Cephalus is a wealthy old man who has experienced different moments and situations in his entire life. Besides, he is a well-respected elder in his home city and this shows that he possesses some wisdom among other older men in the city. However, when he is involved in a discussion involving Socrates,Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Polemarchus about justice, he decides to quit the discussion after Socrates rejects his definition of justice. I think Cephalus should not continue with the discussion since he knows what justice meant to him based on the experiences he had encountered in life. Besides, the discussion involved people who are still young and so Cephalus could not fit into the argument. He was old and wealthy and that explains his stand of being just. As such, Cephalus should just leave the discussion and let his son replace him.

First of all, Cephalus had already defined justice as the tendency of speaking the truth and paying debts (Bloom 29). Cephalus’ definition seems shallow but it has some knowledge, especially when it is understood that he is an old man who has lived successfully and accumulated wealth. A vivid analysis of his definition shows that he might have lived a life fool of honest and paying back to those he had borrowed from. As such he viewed dishonesty, including not paying debts as a form of injustice in the society. Also, Cephalus might have encountered people who never paid debts and that made him think that they were unjust to him. Although Socrates disagrees that being honesty and paying debts is not a measure of justice, Cephalus might be right on his own depending on what he has discovered in his life. Therefore, there is no need of him continuing with a discussion that could not build on his wisdom again.

Secondly, there is no need of Cephalus remaining in the discussion when his son, Polemarchus, is also there. Since they live together and share most of ideas as father and son, they will also tend to argue on the same path. As such, Polemarchus can be on his own in the argument because he will argue like his own father. Since he had already given his definition of justice, the presence of his son was enough to keep the discussion going. Besides, his definition of justice had already been disqualified by Socrates and so his presence together with his son could not bring anything new. In my opinion, Cephalus had made a good decision to quit the argument to avoid crossing with his son or any of the young men in the argument. Thus, he should not remain in the argument so that his son can play his role.

Furthermore, the argument about justice was aimed at finding the truth about it. Socrates wanted the discussion to continue so that he can hear people’s views and analyze them. Being a great philosopher, he had enough knowledge to challenge anyone. On the other hand, Cephalus was an old man who had learned the truth through experience and not research or hearing other people’s opinions. Therefore, he was sure of the truth behind his definition of justice and arguing further could not change his stand. Also, Cephalus knew very well that arguing with a great philosopher like Socrates was a waste of knowledge because it was unlikely that he will defend his definition which had already been countered by only one thought from him. Instead of wasting time, he decided to embark on his business of seeing the sacrifices. Such a move showed that he was already satisfied with the argument and he cannot continue with it again.

More so, Cephalus was an old man who had other responsibilities other than arguing about justice. As shown before, he seemed to know the truth about his definition of justice. In this regard, he could not stay to argue about something he cannot change his mind about and so he opted to go and perform his normal duty of seeing the sacrifices. Being old and wealth, Cephalus had learned to be occupied in profitable and meaningful activities other than sitting and talking with philosophers. Philosophers can turn good things into bad by just raising their opinions about them. Thus, Cephalus wanted to avoid being trapped in the same argument which had no direction at all. Being a father to Cephalus he had to lead as an example by not agreeing to engage in baseless argument which cannot bring wealth or any good reputation. Following this I recommend that Cephalus should not return to the discussion again.

Again, Cephalus was not interested in the argument about justice and this made him to leave immediately after defining it based on his understanding. Such an old man who was respected in the whole city must have thought wisely before coming up with his definition of justice. Thus, he could not allow himself to argue with his wisdom. Also, philosophy means thinking widely to the point of discovering something of one’s own and this makes it be classified as a science. If this is the case, how can we be sure that Socrates was right and Cephalus was wrong on the other side? According to Socrates, you cannot borrow a weapon from a man and return to him when he is mad in an attempt to be just. Even though Socrates may be right, his argument was being based on assumptions and note realities. What is the probability of borrowing a weapon from a normal person and returning it back when he is mad? In this case, Socrates was just being imaginative and not being realistic. Thus, Cephalus, who was more of realistic with his opinions could not engage in such a discussion.

Based on the argument above, it would be better for Cephalus not to return to the discussion again. Firstly, his definition of justice had already been countered by Socrates and his present could not change anything. Besides, his son Polemarchus was in the discussion and he could represent him appropriately since he understood him very well. Being a wealthy and respected elder, Cephalus must have had adequate knowledge and wisdom that guided him in making choices. As such, he chose to attend to his duties rather than engaging in an argument involving a philosopher and his son (Bloom 29). Therefore, Cephalus was a calculative man who could not engage in an argument which he already knew the truth about it. He had already reflected about justice and came up with his stand. Therefore, engaging in the argument was meaningless to him. In short, Cephalus could not return to the discussion since he had his own measure of justice.

Work Cited

Bloom, Allan, and Adam Kirsch. The republic of Plato. Basic Books, 2016.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?