At this point, Cephalus’ son Polemarchus jumps back into the conversation, citing Simonides, the poet, as being in disagreement with Socrates’ suggestions. So Socrates has to battle with another poet. Polemarchus says Simonides is correct in saying “it is just to give to each what is owed.” When Socrates shows that this puts Simonides in the same awkward position with the madman wanting his weapons, Cephalus is forced to agree that this is wrong. Interestingly, Socrates does not then say, “so Simonides is wrong,” but instead, “‘Then Simonides,’ it seems, ‘means something different’”. That is, he is re-interpreting the poets. Giving new meaning to old tales. He’s not saying the stories are wrong, but that we take the wrong things from them.

 

This is a clever approach. It also gives Socrates’ interlocutor a means of carrying on the conversation without losing face. They can adjust their opinions by thinking more carefully about what the meaning must be. Socrates is training his interlocutors to think things through more carefully. He is getting them to create interpretations of poets that are consistent with reason. In re-interpreting Simonides, Socrates says that friends would not take actions towards one another if the result turns out to be bad. That is, justice is about doing good. The end has to be good.

 

Taking the discussion of “what is owed” further, Socrates inquires into its outcome when applied to enemies. Does justice require that we do harm to our enemies, as we would be led to believe by Simonides? Socrates runs through a few examples of other professions, such as medicine and cooking. He asks what they owe, which is a very weird question to ask of these professions. What does metalworking owe? Perhaps it makes more sense when you consider the relation of the person doing the profession with those he serves. For example, what does a doctor owe his patient? What does a chef owe her diners? In which case it makes sense to answer: medicine and seasoning. But Socrates uses bodies and meats as the things that medicine and seasoning are given to. So a metalworker would owe shape to metal, such as a ploughshare. The metalworker would not owe a ploughshare to the ploughman. But what does this have to do with enemies?

 

Eventually, Socrates asks, “the art that gives what to which things would be called justice?” This is a crazy question. Tough to think through. For what does justice owe and to what? What does justice work on? I think I would be naturally inclined to say, “relations.” That is, relations between people, particularly when they may have competing interests. Justice does its work by deciding what is fair when there are differences of opinion about who deserves what. How should two young brothers share a cake? Justice would come in to help decide how the cake should be divided, either giving a little bit larger share to the older or bigger brother because he is bigger and needs more food, or equally dividing it between the two if they are of similar size, etc. If justice didn’t do its work, one brother may take the whole cake for himself. In that sense, justice gives fairness to disagreements.

 

Instead, Cephalus answers that justice gives harm to enemies and good to friends. At this, Socrates returns to his example of medicine, pointing out that a doctor is best positioned to do good to sick friends and harm to enemies. A captain is best positioned to benefit or harm sailors. So then, he asks, in what action is the just man most able to do good to friends and harm to enemies? Cephalus answers, in making war and being an ally. At this, Socrates questions whether a skill is useful when there isn’t a problem. That is, if your friend is not sick, is medicine of any use, he asks? To which we are compelled to respond: of course not. And if you aren’t going sailing, is a captain of any benefit. No. So then Socrates asks: if you’re not at war, is justice useless? To which Cephalus and we are compelled to respond: yes, justice has uses outside of war. So I suppose, Socrates is making us realize that we don’t yet have a good grasp on justice.
Socrates then leads Cephalus on a confusing back and forth of questions and answers, to the point that Cephalus ends up saying the opposite of what he intended, largely because Socrates is being tricky with the way he asks the questions, such that Cephalus ends up being exasperated, saying: “I no longer know what I did mean,” and “the argument seems to be bad.” This compels Cephalus to get even clearer about his definitions. Again, then, Socrates is forcing Cephalus to be more careful in how he defines things. He is training him to be more careful in his thinking. I think he’s also trying to show how easy it is to get confused when you rely on the sayings of poets, rather than coming to understand the wisdom behind them.