ust to return a gun owed to a friend out of his mind, who had originally lent the gun when he was sane. Those involved in the discussion agreed on the need for further refinements to the original statement, but before they could continue a gentleman by the name of Thrasymachus wanted to interject and force Socrates to give his definition of justice. After Socrates states that he doesnt know and would like to learn, Thrasymachus then says that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, the stronger being the established rule. Socrates rebuttal was to say that the ruler actually rules for the benefit of his subjects, the ones he is craftsman of. For to be a ruler is a craft and a craft was established as that which provides what is advantageous to its subject. Then to continue their discussion, Socrates wanted to address Thrasymachus view of wether the life of an unjust person is better, or more profitable, than that of a just one. Thrasymachus declared that injustice was stronger and had more power than justice - that it was better to be unjust than just. He said that to be unjust was to be clever and good, while to be just was the opposite. They went on to debate which was clever and good and which was bad. It was discussed that who tried to outdo whom defined the clever and good versus the bad. After a lengthy talk, Socrates was able to turn Thrasymachus definition of a just person into its opposite and got his audience to agree that justice is virtue and wisdom and that injustice is vice and ignorance.At the end of Book I, it appeared that Socrates had won the argument over just being better than unjust, but he was not completely satisfied. During all their discussion, they had not finished their original quest of defining justice. In Socrates view, a good definition would include generality and conformity for all examples of its defined term. It could not merely give reference to the notion of, but woul...
