At this point, Socrates asks an interesting, if not impolite, question of Cephalus. Did he make his money or inherit it. Socrates explains that people who make their money, or poems or children, are more attached to them than if they inherit or adopt them. I’m not sure exactly what Socrates is getting at here. This seems a very weird thing to be saying. Socrates suggests that people who make money, for example, see it as their product, value it for its use and praise nothing but money. He is implying that this is a bad thing. They are too attached to what they have produced. But, today, we tend to think less of people who have inherited their wealth, for they have not proved that they are capable of earning it, much as we dismiss George Bush, Jr. as simply having been funded by his father, whereas we respect Bill Gates. And what does this mean for poets. How can you inherit a poem? Isn’t he also criticizing himself? That is, Plato is saying poets are too attached to their own creations. If The Republic is Plato’s creation, does that mean that he is difficult to be with because he will talk about nothing but poetry?

 

Perhaps we need to read a bit further, for shortly thereafter, Cephalus disinherits the argument he is having with Socrates to his son. Is he saying something about having to make the argument yourself if you are going to value it? If you simply inherit your learning and thoughts from the poets or parents, you aren’t attached to it, don’t value it, don’t talk about it. I’m not sure, this seems a bit of a stretch. In any case, it’s an astute observation about human nature: we are more attached to money and other things that we have built up or created ourselves than we are to things we are given or have naturally. We value what we struggle to create. Perhaps, then, the lesson is that we ought to try to create the right things, such as amassing learning or working on one’s character as opposed to amassing wealth.

 

I do, though, think we could see the “inheriting” idea as an analogy for why you must do your own thinking. That is, if the idea of the good is what a person uses to guide their life, then they should be very attached to this idea. Socrates is always very hesitant to give his account of the idea of the good, and really, never gives a precise account of what it is. He only hints at it. If he were to simply tell us what it is, we would be inheriting the idea from him and, consequently, would not be very attached to it. But if we had to struggle to earn our own idea of the good, we would see it as our product. We would value it for its use. And we would be willing to praise nothing else. In other words, if the idea of the good is critical to leading a good life, it would be valuable to find a way for people to become very attached to it.

 

In any case, Socrates asks Cephalus, before the conversation is passed to his son, what the use of money is in life: “what do you suppose is the greatest good you have enjoyed from possessing great wealth?” Does the good life require one to be wealthy? Is it something you can buy? Cephalus basically says that money is useful because you can avoid ending up cheating others or being in debt to them or to the gods so that you will not be punished in this life or another. Cephalus quotes poets again and mentions how you start to fear the injustices you may have done in life as you near death. Money makes it more likely that you will live well in death. Money means you can be a good man. It’s also interesting that Cephalus is entirely focussed on the end of his life. He doesn’t say money is valuable because you can have a nice house, throw good weddings for your children, purchase power in society through politics, or afford good food and medicine which keeps one well. Instead, money is useful in living a life in such a way that you will not be paranoid in old age about going to hell. Yikes! Your mind will be at peace because money afforded you the ability to be a just person (those who strive to be just, at least).

 

Now, you might expect that Socrates’ response would be something addressing this weird answer. Shouldn’t he say something like: “you appear to be saying that you need a great deal of wealth to avoid being unjust and to avoid being racked by fear in old age about the afterlife. Does that mean only the rich can enter the afterlife peacefully? That’s fine if you inherit wealth, but what if you have to make it? Can you be just to people as you make money or would you compromise your integrity and undo any good that comes from wealth, such that only those who inherit money can go to the afterlife in peace. That seems unfair, no?”

 

Instead of arguing about what the value of money is, such as suggesting that it is good for weddings, Socrates questions Cephalus’ view of justice. I suppose one could make the argument that if justice is not about paying someone back in money, then the best use of money could not be what Cephalus holds it to be. But I’m not sure this is why Socrates picks up on this. Is this just Plato, the author, finding a way to get onto the topic of justice? A touch awkward, but we shouldn’t make anything out of it?

 

Even more perplexing, there are two odd things about Socrates’ counterexample. First, he gives a non-monetary example, that of giving weapons back to a friend after he has gone mad. Is it just hard to make a clear example with money? Secondly, and more disturbingly, he suggests that it may not be wise to tell a friend “in this state the whole truth.” We should lie to our friends at times, or at least hide some of the truth. Who else is it okay to lie to and under what state? The criterion Socrates appears to be using is that it would be harmful to your friend. A friend does not let harm come to a friend, even if it means having to lie to them. That is, justice is about the end, not the means. Lying is okay if it is used for the good of your friends. Not giving people what belongs to them is okay if it would be harmful to give it to them. That is, it is okay to take or keep other people’s property if it is beneficial to them for you to do so. This is the argument modern governments use all the time to take more taxes.