The same punishment that a just man receives when he is regarded as an unjust man.That is all the poet has to say about the unjust, and nothing else.So much for the praise and disapproval of the just and the unjust! Besides, Socrates!Please consider another statement about justice and injustice by poets and others.All of them repeatedly pointed out with one voice that temperance and justice are beautiful, but difficult.Licentiousness and injustice are pleasant and easy, and they say it's shameless to accuse injustice, but it's nothing but conventional wisdom.They say that injustice is usually better than justice.They celebrate the good fortune of the rich and powerful villains, and are willing to respect them both in public and in private.They always bully and despise the poor and weak, although they know in their hearts that the poor and weak are much better than these people.Most startling of all these things is what they say about the gods and virtues.They say that the gods evidently give misfortune and a life of trouble to many good men, and all kinds of happiness to many bad men.Begging priests and shamans, running to the doors of rich families, lobbying their masters to believe that if they or their ancestors did evil, by sacrifices and spells, they could be blessed by the gods, and by the gods of joy. The game can eliminate disasters and redeem sins; if you want to hurt the enemy, you only need to spend a little tip, recite a few spells, and read a few mantras, and you can drive away gods and ghosts, work for them, and hurt both the unjust and the just.They also testify to this by citing the psalms, which describe the ease of doing evil and the riches of the wicked, the fame and wealth of doing evil, and the ease of walking, The evil road is flat, climb up for the good and the poor. ① ① Hesiod's "Work and Farming Time" 287-289. And the journey of those who do good is long and difficult.Others cite Homer as proof that mortals tempt the gods, for Homer says: Don't worry if everyone is convicted, come to sacrifice to the gods during the festivals, Cigarettes are lingering in the sacrificial offering, and the gods open their faces to keep peace. ② ② Below IX 497.Plato's citations are at odds with current epics. They put out a bunch of books on Moses and Orpheus.According to them, Moses and Orpheus were descendants of the moon god and the god of literature and art.They used the rites stipulated in these books to sacrifice and exorcise, so that the state and private individuals believed that if they committed sins, they could use sacrifices and games to atone for the living.The dead can be pardoned in the underworld with special rituals.Whoever neglects offering sacrifices and enjoying gods will never be reborn forever. Dear friend Socrates!What kind of effect will their grand theories about good and evil, which are the common concern of God and man, have on the hearts of those who hear them, especially those young people who are more intelligent and can reason from hearsay?Can they draw conclusions from these high theories, knowing what kind of path to take and what kind of person to be, so that they can live the most meaningful life?Most of these young people will ask themselves polite questions: "Should I use righteousness, or rely on intrigue and trickery to rise up, settle down, and spend my life?" To be a righteous person, unless I just have a sense of justice name, otherwise you are asking for trouble.On the contrary, if I am not righteous, but I have earned the name of a righteous person, I will have great blessings!Since the wise men tell me that "seeming" is far better than "really" and is the key to happiness.Why don't I go all out for the illusion.I'd better hide behind the splendid and stately door-wall, with the cunning and greedy foxes of the wisest Alherojos.Some say it's not easy to do bad things without being noticed.what!In all the world, which great thing is easy?Anyway, that's the only way to be happy. For all arguments end in this way.We have sects and cliques for the sake of all secrecy; masters of debating teach us the art of speech, address the courts of parliament, and press hard, so that we may take advantage of it with impunity. Some people say that the gods can neither be deceived nor forced.why notAssuming that there is no god, or if there is a god and the god doesn't care about human affairs, then it doesn't matter if you do bad things and be discovered by the god.Assuming there are gods, and that gods do care about us, then everything we know about gods comes from stories and theogonies described by poets. It also tells us at the same time that the gods can be bought over by offering sacrifices, praying, and offering sacrifices.Take all or none of what the poets say.If we believe it, then we will let go of doing bad things, and then take part of the ill-gotten gains to offer sacrifices to God.If we are just, the gods will certainly not punish us, but we have to reject unjust benefits.If we are unjust, we keep our vested interests, pray to the gods for mercy after committing a crime, and we are still safe in the end. Some people say: Yes, but in the next life, evil will be rewarded with evil, and the retribution will be on oneself or on the descendants.But the prudent gentlemen say this: Never mind, we have here special ceremonies and gods bent on absolution, as proclaimed by the most famous city-states.We also have the Sons of the Gods, the poets and spokesmen of the gods, from whom all news of truth was revealed to us. So, what reason is there for us to choose justice over extreme injustice?If we only use justice to put on a facade and make a dignified appearance, we will be able to benefit both people and gods in life and after death. This truth is said by ordinary people and first-rate authorities.According to what has been said above, Socrates, how can it be possible to persuade a man of intelligence, wealth, strength, and family status to respect justice?Such a man would simply laugh at any praise of justice.In this way, if someone shows that everything we have said is wrong, if someone is really convinced that justice is the best, he will also think that the unjust is excusable.He doesn't piss them off.Because he knows that no one is really willing to practice justice.Only those who are upright by nature, who hate evil like hatred, or who are hard to learn, understand why it is necessary to preserve good and reject evil.Or it is that cowardice, old age, or some other defect makes him object to evil--because he is really powerless to do it.This is no longer clear.Whoever is the first to be in power will be the first to do as much evil as possible. The only reason is what my friend and I just said at the beginning.We say to you: "Socrates! It is strange to say that you call yourself the singers of justice. However, from the heroes recorded in ancient history to the ordinary people of modern times, no one really sings justice. Condemning injustice means praising justice or condemning injustice, and it is only from the aspects of reputation, honor, and profit. As for justice or injustice itself, what is their own power? They are in the human body. What is the role of the soul when it is unknown to God and invisible to man? No one has described it well in poetry or in private conversation, and no one has ever pointed out that injustice is the greatest evil of the soul itself. Justice is the greatest virtue. If it were said so, and persuaded from the beginning of our youth, we would have no need to be wary of each other, and each would be his own best defender. Because everyone is afraid of doing bad things, afraid of showing the greatest ugliness in himself.Socrates!Of justice and injustice, Thrasymachus and others would no doubt have said such things, and even a little too much!This statement, it seems to me, actually reverses the real values ​​of justice and injustice.As for me personally, frankly, I have done my best to make the point as clear as possible in order to hear your rebuttal.Don't just argue that justice is higher than injustice, you must explain clearly what benefits and disadvantages justice and injustice have for their owners.Drop the names of both, as Glaucon suggested.For if you do not take out the real reputation of both parties, and add the false reputation, we shall say that you are applauding not justice but the appearance of justice.It is not injustice that you condemn, but the appearance of injustice.You are merely dissuading the injustice from being discovered.We shall then regard you as thinking with Thrasymachus.Justice is the benefit of others, the benefit of the strong, while injustice is the benefit of oneself and the scourge of the weak.You think that justice is one of the highest goods, one of the best things in the world.The so-called best things mean not only their results are good, but especially their own goodness.Such as sight, hearing, intellect, health, and other virtues, by virtue of one's own nature and not by name, and this is the justice I want you to praise—justice itself blesses its owner; injustice itself blesses Woe to its owner.Let others praise fame and fortune though.I can take from others, but not from you, this exaltation of justice and denunciation of injustice, this praise or ridicule of honor and reward, unless you order me to do so, for you have devoted your life to this subject people.I ask you not to just prove in debate that justice is superior to injustice; you want to prove what each is in itself? What kind of extensive and profound effects do they have on their owners, making the former good and the latter evil—whether gods and people are aware of it or not. Su: [I have always admired the talents of Glaucon and Ademanthus. But I've never been so happy to hear what they said today.I said:] Xian Kunzhong is worthy of being the son of a famous father. A good friend of Glaucon once wrote a poem praising your great military exploits in the Battle of Megara. The first two lines of that poem seem to me very appropriate . The son of a famous family, the father's name is "Zhi Shan", ① Difficult brothers and brothers, well-deserved reputation. ① Aris is the father of both Glaucon and Admanthus. The original meaning of "Ariston" in Greek is "the best". You refuse to believe that injustice is better than justice, and at the same time defend injustice so well.There must be divine help in this.I think you really don't believe what you say, I judge from your character.If I just listen to your argument, I will be skeptical.But the more I trust you, the less I know what to do.I don't know how to help you.To be honest, I really don't have this ability.You will not accept what I said to Thrasymachus, which I think proved the superiority of justice to injustice.I really don't know how to refuse to help you.If justice is slandered, and I have the breath to speak, but stand by and do nothing to help, I am afraid it is a crime and a shame.It seems that it is the best policy for me to stand up and defend justice. [Glaucon and the others beg me not to let go, but to do me a favor anyway, not to abandon this debate.They begged me to get to the bottom of what is the nature of the two, and what are the real interests of the two?So I said what was on my mind:] The discussion we are having now is extraordinary, and it seems to me that it requires a keen eye.But since we are not clever, I think it is best to proceed with the following discussion.Suppose we have bad eyesight and we are asked to read small characters written in a distance, and at this moment someone finds the same word written in big characters elsewhere, then we will be lucky, and we can read the big characters first and then the small characters , and see if they are the same. A: Well said, but how is this similar to discussing justice? SOCRATES: Let me tell you: I think we can say that there is justice for the individual and justice for the city as a whole. A: Of course. Su: Good!Is a city-state bigger than a man? A: Much bigger! SOCRATES: Then perhaps there is more justice in the big things, and it is easier to understand.Let us, if you like, first examine what justice is in the city-state, and then examine it in the individual, which is called seeing the small from the large. A: That's a good idea. SOCRATES: If we can imagine the growth of a city-state, we can also see the growth of justice and injustice there, can't we? A: Maybe so. SOCRATES: If this is done, we hope to see easily what we are looking for. A: Yes, there is great hope. S: So, shall we proceed?I think this matter is very important, you have to think carefully. A: We have considered it.do it!Look no further. Sue: Very good then.In my opinion, the reason for establishing a city-state is that each of us cannot be self-sufficient on our own, we need many things. Can you think of any other reason for establishing a city-state? A: No. SOCRATES: So each of us brings in various people for various needs. As many things are needed, we invite many people to live together, as companions and helpers, in this communal housing complex, which we call the City.Is that right? A: Of course. Su: Then one person gives something to others, or takes something from others, but everyone feels that it is good for him to have something in and out. A: Yes. SOCRATES: Then let us imagine from the beginning to establish a city-state and see what the founders of a city-state need. A: OK. Su: First of all, the most important thing is food, with which we can survive. A: Without a doubt. Su: The second is housing, the third is clothing, and so on. A: Of course. SOCRATES: The next question is: How can our city-state adequately supply these things?Would there be a farmer, a bricklayer, a weaver?Shall I add a cobbler or some other attendant to the physical needs? A: Of course. Su: Then the smallest city-state must have at least four or five people. A: Obviously yes. Su: What's next?Is each member to contribute his work to the public--I mean, the farmer has to prepare food for four people, and he spends four times as much time and labor to prepare food to share with other people?Or don't care about others, just prepare food for himself - spend a quarter of the time to produce one's own food, and spend the other three-quarters of the time on building houses and one part on making clothes In the end, a share is spent on making shoes, so as not to exchange with others, each for me, only looking after my own needs? A: I'm afraid the first way is easier, Socrates. Su: It is not surprising that God bears witness.As soon as you said that, it occurred to me that we are not all born the same.Everyone has a different personality and is suitable for different jobs.dont you agree? A: Yes. Su: So is it better for one person to do several kinds of crafts, or one person to do one kind of craft? A: It is good for one person to engage in only one craft. SOCRATES: Next, I think one thing is clear—no matter what a man does, he loses it all if he misses the right and favorable moment of the season. A: Yes, it is very clear. Su: I think that a job should not be done slowly when the workers are free. On the contrary, the workers should focus on it as the main task, and should not do it casually or sloppily. A: It must be so. SOCRATES: In this way, as long as everyone does the work that suits his personality at the right time, and abandons other things to specialize in one line of work, everything will be produced more and better. A: Exactly. SOCRATES: Then, Ademantus, we need more citizens than four to supply all that we speak of.The farmer does not seem to be able to make his plowshare--or his hoe, or other implements for plowing the field, if a good plow is desired.The same goes for the builder, who needs many others.Weavers and shoemakers are no exception. A: Yes. SOCRATES: Then carpenters, blacksmiths and many other craftsmen will become members of our small city-state, and the small city-state will expand even more. A: Of course. Su: But it can't be considered too big.Let's say we add the cattle herders, the shepherds, and those who keep other animals.This would give the farmer his oxen to pull his plow, the builder and farmer his animals to carry his load, and the weaver and shoemaker his wool and hides. A: Assuming all these things are in place, this city-state can’t be considered very small! Su: Another point is that it is practically impossible to establish a city-state where there is no need to import goods. A: It is indeed impossible. SOCRATES: Then it has to go to other city-states to import what it needs. A: Yes. Su: But there is one point. If the people we send go away empty-handed and don't bring what they need in exchange for what they can give, won't the envoys come back empty-handed? A: I think so. SOCRATES: Then they must not only produce enough for their own city-state, but also produce in quality and quantity sufficient to meet the needs of the Gentiles who supply them. A: It should be so. Su: So our city-state needs more farmers and more other craftsmen. A: Yes. Su: I think there is another kind of assistant needed for import and export business, and this is the merchant.Yes or no? A: Yes. SOCRATES: Therefore, we also need merchants. A: Of course. Su: If this business is going to be carried out overseas, it will need many other people who understand overseas trade. A: It is true that many others are needed. SOCRATES: Within the city-state, how do we exchange with each other what each of us makes?It should be noted that this exchange of products is exactly the original purpose of our cooperation to establish a city-state. A: Exchange obviously means buying and selling. SOCRATES: We would then have markets, and money as a medium of exchange for goods. A: Of course. SOCRATES: If a farmer or any craftsman goes to market with his produce, but the person who wants to exchange it for his produce has not arrived, then does he not have to sit idle on the farm and miss his own work? 阿：不会的。市场那里有人看到这种情况，就会出来专门为他服务的。在管理有方的城邦里，这是些身体最弱不能干其他工作的人干的。他们就等在市场上，拿钱来跟愿意卖的人换货，再拿货来跟愿意买的人换钱。 苏：在我们的城邦里，这种需要产生了一批店老板。那些常住在市场上做买卖的人，我们叫他店老板，或者小商人。那些往来于城邦之间做买卖的人，我们称之为大商人。Yes or no? 阿：是的。 苏：此外我认为还有别的为我们服务的人，这种人有足够的力气可以干体力劳动，但在智力方面就没有什么长处值得当我们的伙伴。这些人按一定的价格出卖劳力，这个价格就叫工资。因此毫无疑问，他们是靠工资为生的人。不知你意下如何？ 阿：我同意。 苏：那么靠工资为生的人，似乎也补充到我们城邦里来了。 阿：是的。 苏：阿得曼托斯，那么我们的城邦已经成长完备了吗？ 阿：也许。 苏：那么在我们城邦里，何处可以找到正义和不正义呢？ 在我们上面所列述的那些种人里，正义和不正义是被哪些人带进城邦来的呢？ 阿：我可说不清，苏格拉底！要么那是因为各种人彼此都有某种需要。 苏：也许你的提法很对。我们必须考虑这个问题，不能退缩。首先，让我们考虑一下在作好上面种种安排以后，人们的生活方式将会是什么样子。他们不要烧饭，酿酒，缝衣，制鞋吗？他们还要造屋，一般说，夏天干活赤膊光脚，冬天穿很多衣服，着很厚的鞋子。他们用大麦片，小麦粉当粮食，煮粥，做成糕点，烙成薄饼，放在苇叶或者干净的叶子上。他们斜躺在铺着紫杉和桃金娘叶子的小床上，跟儿女们欢宴畅饮，头戴花冠，高唱颂神的赞美诗。满门团聚，其乐融融，一家数口儿女不多，免受贫困与战争。 〔这时候格劳孔插嘴说：〕格：不要别的东西了吗？好象宴会上连一点调味品也不要了。 苏：真的，我把这点给忘了。他们会有调味品的，当然要有盐、橄榄、乳酪，还有乡间常煮吃的洋葱、蔬菜。我们还会给他们甜食——无花果、鹰嘴豆、豌豆，还会让他们在火上烤爱神木果、橡子吃，适可而止地喝上一点酒，就这样让他们身体健康，太太平平度过一生，然后无病而终，并把这种同样的生活再传给他们的下一代。 格：如果你是在建立一个猪的城邦，除了上面这些东西而外，你还给点什么别的饲料吗？ 苏：格劳孔，你还想要什么？ 格：还要一些能使生活稍微舒服一点的东西。我想，他们要有让人斜靠的睡椅，免得太累，还要有几张餐桌几个碟子和甜食等等。就象现在大家都有的那些。 苏：哦，我明白了。看来我们正在考虑的不单是一个城邦的成长，而且是一个繁华城邦的成长。这倒不见得是个坏主意。我们观察这种城邦，也许就可以看到在一个国家里，正义和不正义是怎么成长起来的。我认为真正的国家，乃是我们前面所讲述的那样——可以叫做健康的国家。如果你想研究一个发高烧的城邦也未始不可。不少人看来对刚才这个菜单或者这个生活方式并不满意。睡椅毕竟是要添置的，还要桌子和其它的家俱，还要调味品、香料、香水、歌妓、蜜饯、糕饼——诸如此类的东西。我们开头所讲的那些必需的东西：房屋、衣服、鞋子，是不够了；我们还得花时间去绘画、刺绣，想方设法寻找金子、象牙以及种种诸如此类的装饰品，是不是？ 格：是的。 苏：那么我们需要不需要再扩大这个城邦呢？因为那个健康的城邦还是不够，我们势必要使它再扩大一点，加进许多必要的人和物——例如各种猎人、模仿形象与色彩的艺术家，一大群搞音乐的，诗人和一大群助手——朗诵者、演员、合唱队、舞蹈队、管理员以及制造各种家具和用品的人，特别是做妇女装饰品的那些人，我们需要更多的佣人。你以为我们不需要家庭教师、奶妈、保姆、理发师、厨师吗？我们还需要牧猪奴。在我们早期的城邦里，这些人一概没有，因为用不着他们。不过，在目前这个城邦里，就有这个需要了。我们还需要大量别的牲畜作为肉食品。Are you right? 格：对！ 苏：在这样的生活方式里，我们不是比以前更需要医生吗？ 格：是更需要。 苏：说起土地上的农产品来，它们以前足够供应那时所有的居民，现在不够了，太少了。Are you right? 格：对！ 苏：如果我们想要有足够大的耕地和牧场，我们势必要从邻居那儿抢一块来；而邻居如果不以所得为满足，也无限制地追求财富的话，他们势必也要夺一块我们的土地。 格：必然如此。苏格拉底。 苏：格劳孔呀！下一步，我们就要走向战争了，否则你说怎么办？ 格：就是这样，要战争了。 苏：我们且不说战争造成好的或坏的结果，只说现在我们已经找到了战争的起源。战争使城邦在公私两方面遭到极大的灾难。 格：当然。 苏：那么我们需要一个更大的城邦，不是稍微大一点，而是要加上全部军队那么大，才可以抵抗和驱逐入侵之敌，保卫我们所列举的那些人民的生命和我们所有的一切财产。 格：为什么？难道为了自己，那么些人还不够吗？ 苏：不够。想必你还记得，在创造城邦的时候，我们曾经一致说过，一个人不可能擅长许多种技艺的。 格：不错。 苏：那么好，军队打仗不是一种技艺吗？ 格：肯定是一种技艺。 苏：那么我们应该注意做鞋的技艺，而不应该注意打仗的技艺吗？ 格：不，不！ 苏：为了把大家的鞋子做好，我们不让鞋匠去当农夫，或织工，或瓦工。同样，我们选拔其他的人，按其天赋安排职业，弃其所短，用其所长，让他们集中毕生精力专搞一门，精益求精，不失时机。那么，对于军事能不重视吗？还是说，军事太容易了，连农夫鞋匠和干任何别的行当的人都可以带兵打仗？就说是下棋掷骰子吧，如果只当作消遣，不从小就练习的话，也是断不能精于此道的。难道，在重武装战争或者其它类型的战争中，你拿起盾牌，或者其它兵器一天之内就能成为胜任作战的战士吗？须知，没有一种工具是拿到手就能使人成为有技术的工人或者斗士的，如果他不懂得怎么用工具，没有认真练习过的话。 格：这话不错，不然工具本身就成了无价之宝了。 苏：那么，如果说护卫者的工作是最重大的，他就需要有比别种人更多的空闲，需要有最多的知识和最多的训练。 格：我也这么想。 苏：不是还需要有适合干这一行的天赋吗？ 格：当然。 苏：看来，尽可能地挑选那些有这种天赋的人来守护这个城邦乃是我们的责任。 格：那确是我们的责任。 苏：天啊！这个担子可不轻，我们要尽心尽力而为之，不可退缩。 格：对，决不可退缩。 苏：你觉得一条养得好的警犬和一个养得好的卫士，①从保卫工作来说，两者的天赋才能有什么区别吗？ ①希腊文“警犬”σGH′Aαξ和“护卫者”“卫士”φH′Aαξ是谐音词。 格：你究竟指的什么意思？ 苏：我的意思是说，两者都应该感觉敏锐，对觉察到的敌人要追得快，如果需要一决雌雄的话，要能斗得凶。 格：是的，这些品质他们都需要。 苏：如果要斗得胜的话，还必须勇敢。 格：当然。 苏：不论是马，是狗，或其它动物，要不是生气勃勃，它们能变得勇敢吗？你有没有注意到，昂扬的精神意气，是何等不可抗拒不可战胜吗？只要有了它，就可以无所畏惧，所向无敌吗？ 格：是的，我注意到了。 苏：那么，护卫者在身体方面应该有什么品质，这是很清楚的。 格：是的。 苏：在心灵上他们应该意气奋发，这也是很明白清楚的。 格：也是的。 苏：格劳孔呀！如果他们的天赋品质是这样的，那他们怎么能避免彼此之间发生冲突，或者跟其他公民发生冲突呢？ 格：天啊！的确不容易避免。 苏：他们还应该对自己人温和，对敌人凶狠。否则，用不着敌人来消灭，他们自己就先消灭自己了。 格：真的。 苏：那我们该怎么办？我们上哪里去找一种既温和，又刚烈的人？这两种性格是相反的呀。 格：显然是相反的。 苏：但要是两者缺一，他就永远成不了一个好的护卫者了。看来，二者不能得兼，因此，一个好的护卫者就也是不可能有的了。 格：看来是不可能。 苏：我给闹糊涂了。不过把刚才说的重新考虑一下，我觉得我们的糊涂是咎有应得，因为我们把自己所树立的相反典型给忘掉了。 格：怎么回事？ 苏：我们没有注意到，我们原先认为不能同时具有相反的两种禀赋，现在看来毕竟还是有的。 格：有？Where? 苏：可以在别的动物身上找到，特别是在我们拿来跟护卫者比拟的那种动物身上可以找到。我想你总知道喂得好的狗吧。它的脾气总是对熟人非常温和，对陌生人却恰恰相反。 格：是的，我知道。 苏：那么，事情是可能的了。我们找这样一种护卫者并不违反事物的天性。 格：看来并不违反。 苏：你是不是认为我们的护卫者，除了秉性刚烈之外，他的性格中还需要有对智慧的爱好，才能成其为护卫者？ 格：怎么需要这个的？I don't understand you. 苏：在狗身上你也能看到这个①。兽类能这样，真值得惊奇。 ①指：对智慧的爱好。照希腊文“哲学家”一词，意即“爱好智慧的人”。 格：“这个”是什么？ 苏：狗一看见陌生人就怒吠——虽然这个人并没打它；当它看见熟人，就摇尾欢迎——虽然这个人并没对它表示什么好意。这种事情，你看了从来没有觉得奇怪吗？ 格：过去我从来没注意这种事情。不过，狗的行动确实是这样的，这是一目了然的。 苏：但那的确是它天性中的一种精细之处，是一种对智慧有真正爱好的表现。 格：请问你是根据什么这样想的？ 苏：我这样想的根据是：狗完全凭认识与否区别敌友—— 不认识的是敌，认识的是友。一个动物能以知和不知辨别敌友同异，你怎么能说它不爱学习呢？ 格：当然不能。 苏：你承认，爱学习和爱智慧是一回事吗？ 格：是一回事。 苏：那么，在人类我们也可以有把握地这样说：如果他对自己人温和，他一定是一个天性爱学习和爱智慧的人。isn't it? 格：让我们假定如此吧。 苏：那么，我们可以在一个真正善的城邦护卫者的天性里把爱好智慧和刚烈、敏捷、有力这些品质结合起来了。 格：毫无疑问可以这样。 苏：那么，护卫者的天性基础①大概就是这样了。但是，我们的护卫者该怎样接受训练接受教育呢？我们研讨这个问题是不是可以帮助我们弄清楚整个探讨的目标呢——正义和不正义在城邦中是怎样产生的？我们要使我们的讨论既充分又不拖得太长，令人生厌。 ①作为后天接受教育的基础。 阿（格劳孔的兄弟）：是的。我希望这个探讨有助于我们一步步接近我们的目标。 苏：那么，亲爱的阿得曼托斯，我们一定不要放弃这个讨论，就是长了一点，也要耐心。 阿：对！一定不放弃。 苏：那么，让我们来讨论怎么教育这些护卫者的问题吧。 我们不妨象讲故事那样从容不迫地来谈。 阿：我们是该这样做。 苏：那么，这个教育究竟是什么呢？似乎确实很难找到比我们早已发现的那种教育更好的了。这种教育就是用体操来训练身体，用音乐①来陶冶心灵。 ①古代希腊重要的文化生活是听民间艺人弹着竖琴演说史诗故事。故“音乐”一词包括音乐、文学等义，相当现在的“文化”一词。关于音乐的讨论一直延伸到第三卷。（象现在这样分为十卷是柏拉图数世纪后的事情。） 阿：是的。 苏：我们开始教育，要不要先教音乐后教体操？ 阿：是的。 苏：你把故事包括在音乐里，对吗？ 阿：对。 苏：故事有两种，一种是真的，一种是假的，是吧？ 阿：是的。 苏：我们在教育中应该两种都用，先用假的，是吗？ 阿：我不理解你的意思。 苏：你不懂吗？我们对儿童先讲故事——故事从整体看是假的，但是其中也有真实。在教体操之前，我们先用故事教育孩子们。 阿：这是真的。 苏：这就是我所说的，在教体操之前先教音乐的意思。 阿：非常正确。 苏：你知道，凡事开头最重要。特别是生物。在幼小柔嫩的阶段，最容易接受陶冶，你要把它塑成什么型式，就能塑成什么型式。 阿：一点不错。 苏：那么，我们应不应该放任地让儿童听不相干的人讲不相干的故事，让他们的心灵接受许多我们认为他们在成年之后不应该有的那些见解呢？ 阿：绝对不应该。 苏：那么看来，我们首先要审查故事的编者，接受他们编得好的故事，而拒绝那些编得坏的故事。我们鼓励母亲和保姆给孩子们讲那些已经审定的故事，用这些故事铸造他们的心灵，比用手去塑造他们的身体①还要仔细。他们现在所讲的故事大多数我们必须抛弃。 ①当时托儿所里采用的一种按摩推拿之类的保育方法。 阿：你指的哪一类故事？ 苏：故事也能大中见小，因为我想，故事不论大小，类型总是一样的，影响也总是一样的，你看是不是？ 阿：是的，但是我不知道所谓大的故事是指的哪些？ 苏：指赫西俄德和荷马以及其他诗人所讲的那些故事。须知，我们曾经听讲过，现在还在听讲着他们所编的那些假故事。 阿：你指的哪一类故事？这里面你发现了什么毛病？ 苏：首先必须痛加谴责的，是丑恶的假故事。 阿：这指什么？ 苏：一个人没有能用言词描绘出诸神与英雄的真正本性来，就等于一个画家没有画出他所要画的对象来一样。 阿：这些是应该谴责的。但是，有什么例子可以拿出来说明问题的？ 苏：首先，最荒唐莫过于把最伟大的神描写得丑恶不堪。 如赫西俄德描述的乌拉诺斯的行为，以及克罗诺斯对他的报复行为①，还有描述克罗诺斯的所作所为和他的儿子对他的行为，这些故事都属此类。即使这些事是真的，我认为也不应该随便讲给天真单纯的年轻人听。这些故事最好闭口不谈。如果非讲不可的话，也只能许可极少数人听，并须秘密宣誓，先行献牲，然后听讲，而且献的牲还不是一只猪，而是一种难以弄到的庞然大物。为的是使能听到这种故事的人尽可能的少。 ①赫西俄德《神谱》154，459。 阿：啊！这种故事真是难说。 苏：阿得曼托斯呀！在我们城邦里不应该多讲这类故事。 一个年轻人不应该听了故事得到这样一种想法：对一个大逆不道，甚至想尽方法来严惩犯了错误的父亲的人也不要大惊小怪，因为他不过是仿效了最伟大的头号天神的做法而已。 阿：天哪！我个人认为这种事情是不应该讲的。 苏：决不该让年轻人听到诸神之间明争暗斗的事情（因为这不是真的）。如果我们希望将来的保卫者，把彼此勾心斗角、耍弄阴谋诡计当作奇耻大辱的话。我们更不应该把诸神或巨人之间的争斗，把诸神与英雄们对亲友的种种怨仇作为故事和刺绣的题材。如果我们能使年轻人相信城邦的公民之间从来没有任何争执——如果有的话，便是犯罪——老爷爷、老奶奶应该对孩子们从小就这样说，等他们长大一点还这样说，我们还必须强迫诗人按照这个意思去写作。关于赫拉如何被儿子绑了起来以及赫淮斯托斯见母亲挨打，他去援救的时候，如何被他的父亲从天上摔到地下的话①，还有荷马所描述的诸神间的战争等等，作为寓言来讲也罢，不作为寓言来讲也罢，无论如何不该让它们混进我们城邦里来。因为年轻人分辨不出什么是寓言，什么不是寓言。先入为主，早年接受的见解总是根深蒂固不容易更改的。因此我们要特别注意，为了培养美德，儿童们最初听到的应该是最优美高尚的故事。 ①Ⅰ586以下。 阿：是的，很有道理。但是如果人家要我们明确说出这些故事指的哪些？我们该举出哪些来呢？ 苏：我亲爱的阿得曼托斯啊！你我都不是作为诗人而是作为城邦的缔造者在这里发言的。缔造者应当知道，诗人应该按照什么路子写作他们的故事，不许他写出不合规范的东西，但不要求自己动手写作。 阿：很对。但，就是这个东西——故事里描写诸神的正确的路子或标准应该是什么样的呢？ 苏：大致是这样的：应该写出神之所以为神，即神的本质来。无论在史诗、抒情诗，或悲剧诗里，都应该这样描写。 阿：是的，应该这样描写。 苏：神不肯定是实在善的吗？故事不应该永远把他们描写成善的吗？ 阿：当然应该。 苏：其次，没有任何善的东西是有害的，是吧？ 阿：我想是的。 苏：无害的东西会干什么坏事吗？ 阿：啊，不会的。 苏：不干坏事的东西会作恶吗？ 阿：绝对不会。 苏：不作恶的东西会成为任何恶的原因吗？ 阿：那怎么会呢？ 苏：好，那么善的东西是有益的？ 阿：是的。 苏：因此是好事的原因吗？ 阿：是的。 苏：因此，善者并不是一切事物的原因，只是好的，事物的原因，不是坏的事物的原因。 阿：完全是这样。 苏：因此，神既然是善者，它也就不会是一切事物的原因——象许多人所说的那样。对人类来说，神只是少数几种事物的原因，而不是多数事物的原因。我们人世上好的事物比坏的事物少得多，而好事物的原因只能是神。至于坏事物的原因，我们必须到别处去找，不能在神那儿找。 阿：你说的话，在我看来再正确不过了。 苏：那么我们就不能接受荷马或其他诗人关于诸神的那种错误说法了。例如荷马在下面的诗里说：① ①ⅩⅩⅣ527—532。这里引文与现行史诗原文略有出入。 宙斯大堂上，并立两铜壶。 壶中盛命运，吉凶各悬殊。 宙斯混吉凶，随意赐凡夫。 当宙斯把混合的命运赐给哪个人，那个人就—— 时而遭灾难，时而得幸福。 当宙斯不把吉凶相混，单赐坏运给一个人时，就—— 饥饿逼其人，飘泊无尽途。 我们也不要去相信那种宙斯支配命运的说法： 祸福变万端，宙斯实主之。 如果有人说，潘德罗斯违背誓言①，破坏停战，是由于雅典娜和宙斯的怂恿，我决不能同意。我们也不能同意诸神之间的争执和分裂是由于宙斯和泰米斯②作弄的说法。我们也不能让年轻人听到象埃斯库洛斯所说的③： ①Ⅳ69以下。 ②希腊神话中代表法律的女神。 ③埃斯库洛斯，轶诗160。 天欲毁巨室，降灾群氓间。 如果诗人们描写尼俄珀的悲痛——埃斯库洛斯曾用抑扬格诗描写过——或者描写佩洛匹达的故事、特洛亚战争的事绩，以及别的传说，我们一定要禁止他们把这些痛苦说成是神的意旨。如果要这么说，一定要他们举出这样说的理由，象我们正在努力寻找的一样——他们应该宣称神做了一件合乎正义的好事，使那些人从惩罚中得到益处。我们无论如何不能让诗人把被惩罚者的生活形容得悲惨，说是神要他们这样的。 但是我们可以让诗人这样说：坏人日子难过，因为他们该受惩罚。神是为了要他们好，才惩罚他们的。假使有人说，神虽然本身是善的，可是却产生了恶。对于这种谎言，必须迎头痛击。假使这个城邦要统治得好的话，更不应该让任何人，不论他是老是少，听到这种故事（不论故事是有韵的还是没有韵的）。讲这种话是渎神的，对我们有害的，并且理论上是自相矛盾的。 阿：我跟你一道投票赞成这条法律。I like it so much. Su: Very good.这将成为我们关于诸神的法律之一，若干标准之一。故事要在这个标准下说，诗要在这个标准下写——神是善的原因，而不是一切事物之因。 阿：这样说算是说到家了。 苏：那么，其次，你认为神是一个魔术师吗？他能按自己的意图在不同的时间显示出不同的形相来吗？他能有时变换外貌，乔装打扮惑世欺人吗？还是说，神是单一的，始终不失他本相的呢？ 阿：我一下子答不上来。 苏：那么好好想想吧。任何事物一离开它的本相，它不就要（或被自己或被其它事物）改变吗？ 阿：这是必然的。 苏：事物处于最好的状况下，最不容易被别的事物所改变或影响，例如，身体之受饮食、劳累的影响，植物之受阳光、风、雨等等的影响——最健康、最强壮者、最不容易被改变。isn't it? 阿：怎么不是呢？ 苏：心灵不也是这样的吗？最勇敢、最智慧的心灵最不容易被任何外界的影响所干扰或改变。 阿：是的。 苏：根据类推，那些制成的东西也肯定是这样的了。 —— 家具、房屋、衣服，如果做得很好很牢，也最不容易受时间或其它因素的影响。 阿：的确是这样。 苏：那么万事万物都是这样的了。——任何事物处于最好状况之下，（不管是天然的状况最好，还是人为的状况最好，或者两种状况都最好），是最不容易被别的东西所改变的。 阿：看来是这样。 苏：神和一切属于神的事物，无论如何都肯定是处于不能再好的状态下。 阿：当然。 苏：因此看来，神是绝对不能有许多形相的。 阿：确实不可能的。 苏：但是，神能变形，即·自·己改变自己吗？ 阿：如果他能·被·改·变，显然是能自己改变自己的。 苏：那么他把自己变美变好呢，还是变丑变坏呢？ 阿：如果变，他一定是变坏。因为我们定然不能说神在美和善方面是有欠缺的。 苏：你说得对极了。如果这样尽善尽美，阿得曼托斯，你想想看，无论是哪一个神或哪一个人，他会自愿把自己变坏一点点吗？ 阿：不可能的。 苏：那么，一个神想要改变他自己，看来是连这样一种愿望也不可能有的了。看来还是：神和人都尽善尽美，永远停留在自己单一的既定形式之中。 阿：我认为这是一个必然的结论。 苏：那么，我的高明的朋友啊！不许任何诗人这样对我们说： 诸神乔装来异乡， 变形幻影访城邦。 ① 也不许任何人讲关于普罗图斯和塞蒂斯的谎话，也不许在任何悲剧和诗篇里，把赫拉带来，扮作尼姑，为阿尔戈斯的伊纳霍斯河的赐予生命的孩子们挨门募化，我们不需要诸如此类的谎言。做母亲的也不要被这些谎言所欺骗，对孩子们讲那些荒唐故事，说什么诸神在夜里游荡，假装成远方来的异客。我们不让她们亵渎神明，还把孩子吓得胆战心惊，变成懦夫。 ①《奥德赛》ⅩⅦ485—486。 阿：决不许这样。 苏：既然诸神是不能改变的，难道他们能给我们幻象，让我们看到他们在光怪陆离的形式之中吗？ 阿：也许如此。 苏：什么？难道神明会愿意说谎