We will not, I said, be over-positive as yet; but if, on trial, this 
conception of justice be verified in the individual as well as in the 
State, there will be no longer any room for doubt; if it be not verified,
we must have a fresh inquiry. First let us complete the old investigation, 
which we began, as you remember, under the impression that, if we could 
previously examine justice on the larger scale,there would be less 
difficulty in discerning her in the individual. That larger example 
appeared to be the State, and accordingly we constructed as good a one as 
we could, knowing well that in the good State justice would be found. Let
 the discovery which we made be now applied to the individual -- if they 
agree, we shall be satisfied; or, if there be a difference in the 
individual, we will come back to the State and have another trial of the 
theory. The friction of the two when rubbed together may possibly strike 
a light in which justice will shine forth, and the vision which is then
revealed we will fix in our souls. 

   That will be in regular course; let us do as you say. 

   I proceeded to ask: When two things, a greater and less, are called by 
the same name, are they like or unlike in so far as they are called the 
same? 

   Like, he replied. 

   The just man then, if we regard the idea of justice only, will be like 
the just State? 

Page 124

   He will. 

   And a State was thought by us to be just when the three classes in the 
State severally did their own business; and also thought to be temperate 
and valiant and wise by reason of certain other affections and qualities 
of these same classes? 

   True, he said. 

   And so of the individual; we may assume that he has the same three 
principles in his own soul which are found in the State; and he may be 
rightly described in the same terms, because he is affected in the same 
manner? 

   Certainly, he said. 

   Once more, then, O my friend, we have alighted upon an easy question --
 whether the soul has these three principles or not? 

   An easy question! Nay, rather, Socrates, the proverb holds that hard is 
the good. 

   Very true, I said; and I do not think that the method which we are 
employing is at all adequate to the accurate solution of this question;
 the true method is another and a longer one. Still we may arrive at a 
solution not below the level of the previous inquiry. 

   May we not be satisfied with that? he said; under the circumstances, I 
am quite content. I, too, I replied, shall be extremely well satisfied. 

   Then faint not in pursuing the speculation, he said. 

   Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there are the same 
principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the 
individual they pass into the State? -- how else can they come there? 
Take the quality of passion or spirit; it would be ridiculous to imagine 
that this quality, when found in States, is not derived from the 
individuals who are supposed to possess it,e.g., the Thracians, Scythians, 
and in general the Northern nations; and the same may be said of the
love of knowledge, which is the special characteristic of our part of the 
world, or of the love of money, which may, with equal truth, be attributed 
to the Phoenicians and Egyptians. 

   Exactly so, he said. 

   There is no difficulty in understanding this. 

   None whatever. 

   But the question is not quite so easy when we proceed to 

Page 125

ask whether these principles are three or one; whether, that is to say, 
we learn with one part of our nature, are angry with another, and with a 
third part desire the satisfaction of our natural appetites;
or whether the whole soul comes into play in each sort of action -- to 
determine that is the difficulty.

   Yes, he said; there lies the difficulty. 

   Then let us now try and determine whether they are the same or 
different. 

   How can we? he asked. 

   I replied as follows: The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted 
upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, 
in contrary ways; and therefore whenever this contradiction occurs in 
things apparently the same, we know that they are really not the same, but
different. 

   Good. 

   For example, I said, can the same thing be at rest and in motion at the 
same time in the same part? 

   Impossible. 

   Still, I said, let us have a more precise statement of terms, lest we 
should hereafter fall out by the way. Imagine the case of a man who is 
standing and also moving his hands and his head, and suppose a person to 
say that one and the same person is in motion and at rest at the same 
moment-- to such a mode of speech we should object, and should rather say 
that one part of him is in motion while another is at rest. 

   Very true. 

   And suppose the objector to refine still further, and to draw the nice 
distinction that not only parts of tops, but whole tops, when they spin 
round with their pegs fixed on the spot, are at rest and in motion at the 
same time (and he may say the same of anything which revolves in the same 
spot), his objection would not be admitted by us, because in such cases 
things are not at rest and in motion in the same parts of themselves; we 
should rather say that they have both an axis and a circumference;
and that the axis stands still, for there is no deviation from the 
perpendicular; and that the circumference goes round. But if, while 
revolving, the axis inclines either to the right or left, forward
or backward, then in no point of view can they be at rest. 

   That is the correct mode of describing them, he replied. 

Page 126

   Then none of these objections will confuse us, or incline us to believe
 that the same thing at the same time, in the same part or in relation to 
the same thing, can act or be acted upon in contrary ways. 

   Certainly not, according to my way of thinking. 

   Yet, I said, that we may not be compelled to examine all such objections, 
and prove at length that they are untrue, let us assume their absurdity, 
and go forward on the understanding that hereafter, if this assumption 
turn out to be untrue, all the consequences which follow shall be 
withdrawn. 

   Yes, he said, that will be the best way. 

   Well, I said, would you not allow that assent and dissent, desire and 
aversion, attraction and repulsion, are all of them opposites, whether they 
are regarded as active or passive (for that makes no difference in the 
fact of their opposition)? 

   Yes, he said, they are opposites. 

   Well, I said, and hunger and thirst, and the desires in general, and 
again willing and wishing -- all these you would refer to the classes 
already mentioned. You would say -- would you not? -- that
the soul of him who desires is seeking after the object of his desire; 
or that he is drawing to himself the thing which he wishes to possess: or 
again, when a person wants anything to be given him, his mind, longing for 
the realization of his desire, intimates his wish to have it by a nod of 
assent, as if he had been asked a question? 

   Very true. 

   And what would you say of unwillingness and dislike and the absence of  
desire; should not these be referred to the opposite class of repulsion 
and rejection? 

   Certainly. 

   Admitting this to be true of desire generally, let us suppose a 
particular class of desires, and out of these we will select hunger and 
thirst, as they are termed, which are the most obvious of them? 

   Let us take that class, he said. 

   The object of one is food, and of the other drink? 

   Yes. 

   And here comes the point: is not thirst the desire which the soul has 
of drink, and of drink only; not of drink qualified by anything else; for 
example, warm or cold, or much or 

Page 127

little, or, in a word, drink of any particular sort: but if the thirst be 
accompanied by heat, then the desire is of cold drink; or, if accompanied 
by cold, then of warm drink; or, if the thirst be excessive,
then the drink which is desired will be excessive; or, if not great, the 
quantity of drink will also be small: but thirst pure and simple will 
desire drink pure and simple, which is the natural satisfaction of
thirst, as food is of hunger? 

   Yes, he said; the simple desire is, as you say, in every case of the 
simple object, and the qualified desire of the qualified object. 

   Nevertheless I should still maintain, that of relatives some have a 
quality attached to either term of the relation; others are simple and 
have their correlatives simple. 

   I do not know what you mean. 

   Well, you know of course that the greater is relative to the less? 

   Certainly. 

   And the much greater to the much less? 

   Yes. 

   And the sometime greater to the sometime less, and the greater that is 
to be to the less that is to be? 

   Certainly, he said. 

   And so of more or less, and of other correlative terms, such as the 
double and the half, or, again, the heavier and the lighter, the swifter 
and the slower; and of hot and cold, and of any other relatives; is not 
this true of all of them? 

   Yes. 

   And does not the same principle hold in the sciences? The object of 
science is knowledge (assuming that to be the true definition), but the 
object of a particular science is a particular kind of knowledge; I mean, 
for example, that the science of house-building is a kind of knowledge which 
is defined and distinguished from other kinds and is therefore termed 
architecture. 

   Certainly. 

   Because it has a particular quality which no other has? 

   Yes. 

   And it has this particular quality because it has an object of a 
particular kind; and this is true of the other arts and sciences? 

   Yes. 

   Now, then, if I have made myself clear, you will understand my original 
meaning in what I said about relatives. My meaning was, that if one term 
of a relation is taken alone, the other is taken alone; if one term is 
qualified, the other is also qualified. I do not mean to say that relatives 
may not be disparate, or that the science of health is healthy, or of 
disease necessarily diseased, or that the sciences of good and evil are 
therefore good and evil; but only that, when the term "science" is no
longer used absolutely, but has a qualified object which in this case is 
the nature of health and disease, it becomes defined, and is hence called 
not merely science, but the science of medicine. 

   I quite understand, and, I think, as you do. 

   Would you not say that thirst is one of these essentially relative
 terms, having clearly a relation -- 

   Yes, thirst is relative to drink. 

   And a certain kind of thirst is relative to a certain kind of drink; 
but thirst taken alone is neither of much nor little, nor of good nor bad, 
nor of any particular kind of drink, but of drink only? 

   Certainly. 

   Then the soul of the thirsty one, in so far as he is thirsty, desires 
only drink; for this he yearns and tries to obtain it? 

   That is plain. 

   And if you suppose something which pulls a thirsty soul away from drink, 
that must be different from the thirsty principle which draws him like a 
beast to drink; for, as we were saying, the same thing cannot at the same 
time with the same part of itself act in contrary ways about the same. 

   Impossible. 

   No more than you can say that the hands of the archer 

Page 129

push and pull the bow at the same time, but what you say is that one hand 
pushes and the other pulls. 

   Exactly so, he replied. 

   And might a man be thirsty, and yet unwilling to drink? 

   Yes, he said, it constantly happens. 

   And in such a case what is one to say? Would you not say that there was 
something in the soul bidding a man to drink, and something else 
forbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle which bids 
him? 

   I should say so. 

   And the forbidding principle is derived from reason, and that which 
bids and attracts proceeds from passion and disease? 

   Clearly. 

   Then we may fairly assume that they are two, and that they differ from 
one another; the one with which a man reasons, we may call the rational 
principle of the soul; the other, with which he loves,
and hungers, and thirsts, and feels the flutterings of any other desire, 
may be termed the irrational or appetitive, the ally of sundry pleasures 
and satisfactions? 

   Yes, he said, we may fairly assume them to be different. 

   Then let us finally determine that there are two principles existing in 
the soul. And what of passion, or spirit? Is it a third, or akin to one of 
the preceding? 

   I should be inclined to say -- akin to desire. 

   Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard, and in 
which I put faith. The story is, that Leontius, the son of Aglaion, 
coming  up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside, 
observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution. 
He felt a desire to see them, and also a dread and abhorrence of them; 
for a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length the desire 
got the better of him; and forcing them open, he ran up to the dead
bodies, saying, Look, ye wretches, take your fill of the fair sight. 

   I have heard the story myself, he said. 

   The moral of the tale is, that anger at times goes to war with desire, 
as though they were two distinct things. 

   Yes; that is the meaning, he said. 

   And are there not many other cases in which we observe 

Page 130

that when a man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles 
himself, and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this 
struggle, which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit
is on the side of his reason; but for the passionate or spirited element 
to take part with the desires when reason decides that she should not be 
opposed, is a sort of thing which I believe that you never observed 
occurring in yourself, nor, as I should imagine, in anyone else? 

   Certainly not. 

   Suppose that a man thinks he has done a wrong to another, the nobler 
he is, the less able is he to feel indignant at any suffering, such as 
hunger, or cold, or any other pain which the injured person
may inflict upon him -- these he deems to be just, and, as I say, his 
anger refuses to be excited by them. 

   True, he said. 

   But when he thinks that he is the sufferer of the wrong, then he boils 
and chafes, and is on the side of what he believes to be justice; and 
because he suffers hunger or cold or other pain he is only
the more determined to persevere and conquer. His noble spirit will not 
be quelled until he either slays or is slain; or until he hears the voice 
of the shepherd, that is, reason, bidding his dog bark no more. 

   The illustration is perfect, he replied; and in our State, as we were 
saying, the auxiliaries were to be dogs, and to hear the voice of the 
rulers, who are their shepherds. 

   I perceive, I said, that you quite understand me; there is, however, 
a further point which I wish you to consider. 

   What point?   You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first 
sight to be a kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary; 
for in the conflict of the soul spirit is arrayed on the side of the
rational principle. 

   Most assuredly. 

   But a further question arises: Is passion different from reason also, 
or only a kind of reason; in which latter case, instead of three 
principles in the soul, there will only be two, the rational and the
concupiscent; or rather, as the State was composed of three classes, 
traders, auxiliaries, counsellors, so may there not be in the individual 
soul a third element which 

Page 131

is passion or spirit, and when not corrupted by bad education is the 
natural auxiliary of reason? 

   Yes, he said, there must be a third. 

   Yes, I replied, if passion, which has already been shown to be 
different from desire, turn out also to be different from reason. 

   But that is easily proved: We may observe even in young children that 
they are full of spirit almost as soon as they are born, whereas some of 
them never seem to attain to the use of reason, and most of them late 
enough. 

   Excellent, I said, and you may see passion equally in brute animals, 
which is a further proof of the truth of what you are saying. And we may 
once more appeal to the words of Homer, which have been already quoted 
by us, "He smote his breast, and thus rebuked his soul;" for in this 
verse Homer has clearly supposed the power which reasons about the better 
and worse to be different from the unreasoning anger which is rebuked by 
it. 

   Very true, he said. 

   And so, after much tossing, we have reached land, and are fairly 
agreed that the same principles which exist in the State exist also in 
the individual, and that they are three in number. 

   Exactly. 

   Must we not then infer that the individual is wise in the same way, 
and in virtue of the same quality which makes the State wise? 

   Certainly. 

   Also that the same quality which constitutes courage in the State 
constitutes courage in the individual, and that both the State and the 
individual bear the same relation to all the other virtues? 

   Assuredly.  

   And the individual will be acknowledged by us to be just in the same 
way in which the State is just? 

   That follows of course. 

   We cannot but remember that the justice of the State consisted in each 
of the three classes doing the work of its own class? 

   We are not very likely to have forgotten, he said. 

Page 132

   We must recollect that the individual in whom the several qualities of 
his nature do their own work will be just, and will do his own work? 

   Yes, he said, we must remember that too. 

   And ought not the rational principle, which is wise, and has the care 
of the whole soul, to rule, and the passionate or spirited principle to 
be the subject and ally? 

   Certainly. 

   And, as we were saying, the united influence of music and gymnastics 
will bring them into accord, nerving and sustaining the reason with noble 
words and lessons, and moderating and soothing and civilizing the 
wildness of passion by harmony and rhythm? 

   Quite true, he said. 

   And these two, thus nurtured and educated, and having learned truly to 
know their own functions, will rule over the concupiscent, which in each 
of us is the largest part of the soul and by nature most insatiable of 
gain; over this they will keep guard, lest, waxing great and strong with 
the fulness of bodily pleasures, as they are termed, the concupiscent 
soul, no longer confined to her own sphere, should attempt to enslave and 
rule those who are not her natural-born subjects, and overturn the
whole life of man? 

   Very true, he said. 
  Assuredly. 

   And the individual will be acknowledged by us to be just in the same way
in which the State is just? 

   That follows of course. 

   We cannot but remember that the justice of the State consisted in each 
of the three classes doing the work of its own class? 

   We are not very likely to have forgotten, he said. 

Page 132

   We must recollect that the individual in whom the several qualities of
his nature do their own work will be just, and will do his own work? 

   Yes, he said, we must remember that too. 

   And ought not the rational principle, which is wise, and has the care of
the whole soul, to rule, and the passionate or spirited principle to be the
 subject and ally? 

   Certainly. 

   And, as we were saying, the united influence of music and gymnastics 
will bring them into accord, nerving and sustaining the reason with noble
words and lessons, and moderating and soothing and civilizing the wildness
of passion by harmony and rhythm? 

   Quite true, he said. 

   And these two, thus nurtured and educated, and having learned truly to 
know their own functions, will rule over the concupiscent, which in each of
 us is the largest part of the soul and by nature most insatiable of gain; 
over this they will keep guard, lest, waxing great and strong with the 
fulness of bodily pleasures, as they are termed, the concupiscent soul, no 
longer confined to her own sphere, should attempt to enslave and rule those 
who are not her natural-born subjects, and overturn the whole life of man? 

   Very true, he said. 

   Both together will they not be the best defenders of the whole soul and 
the whole body against attacks from without; the one counselling, and the 
other fighting under his leader, and courageously executing his commands 
and counsels? 

   True. 

   And he is to be deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure and 
in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or ought not to fear? 

   Right, he replied. 

   And him we call wise who has in him that little part which rules, and 
which proclaims these commands; that part too being supposed to have a 
knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the three parts and of 
the whole? 

Page 133

   Assuredly. 

   And would you not say that he is temperate who has these same elements 
in friendly harmony, in whom the one ruling principle of reason, and the 
two subject ones of spirit and desire, are equally agreed that reason ought 
to rule, and do not rebel? 

   Certainly, he said, that is the true account of temperance whether in
 the State or individual. 

   And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtue 
of what quality a man will be just. 

   That is very certain. 

   And is justice dimmer in the individual, and is her form different, or
 is she the same which we found her to be in the State? 

   There is no difference, in my opinion, he said. 

   Because, if any doubt is still lingering in our minds, a few 
commonplace instances will satisfy us of the truth of what I am saying. 

   What sort of instances do you mean? 

   If the case is put to us, must we not admit that the just State, or 
the man who is trained in the principles of such a State, will be less 
likely than the unjust to make away with a deposit of gold or
silver? Would anyone deny this? 

   No one, he replied. 

   Will the just man or citizen ever be guilty of sacrilege or theft, 
or treachery either to his friends or to his country? 

   Never. 

   Neither will he ever break faith where there have been oaths or 
agreements. 

   Impossible. 

   No one will be less likely to commit adultery, or to dishonor his 
father and mother, or to fail in his religious duties? 

   No one. 

   And the reason is that each part of him is doing its own business, 
whether in ruling or being ruled?

   Exactly so. 

   Are you satisfied, then, that the quality which makes such men and 
such States is justice, or do you hope to discover some other? 

   Not I, indeed. 

Page 134

   Then our dream has been realized; and the suspicion which we 
entertained at the beginning of our work of construction, that some 
divine power must have conducted us to a primary form of justice,
has now been verified? 

   Yes, certainly. 

   And the division of labor which required the carpenter and the 
shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to be doing each his own business, 
and not another's, was a shadow of justice, and for that
reason it was of use? 

   Clearly. 

   But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being 
concerned, however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which 
is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man
does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one 
another, or any of them to dothe work of others -- he sets in order his 
own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and
at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three 
principles within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, and 
middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals --
when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has 
become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he 
proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in 
the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private 
business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates 
with this harmonious condition  just and good action, and the knowledge 
which presides over it wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this 
condition he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over 
it ignorance. 

   You have said the exact truth, Socrates. 

   Very good; and if we were to affirm that we had discovered the just 
man and the just State, and the nature of justice in each of them, we 
should not be telling a falsehood? 


   Both together will they not be the best defenders of the whole soul 
and the whole body against attacks from without; the one counselling, and
the other fighting under his leader, and courageously
executing his commands and counsels? 

   True. 

   And he is to be deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure and 
in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or ought not to fear? 

   Right, he replied. 

   And him we call wise who has in him that little part which rules, and 
which proclaims thesecommands; that part too being supposed to have a
knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the three parts and of 
the whole? 

Page 133

   Assuredly. 

   And would you not say that he is temperate who has these same elements 
in friendly harmony, in whom the one ruling principle of reason, and the 
two subject ones of spirit and desire, are equally agreed that reason 
ought to rule, and do not rebel? 

   Certainly, he said, that is the true account of temperance whether in 
the State or individual. 

   And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtue 
of what quality a man will be just. 

   That is very certain. 

   And is justice dimmer in the individual, and is her form different, or 
is she the same which we found her to be in the State? 

   There is no difference, in my opinion, he said. 

   Because, if any doubt is still lingering in our minds, a few commonplace 
instances will satisfy us of the truth of what I am saying. 

   What sort of instances do you mean? 

   If the case is put to us, must we not admit that the just State, or the 
man who is trained in the principles of such a State, will be less likely 
than the unjust to make away with a deposit of gold or silver? Would anyone 
deny this? 

   No one, he replied. 

   Will the just man or citizen ever be guilty of sacrilege or theft, or 
treachery either to his friends or to his country? 

   Never. 

   Neither will he ever break faith where there have been oaths or 
agreements. 

   Impossible. 

   No one will be less likely to commit adultery, or to dishonor his father 
and mother, or to fail in his religious duties? 

   No one. 

   And the reason is that each part of him is doing its own business, 
whether in ruling or being ruled?

   Exactly so. 

   Are you satisfied, then, that the quality which makes such men and such 
States is justice, or do you hope to discover some other? 

   Not I, indeed. 

Page 134

   Then our dream has been realized; and the suspicion which we entertained 
at the beginning of our work of construction, that some divine power must 
have conducted us to a primary form of justice, has now been verified? 

   Yes, certainly. 

   And the division of labor which required the carpenter and the 
shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to be doing each his own business, 
and not another's, was a shadow of justice, and for that reason it was of 
use? 

   Clearly. 

   But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned, 
however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true 
self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several 
elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do
the work of others -- he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own 
master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound 
together the three principles within him, which may be compared to the 
higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate 
intervals --when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, 
but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then 
he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or 
in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private 
business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates 
with this harmonious condition just and good action, and the knowledge 
which presides over it wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this 
condition he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over 
it ignorance. 

   You have said the exact truth, Socrates. 

   Very good; and if we were to affirm that we had discovered the just man 
and the just State, and the nature of justice in each of them, we should 
not be telling a falsehood?