Plato’s Republic
Plato (ca. 427-347) (all dates ca. and BC or B.C.E) was born into a noble and
wealthy Athenian family some time during the first few years of the Peloponnesian
War (431-404). ‘Plato’ may have been nickname. The word means broad, and like many
things of the period no one now is exactly sure what it is supposed to indicate in Plato’s
case – size, depth of learning, big forehead, etc. Possibly his real name was Aristocles.
Plato’s so called Seventh Letter offers some biographical data that is plausible. Although
the authenticity of the Seventh Letter was not doubted in antiquity, the case for Platonic
authorship has found some detractors of late. (Everything about Plato is contested –
sometimes in the extreme. This dispute is not particularly vicious by current academic
standards, but I understand that if you wish to enter the fray, hockey masks and
chainsaws are de rigueur.) According to this letter, reputed to have been written ca. 353,
Plato as a young man initially wanted to enter Athenian politics. This aspiration would
have been typical of a wealthy aristocrat then as a mark of noblesse oblige, and expected
of Plato as a member of a politically active clan, but the divisive and corrupt aspects of
Athenian politics dissuaded him. Plato turned to poetry, hoping to be counted among
such worthies as Aeschylus and Sophocles. Although a fine writer, one day he happened
to show his poetry to Socrates, a family friend, who apparently severely criticized his
work. The critique so impressed Plato that he burned his books of poetry and opted for
philosophy, becoming an ardent follower of Socrates. How long he was a student of
Socrates is hard to determine, but the age of ‘young man deciding on a career’ would be
around 20 dating the initial encounter to around 407. Socrates died in 399, so we can
figure Plato studied with Socrates 5 to 10 years. After Socrates’ death Plato apparently
embarked on a European tour lasting about ten years – again standard procedure for a
wealthy aristocrat of the day. Upon returning sometime after 390 Plato opened a school
or association dedicated to Socratic Studies that became The Academy. A commonly
accepted date for the Academy’s founding is 387. Although the Academy is justly
credited with being the prototype of the modern University – it had a ‘headmaster’, a
curriculum, lectures, and students – it might more properly be considered a ‘think tank’:
an association of scholars dedicated to philosophy, determined to solve the great
problems.
Plato’s Republic was composed sometime around 380-375 while Plato was
working at the Academy. There may have been an earlier dialogue titled Thrasymachus
which became Book 1 of the larger work. Republic is likely part of a transitional period
for Plato containing both an example of the earlier Socratic Dialogues that feature a
representation of Socrates’ ideas and method, and also writing that exemplifies Plato’s
own philosophy. While not all scholars think the Republic is Plato’s best work – even he
revised it – it does represent an extremely influential statement of what came to be known
as Platonism.
The setting and characters of the book are significant, and there is a good chance
that in some form the conversation actually took place. Depending on which scholarly
camp you side with, the date might have been either 420 or 411 during the Peloponnesian
War, either during the Peace of Nicias or after the Sicilian Expedition, but prior to the fall
of Athens. The Piraeus was a center of pro-democracy politics, and Cephalus, in whose
house the conversation took place, was a victim of The Thirty Tyrants – the pro-Spartan
oligarchy that ruled Athens after the Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian war.
Apparently part of the mission of The Thirty was to stamp out democracy in Athens.
During the purge Cephalus was killed and his property was confiscated. His son
Polemarchus apparently became a philosopher and was also a victim ultimately suffering
the same fate as Socrates. Present as well were Glaucon and Adeimantus, Plato’s
brothers, along with Thrasymachus, a noted Sophist. Assuming the conversation actually
took place, Plato would have been too young to be present, but he could have had reliable
reports from his brothers, perhaps from Socrates. Possibly the exchange became a famous
part of the legend of Socrates, known to many. We must remember that the Greeks of this
time, suffering the absence of You Tube, specialized in oral history. Overall Plato’s
audience would have been very familiar with the dramatis personae and equally aware of
the reason for each character’s inclusion.
The conversation begins genially enough at Cephalus’ house in the Piraeus during
a religious festival. Cephalus is shown as being religious without reservation, as is
everyone else to a degree that that we would consider normal. Everyone is enjoying a
‘holiday’ and some are more religious about it than others. Socrates is clearly NOT
irreligious; as I’m sure Plato wants his audience to note. After some pleasantries Socrates
asks Cephalus some questions about his station in life – being older and being rich.
Cephalus seems to expect and welcome the conversation with Socrates on such matters.
Cephalus is shown to be a traditional Greek individual who honors the poets as a guide to
life and practices moderation in all things. When Socrates inquires about the benefit of
being wealthy Cephalus states that his money allows him to be moral (dikaiosune – to do
the right thing – generally inadequately translated as ‘justice’) – he can provide all the
required sacrifices and pay his debts. Socrates provides a counterexample to show that
this description does not adequately define being moral. If you borrowed a weapon from
someone and that person demanded its return but had clearly gone insane you would not
return it. Thus you would not pay your debts but would still be doing the right thing.
Cephalus admits the difficulty but does not further explain, leaves the conversation, and
bequeaths the argument to his son Polemarchus.
It is interesting that Socrates lets Cephalus off the hook. Normally he would have
quizzed such an individual at great lengths. We might draw a number of conclusions
from this state of affairs. Perhaps Cephalus is old, set in his ways, had a good life, and
Socrates believes he would not be improved by further examination. Perhaps Plato wants
to say that allowing his exit was a mistake and maybe a primary mistake even the wise
can make when it comes to moral philosophy. It is difficult to know what is right because
we don’t know the future. It turns out that Cephalus’ life was not so set after all.
Socrates continues the discussion by eliciting a definition of ‘Justice’ (as we noted
previously the Greek word ‘dike’ or ‘dikaiosune’ means doing the right thing or being
moral) from Polemarchus who replies that ‘Justice’ means helping your friends and
harming your enemies. In addition to many other difficulties, Socrates shows that this
idea is inconsistent with an essential corollary to the definition of ‘Justice’ that
Polemarchus originally accepts: that justice is a type of skill or craft similar to navigating,
shipbuilding, medicine etc. Any craft or skill aims at the good of its object. The doctor
heals his or her patient, the navigator gets the passengers to their destination safely, the
shipbuilder intends his ship to weather storms and stay afloat – and so on. So too, those
who possess the skill or craft of justice then must seek the good or improvement of their
object. Hence they would seek a person’s benefit and not a person’s harm.
Therefore ‘harm’ is inconsistent with the idea of justice and Polemarchus’
definition is shown to fail – Socrates is able to derive a contradiction from Polemarchus’
definition, and so Polemarchus shown to be guilty of a logical inconsistency. It’s as if he
defined a square as a rectangle with four right angles but then tried to add the statement
‘with curved sides’. The second part of the definition does not agree with the first. Hence
we must refine the definition. Here we must note though that for Plato we are dealing
with a weightier life issue than math. Being confused about what doing the right thing
consists in is bound to lead to bad choices and then ultimately a bad life. We should also
note that Socrates has not yet produced a definition of justice, but that his intent here is to
set Polemarchus on the road to recovery
Thrasymachus, the representative Sophist, enters the fray criticizing Socrates’
procedure, faulting him for not providing a positive definition of justice. Many of Plato’s
early works are critiques of particular Sophists of the time. The Sophists did not represent
a formal school or association, but they shared a common profession: teaching rhetoric or
success in argument. By the time that Plato was writing the Republic ‘Sophist’ had a very
negative connotation. There was of course nothing wrong with learning to argue
effectively – arguing well was an essential skill in Democratic Athens and the Sophist did
indeed promote their skill as political wisdom. The problem was that the Sophists taught
how to win an argument by any means possible – even if that meant bending the truth or
using various tricks of rhetoric to sway your audience. Whether your conclusion was
right, wrong, moral or unjust didn’t matter; winning did matter. Ultimately Athens came
to believe that this flagrant disregard for truth, morality, and the virtues of their ancestors
contributed to the disaster of the loss of the Peloponnesian War. Essentially part of the
accusation against Socrates that lead to his death was that he was a practicing Sophist.
Plato is very anxious to portray Socrates as the anti-Sophist. His also very anxious to
show that the Socratic approach can produce a winning argument that instead of
compromising morality actually endows the adept practitioner with a superior moral
outlook.
Thrasymachus initially argues for typical Sophistic moral relativism: that justice
is defined by the interests of the stronger – essentially might makes right. After getting
Thrasymachus to agree that the stronger rule must possess the skill of ruling, Socrates
counters the initial Thrasymachus’ definition by showing that since any skill benefits the
weaker ruling must benefit the weaker not the stronger. Just as the doctor helps the
patient not the doctor, the skilled ruler must benefit the weaker – the person being ruled.
Thrasymachus then makes a radical change in the argument, essentially arguing
that the just person is stupid and bad, while the unjust person is wise good, and admirable
because the unjust person gets all the goodies he can by any means possible. The just or
good person is a loser because he or she always plays by the rules and is easily taken
advantage of by the unjust person. Thus being moral is the vice or wrong and being
immoral is the virtue or excellence – being bad is the right thing to do.
Socrates counters by showing that the just person does not argue or compete with
his like, but only with his unlike. A doctor who has medical knowledge and is therefore
wise and good doesn’t argue about the object of his or her skill (finding cures) with other
doctors, but he or she argues with or tries to outdo only the layperson – the person who
has no medical skill. The layperson is unskilled at medicine and is apt to be at odds with
everyone regarding medical practice. The layperson does not have knowledge and
therefore cannot be wise or good where medicine is concerned. Now the just person is all
about cooperation, sharing, and agreement. The just or moral person sees the right thing
to do and readily agrees to it. The person the moral or just person disagrees with is the
person who is ignorant or in the wrong. Thus the just person, who agrees with his like but
disagrees with his unlike, is like the person with skill and is therefore like the wise and
the good. The unjust person on the other hand is simply trying to win at all costs and is
therefore arguing with everybody- good, bad, or indifferent. So the unjust is like the
unskilled – ignorant and bad. The just, like the wise, who want to cooperate with the truth
will achieve their goals in life, while the unjust who are uncooperative will not.
In addition to showing that the just person will accomplish his or her goals in life,
Socrates wants to prove the moral person is better off simply by being moral regardless
of the results. To do so Socrates resorts to what we call the function analogy. Everything
has a function – something it does specifically to achieve the goal to which it is best
suited – as a knife for example is suited to cutting. If a thing is well maintained and in
good condition – is excellent (literally: virtuous) it is better able to achieve its goal or
fulfill its function. So a knife that is sharp with a strong blade will accomplish its purpose
well.
Socrates argues that humans also have a function. We have a definite goal and a
specific activity unique to humans that enables us to achieve this goal. It is the mind that
makes us uniquely human, since it is by reasoning that we create our unique activities –
language, art, science and so on. Our unique goal is having a good life – achieving what
the Greeks called eudemonia or well-being. It is the mind which is responsible for
making decisions that leads us to a good life. By making the best choices when the time
comes we will have the best life. Socrates argues that the mind in good condition will be
capable of making the best choices.as a function too – basically making choices. If the
mind is in good condition – is virtuous – it will be (like the just) skilled, wise and good at
making those choices in life that will lead to happiness. Thus the just person is happier
and has a better life.
Although Thrasymachus gives up at this point, we must note that Socrates merely
identifies justice as a craft (skill or excellence) and says it is LIKE wisdom and goodness,
but he does not outline its characteristics – he gives no picture or definition of the just
person or what it is to be just or why justice should be sought for its own sake. Socrates
simply argues for the excellence of justice using analogy – the moral person is like the
wise and skilled. Glaucon and Adeimantus echo Thrasymachus’ concerns. They argue
that people are only just if forced to be. If people could choose they would rather appear
just and be unjust. They request an inquiry into the nature or form of justice. They wish
to know what justice is ‘in itself’ and why it has value apart from rewards it supposedly
brings.
In order to understand the ideas behind political science and justice in particular,
Socrates starts with an examination of the state. Because the formula or form of justice
would be the same for the individual as for the state he claims that to understand the true
nature of justice it would be easier to see it at work in a large object such as a state.
Initially, Socrates describes a primitive agrarian community. This society is ideal
according to Socrates because each member has no more than he or she actually needs.
This produces an internal harmony among the citizens (everyone is content) and since the
society has nothing anyone else wants there will be peace with neighboring communities.
There will be no social ills – war, crime, poverty, etc. Hence the simple agrarian
community is the just or moral state.
Socrates’ listeners see this society as far from ideal because of the absence of
those luxuries that make life worth living. However, the addition of those luxuries invites
social problems such as greed, crime, and of course the inevitable war. This fact
requires a political system and especially a standing army. Socrates argues that since
military science is a skill and if someone practices a skill exclusively he will achieve
excellence in that skill. If we then want the best possible army, then the best possible
state will include a group exclusively dedicated to military arts. This group is the
Guardian class. However, having a group of professional soldiers within a society could
be dangerous. They might be tempted to prey on or take advantage of the weaker
members of the community. Therefore the society must be careful to ensure that the
character of the guardians is as noble as possible. This feat is accomplished through
education, training, and eugenics.
Only the best members of the society are selected for the Guardians. They must
of course be physically fit to the degree necessary for superior military service. They
must have the intelligence required to understand and absorb instruction in the highest
virtues: courage, wisdom, self discipline, and justice – all of which are necessary to
military service and the Guardians’ unique position in the community as professional
warriors. They must be dedicated to these virtues and to providing for the common good
– i.e. they must be completely selfless and altruistic. Any member of the Guardian class
that cannot fully achieve these goals will become an Auxiliary - these people carry out
the decrees of the Guardians within the society – fulfilling the functions of police,
magistrates and so forth. Apparently, it would be possible to washout of the guardian
class completely and wind up in the lowest class – that of the artisans and merchants (the
ordinary person).
Every detail of the education, training, and lifestyle of the Guardians is strictly
controlled in order to produce people of superior virtue. Anything that may detract from
this goal is banished from the society. Therefore the arts are either censored or eliminated
altogether. Art too easily stirs negative passions such as fear or jealousy. The artist can
too easily distort, deceive, and confuse, so the great artist – the master deceiver – will be
politely escorted out of town. In general since the form or Idea of something equals the
truth of that class of objects, then the material object is only a representation of the truth –
a degraded copy not exactly equal to the reality. The reality, the form, is unchanging and
perfect. The material object is mutable and therefore less than perfect. So an artwork that
is a representation of an object is another step further away from the truth. Thus Art for
Plato multiplies and increases falsehood. Many people would argue that with all this
censorship Plato is coming very close to a Fascist or Totalitarian ideology.
The lifestyle of the Guardians is structured so as to produce the singleness of
mind that is necessary for the attainment of individual virtue which will ultimately be
dedicated to the common good of the community. The Guardians live together as a
family and have no private property. Abolishing private property removes the
distractions that follow from its maintenance and acquisition. In addition the negative
passions of greed, jealousy, covetousness and so on that can accompany private
ownership will not appear. There is no need for cheating or stealing. There is nothing to
steal nor anything to gain by cheating. Wives and children are also to be held in
common. Again, this is supposed to circumvent the passions and distractions of family
life. The result is the total focus on the ‘Cardinal Virtues’ of Wisdom, Courage, SelfDiscipline and Justice, resulting the sole object of the Guardians providing for the good
of the community. In order to produce the best children, procreation will be strictly
controlled as well. In sum, if each class – Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Artisans, - does its
job well and sticks to that job the society will be well balanced, harmonious, and
therefore just. The “harmony of the elements” of the society produces a just society. The
just society exemplifies the cardinal virtues of Wisdom, Courage, Self-Discipline, and
Justice. It is Wise because the rulers are Wise, it has courage because the Guardians will
stick to their principles no matter what (here Plato is thinking of moral courage), it has
self-discipline because the Guardians keep the other classes on the straight and narrow.
Because it has all these other virtues the state is moral or just.
Finally coming to the original object of the inquiry, Socrates argues that Justice as
an individual virtue mirrors the just society. Socrates discusses the three parts of the soul
– reasoning, appetites and passions or ‘spirit.’ Since justice and the other virtues are
ideas they can only be attained by the intellect. Justice is attained in the individual
through reason’s control of the appetites and passions in the way that the Guardians
regulate the ‘lower’ classes in society. Reason delivers the harmony and balance of the
soul. The “harmony of the elements” is achieved in the individual. With reason making
the right choices and directing the ‘lower’ faculties of appetite and passion the person can
achieve eudemonia or well-being.
Plato argues that the state he has imagined is possible if ruled by philosophers.
Here he mean the person uniquely focused on obtaining wisdom through the study of
ideal truth. Ultimately, the best state is the one ruled by the Philosopher King. The
Philosopher King is a master of dialectic – ideas and their relationships.
Plato was one of the first Philosophers to explore the nature of our ideas. The
first result of Plato’s inquiry is that we must not confuse an idea with an image. If we
take a simple idea – such as the meaning of the word “apple” we might be tempted to
think that this word gets its meaning by naming an image – the image we form when
thinking about an apple. A quick analysis shows that this is not so. The mental image is
a picture of just one apple – with a particular size, shape, color, and so on. The word
“apple” cannot refer to that particular image. The particular image is just one of a kind whereas the word “apple” refers not only to that image, but also to any and all apples
regardless of size, shape, color weight etc. The word – which we call a common noun –
has a universal significance. If it names anything at all it surely refers to the class of all
apples. Thus this simple idea – knowing the meaning of “apple’ – and so knowing what
an apple is – requires universality. The same might be said for the meaning of any word.
If we take meaning in this sense to be a fundamental building block for understanding
and thought, then universal ideas must be essential to any thought process. Thus physics
depends on the meaning of “time”“space” “motion” “matter” – geometry depends on the
meaning of “angle” “line” “surface” – music depends on “harmony” “scale” “tone” etc.
These ideas – the definitions of these words – are the building blocks of their particular
sciences. Each particle of matter corresponds to the definition of “matter.” Each line is
“the shortest distance between two points” and so on. The idea is that which defines a
class - it sets the laws that the members follow. In addition, it is important to note that
these laws (e.g. a triangle has 3 angles) do not change – therefore they are, Plato argues,
permanently true and therefore very real. If science seeks the truth then any science must
be about the ideas involved. Thus science, which tries to understand material reality, will
be most successful when it focuses on the ideas that govern reality. What goes for science
in general must go for political science. Political science seeks those laws – those ideas –
related to providing the good for the community. Political science seeks the Ideas that
provide us with a just state.
Although there are numerous consequences to Plato’s theory of ideas, we will
examine only a few of the most important.
If we remember Socrates’ original function analogy, then what Plato means by an
idea should be clearer. Each thing has a function for which it is best suited. If it is in
excellent condition, it will be best able to fulfill that function. Thus we can imagine an
ideal condition for anything. For Plato this ideal condition is found in the thing’s form or
essence. This ideal would be the blueprint or archetype for the class.
Now an idea must extend to the whole group regardless of the particular
characteristics of the members of that group. It is matter that generates particular
individuating characteristics such as a particular size, shape, weight, or color. If an idea
were material it would have those particular individuating characteristics and this would
prevent the idea from being extended over the whole group. In sum, since ideas must be
universal they cannot be material. Also, since like is known by like (e. g. the eye, as a
material organ, perceives material objects), then that which ‘perceives’ ideas - the mind –
must be like the ideas. The mind must be immaterial, and so the mind cannot be the
brain. This describes what is known as Platonic Dualism – the person has two
components: the mind or soul and the body – one physical one non-physical.
It is important to note that for Plato certain ideas – such as geometrical ideas or
mathematical ideas or laws of nature - are true independently of us. They are true
whether we know about them or agree to them. Since ‘true’and ‘real’are interchangeable
(a true statement is always about something real – something that is actually the case)
then independent truth implies independent reality. These unchanging ideas are eternal
truths with their own separate existence. In sum, for Plato, any natural object belongs to
a class. This ideal or class is an idea existing on its own and is a pattern or blueprint for
membership in that class. When we have a true idea it is a reflection of that eternal idea.
Thus, as we said, truly knowing, for example, geometry or physics means that our
individual ideas accurately reflect the eternal ideas that make up those sciences. Again,
the same is true of political science
Each Idea is an eternal truth. For a truth to be eternal it cannot change – it is
therefore perfect and so has no excess or defect associated with it. Two plus Two will
always equal four – no more, no less. Since the idea has no defect it must be good.
Hence the Idea of the Good is fundamental to all ideas. This goodness or perfection is a
necessary characteristic for all eternal truths.
In order to help us grasp this fact Socrates uses the image of the sun. Just as the
sun illuminates the material world and allows us to see material things, the Idea of the
Good is necessary to make all ideas intelligible or able to be understood. Without that
perfection the ideas would be changeable or variable and so we could not grasp them –
without the hard and fast rules of the ideas ‘truth’ would lose its meaning. Imagine if the
rules of mathematics constantly changed but not according to any set pattern– if at one
time, say, two plus two equaled four but at another time it could equal something else –
again with no rhyme or reason. If this were so you could never get the answer right – in
fact there really would be no right answer, and the very idea of math would disappear.
The same could be said for the other sciences (imagine if the laws of nature varied from
one minute to the next). Since the Good is a necessary component of all ideas, the person
who masters the ideas will also be an expert on the Good. The object of politics is the
common good. Hence if you want the best political system the philosopher is the ideal
choice to construct and implement such a system.
In the concluding chapter of The Republic Socrates recounts the Myth of Er –
basically what we would describe as a near death experience. This is taken by Socrates
to be ‘evidence’ of life after death. This aside, the immortality of the soul follows from
Plato’s theory of dualism. The body is material and suffers death and decay which is
natural to matter. The soul – being immaterial – is not subject to this process. Thus
when the body dies the soul is unaffected.