Written in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Justice” is defined as “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair”. This quality that many people obtain can be exemplified in multiple different ways, whether it be through the way a person is perceived or the way a person acts, Justice is an extremely dynamic quality. But, just as this quality can be expressed in many ways, it can also be perceived in a multitude of ways due to how subjective this quality can be. Perception, relates solely to the individual whom is processing their thoughts regarding a particular idea or action. As each individual may perceive a specific situation or thought, differently than the next, the political and sociological ideologies that each person is exposed to differs from each other immensely. The subjective aspect of the human mind is exemplified eloquently in “The Republic of Plato” as Plato, speaking through his teacher Socrates, sets out to define the question “What is justice”? In Book 1, Socrates poses this question amongst a group of both friends and enemies, as well as refutes every answer he receives. Within each definition recited back, Socrates identifies the many hidden contradictions that are found within each argument presented to him. The transgression from an Oligarchical to Tyrannical perception of justice is shown as Socrates engages in discussion with people of different social stature throughout this book. Cephalus, whose definition represents the attitude of the old, established, wise businessman, differs immensely from Thrasymachus’s definition of Justice, which stems from his own personal career of being a professional rhetorician and Sophist.

The first example of Socratic Dialogue that takes place during Book 1 occurs with an older man named Cephalus. Cephalus, a rich, as well as well-respected elder of the city, comes forth as a spokesperson for the old Greek tradition. Justice, according to

Socrates’ rendition of Cephalus’ view is “speaking the truth and giving back what one takes” (331c-331d). Cephalus, an inherent of family money, has grown up knowing only of paying off his own debts as well as abiding by religious tradition. To Cephalus, money is necessary, because it provides him with the opportunities to fulfill many religious duties. As Cephalus began to age, his concerns in regards to “just” and “unjust” acts seem to alter. Now, as he is reaching closer to his death, he is afraid of the punishment he will receive for all of the wrongdoings throughout his life. For Cephalus, his main concern is departing without owing any debts to men, sacrifices to god, or having committed any

un-just acts that may be perceived as wrong to the gods. With his money, he can pay his debts and offer his sacrifices. Due to his wealth, Cephalus feels less dependent on others, therefore, he doesn’t feel the need for manipulation or taking what is not his, which in turn leaves him debt free. Money has provided him with the opportunity to avoid a lifetime of injustice and piety. This definition of justice stems from the sociological influence of Cephalus’ community and the lifestyle he decides to live. To him, religion and tradition to wisdom, are far more important than knowledge. Cephalus’ definition of justice seems to be a result of his own fear of death. The consequences of his unjust actions are what make him want to behave justly. Cephalus’ exposure to moneymaking and religious duties early on in his life has hindered ability to think rationally. When practicing his sacrifices, whether or not taking away the life of another individual is seen as morally right or wrong, has no relevance to Cephalus. The religious sacrifices are considered a just act and it is his job to fulfill this duty for his own well-being.

Sophists, on the other hand, did not typically believe in the objective or moral truth. Unlike Cephalus, Sophists did not categorize any actions as either “right” or

“wrong”. Instead, Sophists, like Thrasymachus, whom erupts into the conversation angrily, tends to think of actions as being either “advantageous” or “disadvantageous” to the individual performing them. Thrasymachus’ definition of justice is nothing more than “Justice is the advantage of the stronger”. Thrasymachus’ definition of justice is seemingly a de-legitimization, rather than a definition of this word. Instead of trying to define what is just or unjust, Thrasymachus believes that the rational thing to do is to ignore justice entirely. He provides insight in regards to the negative outcomes that justice may provoke. As a Sophist, Thrasymachus aims to rid the city of justice, along with all of the moral standards that are withheld entirely. As Thrasymachus argues for the individual, not the community as a whole, he claims that being injust is more beneficial to the individual. To the Greeks, Thrasymachus is perceived as a person whom lacks the values of a just man, but to the his students, Thrasymachus is seen as a professional rhetorician whom teaches the art of persuasion, even if the methods he uses do not come out to be valid or pertain to the point of the argument. Thrasymachus demands a payment prior to defining justice for Socrates, when he says “But in addition to learning, pay a fine in money too” (337d-337e), this sentence not only exemplifies the justification that Thrasymachus has for Tyranny, but it also proves how different Cephalus and Thrasymachus live in regards to wealth and assets. Because Thrasymachus’ views can be derived from his lack of funds, Cephalus’ views seem to differ tremendously. Cephalus’ views regarding being just and unjust can be defended by his means of living, due to his family’s wealth. He has the means to carry out his ways of repenting for his un-just acts. Thrasymachus’ point of view is perceived as a far more bitter or negative portrayal of the