;can the just make men unjust by justice?” Polemarchos replies by saying that the scenario is impossible. Socrates rebuts with the example that heat is not to make something cold, but exactly the opposite. He uses several non-relative examples such as this one in order to disprove the theory of the other. This is the reason that the conversation was so confusing. I don’t think that every scenario can relate to the topic of justice as Socrates uses them. This method of conversation continues throughout Book I with a few others in the room. Overall, I understood Socrates’ purpose of attempting to obtain a more deducted definition of justice. I also understood his method of relating the proposed definition to varied scenarios in life and nature, but I did not entirely agree with his method. I think that a little bit of it was far fetched for the topic at hand. Nevertheless, his method prevailed in narrowing the gap in definitions of justice as well as succeeded in making a few of his friends a little on-edge and a little more ill-tempered....
