background
Socrates is the narrator, his Chinese name（苏格拉底） is known to us. However, I get to know that the content is just in his name but the thought is the author Plato’s.
The first dialogue took place in the house of Cephalus in Piraeus after Socrates left city with his followers to join the procession of the festival for goddess.
When they intended to return, Polemarchus persuaded them to remain where they were, and told them that there would have the torch-race on horseback in honor of the goddess this evening. As Socrates thought, a festival would be celebrated besides.
Cephalus(C) saluted Socrates(S) eagerly and pointed out that S didn’t come to see him, he hoped that S could make their house his resort and keep company with the young people.
S expressed he rather enjoy conversing with aged men like him, for they were just like travelers and had gone through journeys which he might come across later as well.
C then told S his own feeling about age. It was not the right cause to blame for the terrible relations, men’s character and tempers counted on the contrary.
arguement
Round 1 with Thrasymachus
- Justice is the interest of the stronger
- Proof: the country represents for the governor’s command, which is out of governor’s own interest
- Refutation: the governor is not infallible, thus there will be some command actually defect them.
- Injustice is a man’s own profit and interest，and it’s wise to be injust
- Proof: the just is always a loser in comparison with the unjust. The just has less after a partnership with the unjust is dissolved, pay more for the income-tax, suffer losses when they take an office, hated by friends for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways.
- Refutation: we may put the matter above thus -the just doesn’t desire more than his like but more than his unlike, whereas the unjust desire more than both of his kind. But whether as a physician or as a musician, he don’t wish to go beyond any other people in the same field. The reality is conflict with the first sentence.
- 正义代表强权者的利益
- 论据：国家体现了统治阶级的意志，而该意志往往出于统治阶级自身的利益。
- 驳斥：统治阶级并非颠扑不破，则出台的政策可能对统治阶级自身是不利的，则此时正义并非代表强权者的利益。
- 不义是个人的利益，明智的选择
- 论据：现实中往往正义者受损，不正义者得利：正义者在合同中吃亏、上缴更多的税款、履职两袖清风、对身旁的人正直不阿而被厌恶处境窘迫……
- 驳斥：首先达成共识：上面的论点可引申为正义者只寻求超越不义者的占有，而不义者寻求超越两类人。但事实上，医生或音乐家并不希冀独领风骚，广泛来讲，任何有知者都不希冀拥有全部智慧，而无知者才恰恰相反。以上表现恰与前面的总结矛盾，医生、音乐家与学识之士更为明智却不寻求超越同类。
Round 2 with Thrasymachus
- Unjust has strength.
- Refutation:
- Analogy: everything has an end/use which could not be accomplished by other things and a special excellence, such as one cannot hear without ears, ears have an end as a consequence. And when one is deprived of its own excellence, it can’t fulfill its end.
- Conclusion: It had been proved above that justice is the excellence of the soul and injustice the defect of the soul. So with justice can one have a good soul, which can fulfill its end and be a good superintendent, who can be happy and not miserable, which is powerful for sure. And vice versa.
- Refutation:
- 不义者更强
- 驳斥
- 类比：任何事物都有它不可替代的作用，同时具有特性，例如耳的听觉，说明耳具有用途。当某事物失去它的特性时，便无法行使它的作用。
- 结论：上轮已经证明正义是灵魂的特性，而不义是损伤。因此保持正义就是拥有善的灵魂，能够行使主导个人的作用，也即欢乐无虞，这便是最有力的；不义便恰恰相反。
- 驳斥
communication
与小伙伴交流心得，尝试利用苏格拉底的驳斥将观点向他进行论证。首先对于不义是个人的利益，明智的选择 这一观点他表示很能理解，但我试着用上述观点解释时，发现有些牵强——「医生与音乐家不寻求超越他的同类」。他也发表意见：“难道医生不应该希望自己的医术精湛，比其他医生更强吗？”我也认同这个想法，心里有个不成熟的解释是这样的：做为一个医生，如果他是首屈一指的，说明其他人都比他弱，而他便没有进步的空间，这并非好事。但这对医生本人的素质要求很高，不是很有说服力。
我们进一步交流，认为不义者的状态是不稳定的——只能在社会既有不义者与正义者满足条件。如果都是正义者，没有从对方获利的需求，彼此相安无事；但都是不义者，则仍会谋求从其他所有人处获利，这会造成恶性循环，无人受益。不过我认为，这个解释是没有实际用处的：只要当前社会中同时存在正义者与不义者，不义者就有生存空间。
之后看到一篇博客中，学者如是作解，突然想到罗翔曾在视频中也讲到过这点，有知者明白生也有涯，而知也无涯；无知者则大无畏，才有超越一切的妄念。
无知的人想要超越一切人，不是说无知的人想要通过努力学习而获得知识，从而比有知识的人更加有智慧，而是恰恰是因为无知和内心的贪欲，才使得他想在自己认为有价值的地方和领域中超过一切人。而有知识的人不想超越一切人，根本上是因为对智慧的寻求是人和智慧的关系，而非人与人的关系，在爱智慧(philo-sophia)的结构中，所需要的是人对智慧的爱，而没有他人的存在。稍微宽泛点讲，那怕朋友间的讨论有助于哲学探询，那也是共同寻求智慧，通过与苏格拉底交谈而使自己的灵魂转向，并不存在和别人的攀比。而在除去智慧的其他领域中，如果把权力、钱财、名望等视作好的生活，则必然牵扯人际的比较，而在根本上，这些追寻的方向就是错误的。
苏格拉底实际上通过这个反驳，在讽刺色拉叙马霍斯其实是无知的，柏拉图笔下的智者通常是希望在讨论中获胜
为什么有知识的人不像无知的人那样想超越一切人？——“知止”中外经典读书会第89次精读活动综述 导读人：张新刚博士（北京大学古典学中心博士后）
其后是下一轮的观点不义者更强，他听完了完整的驳斥后，再次表达了观点：“依然没有驳倒最初的论据，不义的人能获得更多的利，那他同样可以获得快乐。”我稍加思索，想到了合理的解释：“这就要回归第一个论题中提到的一点，共有三种回报形式——金钱、名誉以及拒绝的惩罚。正是为了制止这种人能够通过不义举动轻易获得快乐，我们需要完善的法制来限制行为。正如罗翔讲到的‘千万不要相信人性，要用法治来限制人性的恶’，人性本身的确是逐利的。”他听完也表示赞同，有过辩论经历的他补充道，可以在最初亮明论点时进行定义：人的不义行为是不符合法治精神的，使整个论证更完善。
Three modes of payment: money, or honour or a penalty for refusing