Please help me correct my essay~! This essay is reading notes of an rudimentary book of philosophy----"the republic"; the essay's content related to philosophy is very easy and understandable, and I really hope my essay can be corrected by native speakers to make it seem more natural. I started reading "the Republic" yesterday. Until today I have read the chapter of Socrates refuting a view of justice that "justice is to harm one's enemy and help his friend".This definition seems reasonable and fair at the first glance, but what Socrates wanted was not an ambiguous answer but a clear and universal one.Therefore, Socrates wanted to make this definition more clear and started to question it. He said that if a man made mistakes about judging who was his friend and who was his enemy, in such circumstance he could harm his friends and helps his enemy. I think his questioning is quite right, because one usually wants an honest and just man to be his friend but "seeming to be an honest man" is not identical with "being an honest man". As a result, one may become friends with someone evil and dishonest and be hostile to someone honest, and the honest one may be harmed by him. If so, it followed that "justice is to injure one's friend, who in his eyes are bad, and help his enemy, who in his eyes are good", which is contradictory to the definition mentioned above. After this definition is refuted, Polemarchus, Socrates's interlocutor, corrected it into a more precise one, which is "justice is to do good to one's friend if he is good, and to harm one's enemy if he is evil". Socrates refuted it too. His thesis was "a just man cannot do harm to anyone". According to Socrates, when a person was harmed, he became worse by the standard of "human excellence". However, the quality of justice is excellent, and a just man cannot use his just to make his enemy worse, just like a good man cannot use his goodness to make another one not good. Therefore, a just man cannot harm his enemy.