The Republic by Plato [Book 1 & Book 2]

Just completed reading first two books of The Republic by Plato and willing to go through them once again in order to understand them more. The book talks about the nature and origin of justice.

The first book says that repayment of debt is justice which I still do not understand fully. Maybe this is because I am new to Socratic style of conversation. But still, if we look up the dictionary meaning of justice, then oxford says it is fair treatment which I totally agree with. Now, debt has several meanings but the most basic meaning is that you owe something to somebody. Now, if I pay the debt, it is justice and if I don't then its injustice which I accept but what if I chose not to pay and the payee chops off my head by saying that this is the justice that I need, would that be justice? Well, according to Socrates, it is justice because good with friends and bad with enemies is the basis of his arguments. The question in my mind is what is the extent or the degree of badness that can be done in order to justify the punishment given to enemy for injustice done? Also, they talk about the need of just person in money management only which again is unclear to me. If the warrior is not just then he will kill his fellow men too in order to gain the whole credit if the troop is winner so the need justice has to be there.Now, in between of the argument, Thrasymachus interjects and takes the debate to a new level where they are talking about the goodness of evil and badness of justice.

The second book talks about the state and the education which is clear to me. The formation of state and the need of education is explained precisely but the need of extremely censored education is not that I agree with. The poems may or may not contain fictitious characters but the message is what, I think, is important. The symbolism has its own value and the changing of shapes by God is also symbolic in nature. If God is perfect, then the values that it/he/she take must be perfect? I don't think so. God may take another form that is deceitful but can come back to the original for whenever it/he/she wants (The arguments about God's shape changing doesn't mean that I do/don't believe in God.).

Will keep updating the post as I move on reading the book further.