Socrates is also a bit of a liar because he kept saying that the definition of justice is and gives an example that doesn't even concern justice is just a word picture it makes you even more confused than you already are after reading the 90 pages to get there. There is no definition and Socrates knows that as he speaks, but he has to "teach" them the different points of view and Rowett agrees with why he is even trying to accomplish this task, this will never happen. “Is this Socrates Plato? Or is he a Socrates obsessed with an impossible quest, who will never be able to answer the question of what justice is in the way he had hoped to answer it, because (as the author well knows) the question is not well placed. -formed, and no satisfactory answer can be found? (Rowette) That's why he's wrong about justice, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he just says things to make himself sound smart. Socrates bounces throughout the book first on justice, then he moves on to the ideal individual, then to the state, and finally to the individual for whom he could not sustain the argument.