I think we’ll need more to go on. Let’s see what happens next in the conversation. Cephalus, at any rate, is convinced by Socrates and agrees to join him as a partner in battle against false notions of the just. The use of the word “battle” and “partner” are interesting choices. For during the conversation, Cephalus at one time claimed that the just man was most able to help his friends in war. Socrates seemed to give him this point, but then asked him if this meant justice was useless in peacetime. Cephalus eventually lands on partnerships as being aided by just men, but Socrates gives him the runaround and they eventually land on the “it isn’t just to harm anyone” line.

 

I feel Socrates didn’t give Cephalus a fair argument, here. For I think Cephalus is right in thinking that you would want to do business with just people. When I go to the gas station, I don’t want the unjust man who is going to short me a few litres of gas every time I fill up. When I pay my phone bill, I don’t want the unjust man to add extra minutes onto my charges. Isn’t it very advantageous to do business with just men? But Socrates leads the conversation totally away from such considerations by focussing on the harm side of the equation. In any case, I find it noteworthy that Socrates brings back up the words “battle” and “partner,” as these are two areas where he hasn’t actually refuted Cephalus. So Cephalus is invited to become Socrates’ partner in battle. He is putting him to use as a just man, or, at least, as Cephalus would see a just man.

 

In closing, Socrates points out that the people who make the argument that justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies are kings, rulers, and rich men. That is, Socrates (read Plato) is starting to suggest that our ideas of right and wrong may not be neutral, but slanted in favour of the ruling class, much as the rules in The Matrix are suited to keeping humans trapped in their lives as batteries, not questioning the system. And, I don’t think it is any coincidence that the word matrix contains the same four letters (in the same order, even) as the name Marx, who also suggested that what we think of as right and wrong are just the fetters that the ruling classes use to keep us in our places.

 

This point is very subtle and not much time is spent on it, but it is incredibly important. This is, perhaps, why Socrates was put to death. He is pointing out to the people that the rulers have co-opted words to serve their interests. Even noble concepts such as justice are used to defend the power of the rulers. Or, is it much less cynical than this? Those who rule and are seen as great are looked up to and have their words and views copied. It’s not necessarily sinister in that they are trying to control the people, but it is still a problem because humans cannot lead a good life if they do not know the truth. Perhaps it is more a warning that we can’t take our guidance from the elite or rulers in our society. We have to seek ourselves for the truth. This seems more in line with the theme of The Republic.

 

However, as I write this, I feel uncomfortable not putting more emphasis on the fact that Socrates specifically identified these people as rulers. For, in other places, he has mentioned the problem with the poets misleading people. If Socrates was simply concerned about people needing to find their own truth, it would have been enough to say that people believe all sorts of wrong things thanks to the poets. But to specifically attribute this idea of justice to the rulers, with the political connotations that justice has in a society, I think argues for the interpretation in which Socrates is saying “The Matrix has you, Neo.”
Socrates takes advantage of the confusion sown by his refutations to take the discussion further. We know what justice isn’t, but we still don’t know what it is, he says. What, then, is justice?