Socrates is also a bit of a liar because he kept saying that the definition of justice is and gives an example that isn't even about justice, it's just a verbal image which confuses you even more than you already are after reading the 90 pages to get there. There is no definition and Socrates knows this as he speaks, but he has to “teach” them the different points of view and Rowett agrees with why he is trying to do this task, but that will never happen. “This is Socrates Plato? Or is he a Socrates obsessed with an impossible quest, one who will never be able to answer the question of what justice is in the way he had hoped to answer, because (as the author Plato well knows) the question is not well -formed, and you can't find a satisfactory answer?" (Rowette) This is why he's wrong about justice, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just saying things to sound smart. Socrates bounces around the whole book before about justice, then moves on to the ideal individual, then to the state, and then back to the individual for whom he couldn't make the argument for a long time.