In the dialogue of thinkers, there is an ordinary situation of an insistent proposal to continue the pastime unfolds. However, behind a completely neutral dialogue hides a vivid metaphor of how society shapes justice. Polemarchus tells Socrates that he will not let him into the city until he overcomes the interlocutor. To oppose this, the philosopher offers a discussion to convince the opponents of the need for a passage for himself, receiving in response a symbolic phrase from the Polemarchus who says, “How can you convince those who will not listen?” In this episode, the idea is well traced that sometimes society deliberately ignores the alternative of reasonable discourse, persuading a person to directly influence and resolve the situation. The phrase of the Polemarchus, “And cannot you see how many of us are here?” makes it clear that society, i.e., most people, will always dictate their will and their rules to one single person. These concepts correlate well with the ideas described in the “Republic.”
The fact that one of the interlocutors, Cephalus, is highly concerned with sacrifices speaks of him as a person associated with tradition. This is an inspiring view and metaphor for the idea of tradition, of which sacrifices were a part in ancient religious cults. Moreover, Cephalus personifies the image of older people in general, criticizing other people of their age, always grieving about their youth, but recognizing the importance and status of their age. Several concepts will be described further in the work that indicates that Plato supports traditional development, albeit peculiarly. The philosopher believes that tradition should be a moral beacon of young people instead of the epic and myth that distorts the moral values worn by their actors to increase public interest. Such actions, from the position of Plato, fill traditional images with extreme viciousness and rudeness.
Returning to the person of Polemarchus, imposing his will on Socrates, one can judge from this case and his other words that he is predisposed to an authoritarian attitude towards justice and desire. This demonstrates the desire of most people to impose their will on others, consciously or not. After all, keeping everything under your control, as seen in the example of Polemarchus, is a calming and satisfying aspiration. Further, he considers the definition of justice to be the concept of “doing good to friends and harm to enemies.” I cannot agree with this view of justice because such a view is based on the tribal and clan relations of the past, and in the course of the development of several institutions, problems of this kind of approach became visible. The main issue is people’s bias towards justice, starting from the notions of friend or foe. Such a view deprives the meaning of the word justice.
Thrasymachus’s definition of the right of the strong for justice is also erroneous due to bias. The definition of the poet Simonides is that justice is giving “to each what is owed.” This speaks of a fair attitude to the justice process, where the acts themselves are considered and not the person’s attitude to someone. As can be seen in the same discourse of men about justice, its general concept is impossible due to the different views of each person on the very essence of justice. The closest to me definition is the position of Simonides due to its treatment of justice in accordance with a person’s abilities.
It is worth considering the myth of Plato about the ring of Giga, which makes a person invisible. Through the ring’s history, Plato examines whether a person can be just independently when one does not need to be afraid of punishment for committing injustice. In the myth, it is said that Gig, thanks to the ability to become invisible, seduced the queen, and with her help, killed the king, eventually becoming the ruler of Lydia. This myth is a clear demonstration and analogy of the idea of changing the moral qualities of a person in a hypothetical situation of the absence of consequences and punishment for committed actions.