Notetaking Aid for Plato’s Republic
Note to Instructors:
Each section of the text (Following Jowett, Lee, and Bloom at different times and in no particular order) is present here. The demarcation of
sections roughly follows Lee. The document is designed to ask questions that prompt discussion and is designed to be useful for leading online or
seated discussions. Comments welcome at escobar@ecc.edu or fpegsl@rit.edu.
Note to Students:
This document is designed to promote a fuller understanding of Plato’s Republic. It is important to note that it will not replace your own reading
and interpretation, but that it hopes to ask some of the questions that arise during the course of the text. Following the resource links should
also be of assistance, but these should be supplements to the reading and not try to replace it. Still, this is a complex text and there is no shame
in failing to understand portions of it. The thing is to try and plug away in a consistent and dedicated fashion. You can do this by taking notes on
each section of the text, either as you read it or as you discuss it in a classroom setting. It is my hope that this will make you an active reader and
force you to think through the relevant issues. The rest is up to you, however: no instrument can replace your own love of learning.
Book
and
Section
Questions
Please begin by summarizing what you have read in these first few
pages. Your summary should consist solely of your own words
(plagiarism is punished with an immediate F in the course).
Include the following elements in your summary:
Book
One
327-331
1. The discussants - briefly state who is speaking.
2. The plot. What happens in the first couple of pages? What
is the setting?
3. The topic of discussion.
4. The arguments. Does anyone claim anything? If so, what
do they claim and what reasons do they give for it?
Make your response about 300 words. Please quote the text
directly at least twice. When doing so, use Stephanus numbers to
denote the source.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Resources:


Book
One
The Squashed Republic - an adumbrated version of the
text
Sparknotes - summary of major themes
1. What is the topic of this part of the text?
2. What does Polemarchus argue in these pages?
3. Who is doing the questioning and who is doing the
answering? Does the Q&A nature of the dialogue establish
any specific power dynamic? Who's in charge of the
conversation during these five pages?
Resources:
331-336



Book
One
336b337e
A Reader's Guide to the Republic: Summary of
Polemarchus-Socrates Discussion
Another Analysis of the Discussion
An Explanation of Socratic Method
1. Who is speaking?
2. Who is Thrasymachus? Do some research to get a sense of
the following: (a) the literal meaning of his name; (b) his
role in the Republic.
3. What does Thrasymachus say about the method of
argument and discussion that is taking place? What is his
major point about it?
4. What challenge does he present to Socrates?
5. It is helpful to know that Thrasymachus is considered a
sophist, and that this fact is related to his demand for
payment in 337d. What is a sophist?
6. How does sophism relate to the educational system or
systems to which you belong? Does the attack on sophism
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
translate also into an attack on modern education? If so,
how or why?
Resources:
Book
One
338a343d
Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 translated by Paul
Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London,
William Heinemann Ltd. 1969.
1. The discussion still concerns the correct definition of
justice. What does it mean to say that justice is the interest
of the stronger?
1. Note: make sure you understand the reference to
"Polydamas the Pancratiast." Find out what
Socrates means by this point (338c).
2. Note also the fuller definition/explanation of
justice that Thrasymachus gives in 338e.
2. It has been said by the utilitarians (look up utilitarianism)
that ethical correctness is defined by whatever maximizes
happiness for all concerned. Here, Thrasymachus appears
to be arguing explicitly that ethical correctness (justice) is
whatever maximizes happiness for the ruling party of a
society. Give a short argument for or against the position
taken by either party. State the conclusion of the argument
clearly and give two to three premises (reasons) in favor of
the conclusion.
3. At 339c Socrates begins an attack on Thrasymachus'
definition. Summarize the gist of the attack in one or two
sentences.
1. Note that Polemarchus and Cleitophon break in at
this point. Do they offer anything of value, or are
they just parroting their leaders? Focus
particularly on 340b.
2. At 340d Thrasymachus rejects the help that
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Cleitophon has tried to give him. Try to figure out
what exactly is happening there.
4. Note the discussion around 341 and 342 of the true nature
of a person who is practicing an art. Socrates speaks of
pilots and physicians, for example. What is his overall
point? Note that Socrates argues at one point that the arts
"rule over" something. The art of medicine, we might say,
"rules over" the body and thereby tries to strengthen it. We
can imagine a doctor attending to someone's body, finding
a weakness in it, and then attempting to eliminate the
deficiency through the art of medicine. Socrates is trying
to get Thrasymachus to accept this point over not just
medicine, but all arts. In the end, then, he wants to extract
the following admissions and promote the following
argument:
1. Every art strives toward some excellence
2. All such excellences are for the sake of something
other than the art - in other words, the art doesn't
strive for anything other than to help make its
subjects excellent.
3. If these things are true, then no art should ever
strive for the sake of the gain of the artist.
4. And if #3 is true, then the art of ruling should not
strive for the sake of the gain of the ruler. It stands
to reason, claims Socrates, that the art of ruling is
something we engage in solely for the sake of the
excellence of the ruled. That, just as we try to
improve horses by becoming horsemen, and just
as we try to improve students by becoming
teachers, we try to improve the people by
becoming rulers.
5. But note the reaction by Thrasymachus on 343b.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Is this a convincing response?
Resources:


Book
One
343e-354
LitCharts: http://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-republic/book1. Contains a brief overview of each argument in Book
One.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/callicles-thrasymachus/#3.
Article on Callicles and Thrasymachus summarizing two
different attacks on conventional morality that are
presented (and refuted) in Plato's work. I've linked directly
to the Thrasymachus v Socrates section, but the entire
article is worthwhile.
1. Summarize the argument by Thrasymachus that the unjust
man benefits more than the just man.
2. Give an argument of your own in favor of this argument or
against. State your conclusion clearly and provide two to
three premises (reasons) in support of the conclusion.
3. The argument by Thrasymachus can be summarized (and
perhaps oversimplified) as the claim that justice is for
suckers who don't mind working for the sake of others. In
the point that he makes earlier about the ruler and the
ruled, this amounts to justice being an attempt by the
rulers to utilize a concept that the ruled will use to the
rulers' advantage. So, when we (the ruled) act justly all we
are doing is creating some benefit for the rulers. In effect,
we are being suckers who fail to see that injustice is where
we can gain something for ourselves. Therefore, we
should not aim to be just - we should instead attempt to be
unjust. This is why Thrasymachus is taken to be attacking
"conventional morality" - most of us think that we should
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
try to be just, but in doing so we will end up harming
ourselves and never fulfilling the high ideals of justice.
Please comment on this line of thinking and apply it to a
recent example of a law that you are being asked to obey.
You will need to do appropriate research to answer this
question if you are not the type to follow politics, so
please supply the relevant citations and references.
4. Note that at 345c Socrates returns to the question of art,
noting that Thrasymachus now appears to be arguing that a
shepherd is in fact capable of being a shepherd while he
thinks primarily of his own gain and not the gain of his
sheep (the shepherd/sheep language is obvious a reference
to the ruler and the ruled). Socrates charges that in this
connection the shepherd is in fact not a shepherd at all
(and to this point Thrasymachus appears to have already
agreed), but instead is a moneymaker, with moneymaking
being a separate art and not connected to the art of
sheepherding or of ruling. At 346d Socrates appears to
secure from Thrasymachus the admission that no one
gains from the art which they practice unless they attach to
it an art of money-making or wage-earning.
1. At this point I want you to think of this in light of
"art" in the sense that you would consider that
word today. Think of the art of making music
(guitar) or painting (with oil, let's say). When you
engage the art, do you engage it for the sake of
gaining something from it, or do you engage it for
the sake of that for the sake of which the art
exists? In other words, are you engaging in the art
of music-making because you want something
from it, or because the art is valuable for the sake
of something else? In short, we can ask the
question in the following way: what is the purpose
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
of achieving excellence in an art form? Answer
that question in light of your own attempts to learn
an art to the point of excellence. The art can be
something artistic in the modern sense (music,
painting) or it can be an art in the sense that
Socrates and Thrasymachus are using the word.
5. We have now come to the major questions raised by the
Republic, which can be summarized as follows:
1. What is justice? At this point you should at least
have a sense of the question, if not yet an answer
that you would prefer to promote.
2. Is it more advantageous to be just, or unjust? Who
has the better life - the just man or the unjust man?
In answering this question you must have some
sense of what you believe the point of life to be.
1. Note the analysis - by Thrasymachus - of
the just man in 349. He is defined as a
simpleton and as someone who will refuse
to try to gain an advantage over others.
The unjust man, by contrast, is clever and
smart and will know how to make his way
through life. How does Socrates respond
to this line of argument?
Book
Two
357-358
1. Summarize the three types of goods in your own words.
2. Answer this question: does the description of the three
types of goods adequately summarize goodness? Or are
there instead other ways to think of goodness?
Resources:

"Plato's Division of Goods in the Republic." Heinaman, R.
(2002). Phronesis, XLVII, 4. See especially the first
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
couple of pages where Heinaman offers various
interpretations of this passage.
Book
Two
358-362d
Jean-Leon Gerome, King Candaules (1859)
Queen Rodope Observed by Gyges
Image Courtesy of
http://www.jeanleongerome.org/King-Candaules.html
1. Glaucon here gives what has become a famous speech in
favor of injustice. First of all, why is he arguing in favor of
injustice? What is his stated motivation?
2. What are the major elements of the argument? How does
he reason in favor of injustice, and how does this relate to
the division of goods into three types?
3. What does he say that most people believe about justice in
relation to the three types of goods? In which type of good
does he believe most people put justice?
4. Summarize the thought experiment about the ring
discovered by Gyges the shepherd.
5. Explain the ring of Gyges in relation to a choice that you
have had to make or might have to make in the future.
6. Explain how the ring story might relate to the notion of a
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
social contract to which all members of society agree in
order to maintain peace and establish civil society.
Resources:


Book
Two
362e-367
Book
Michael LaBossiere on the Ring of Gyges:
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/summaryof-platos-ring-of-gyges/.
Philosophy.Lander.Edu: Summary of the Ring and its
themes: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/gyges.shtml.
Pay special attention to the ethical theories mentioned in
the overview. Make sure that you connect the Republic
from now on to those theories. They will play an important
role from now on.
1. Glaucon's argument in the previous section might be
summarized as an attempt to establish justice on the basis
of egoistic motivations -- we are just because it's better for
us than to be unjust (or at least this is what we believe).
How does his brother, Adeimantus, take up the argument?
What is his initial task in this section?
2. Adeimantus summarizes various sayings about justice that
he believes affect the minds of the young. What impact
does he believe these sayings have on young minds?
3. Interpret the passage that begins with "What about the gds?" on 365d and ends with the paragraph about Hades
(about 366b). What is Adeimantus saying people believe
about the relationship between justice and religion?
4. Summarize the challenge that Adeimantus and Glaucon
have given to Socrates in the first ten pages of book two.
1. In general, what will be Socrates' plan of attack to respond
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Two
368-373
Questions
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
to the challenge that Glaucon and Adeimantus have laid
down?
What does he mean by "justice in small letter" and "justice
in large letters"?
Socrates goes on to build a city in this section. Determine,
for yourself and in your own words, what is the most basic
requirement of a city or of any society of individuals.
On 370 Socrates enunciates a principle of specialization.
Describe that principle in your own words, but also quote
the relevant passage. This principle will be important to
the whole of the republic, so keep it in mind as we move
forward.
Socrates continues to build his "city in theory." At one
point the question of whether he has built "enough" of a
city comes up. Respond to this question. For example, you
will see Glaucon say "It seems that you make your people
feast without any delicacies" on 372c. Assuming this is
true, and Socrates has in fact not bothered to add
"delicacies" to the city, is this a problem? Must a city - or
society, if you wish - make an effort to introduce luxuries
into the life of men? Or should it be structured so that it
ensures that only the necessities are addressed.
Speculate about the definition of "need" and "luxury." Is it
possible to define these terms objectively? Don't be too
quick to deny the possibility of such an objective
definition. Such denials are popular, but likely wrong.
Consider, for example, the silliness of claiming that caviar
is a necessity. If such a claim is clearly wrong, then, there
must be other "luxuries" that are also not true needs. And
if there are such things then perhaps it is also true that
there are some true needs and some things that can only be
luxuries.
1. But don't swing too hard in the other direction,
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
either. If it is true that there are some things that
simply cannot count as needs, does this mean that
there are some things that must count as needs?
Resources:


Book
Two
373-383
Summary of Republic Books 1-4 - Philosophy Pages:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2g.htm.
Summary of Book Two - by a student of the Republic:
http://cgarriott.bol.ucla.edu/plato/book2.html. See his
general Republic site here:
http://cgarriott.bol.ucla.edu/plato/. His "Tips" are helpful.
About the good fortune my children would have,
Free of disease throughout their long lives,
And of all the blessings that the friendship of the g-ds would bring
me.
I hoped that Phoebus' (Apollo's) divine mouth would be free of
falsehood,
Endowed as it is with the craft of prophecy.
But the very g-d who sang, the one at the feast,
The one who said all this, he himself it is
Who killed my son.
-Thetis, recalling the death of her son Achilles
1. The city has grown, and with growth come additional
needs. The first such need is the need for an army. Plato
might be arguing that the city grows only because we
desire luxury. The need for an army to defend the city,
therefore, is directly tied to the human impulse toward
luxury. Speculate about this connection and whether you
think it is real.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
2. Note that at this point (373-374, the early stages on the
argument about soldiers and armies) that Socrates is
calling the soldiers "Guardians." That term will be
important. Note also that at some point he will divide this
group into auxiliaries and guardians, with the latter term
referring to the leaders of the city and not directly to
soldiers. Soldiering will be reserved for the auxiliaries,
with guardians playing a loftier role as the city's political
elite.
1. Note: Some author argue that this is one of those
complexities that Plato believes needs to be
introduced only because of the growth of the city.
We require political elites, the argument goes,
because we cannot have the simple life any longer
once we have become large and in need of strong
political leadership to keep the city from coming
apart.
3. It's very unimportant in the large scheme of the Republic,
but don't go the entire book without knowing what a
cobbler is.
4. Is warfare a profession? Must we make soldiering a
profession, or would it make more sense to have volunteer
soldiers who come together only when the city is in need
of an army? In the modern context, consider American
society without a standing army or navy (those of you who
know your Constitutional and colonial history will be
especially intrigued by this question, I'm sure).
5. Socrates now launches into an inquiry into the nature of a
good guardian (here to be understood as a soldier). What
are the qualities that he believes make up a good guardian?
6. On 377 Socrates begins to argue that if we are to establish
rules according to which our guardians will be made, then
we will have to control the education of the guardian (we
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
don't make engineers without controlling their education,
and we don't make soldiers without controlling their
education either, Socrates might reason). To control
"education" in the Athenian context, however, Socrates
proposes that we must "supervise the storytellers" (377c).
In what major ways does he propose to "supervise"
(control) the storytellers, and who exactly does he mean
by storytellers?
7. Connect the argument in these last pages of book two to
modern society. Today we would call this an argument in
favor of censorship. Can you see a reason to support
censorship under certain circumstances?
Resources:

Book
Three
386-390
Book
Three
391-397
Griswold, Charles L., "Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/platorhetoric/. See especially Section 3.
1. Characterize the type of content that is to be excluded
from the educational system in Plato's city.
2. What is the aim of education? Answer this in regard to:
1. Plato's city
2. Our own modern times
1. Explain the distinction between imitation and narrative.
2. Summarize the types of imitations that are to be allowed
and prohibited. Explain the reasoning why this should be
done.
3. Connect the discussion on imitation to today's youth. Does
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
the reasoning support restricting the "imitations" to which
the young are exposed in today's age?
Book
Three
1. Name and describe the four modes of musical expression.
2. Explain how Plato argues music touches the inner part of
the soul.
397-402
Consider the following exchange at 402e:
Socrates: Has excess of pleasure any affinity to
temperance?
Glaucon: HOw can that be? Pleasure deprives a man of
the use of his faculties quite as much as pain.
Socrates: Or any affinity to virtue in general?
Book
Three
402-403
Glaucon: None whatever.
Socrates: Any affinity to wantonness and intemperance?
Glaucon: Yes, the greatest.
Socrates: And is there any greater or keener pleasure
than that of sensual love?
Glaucon: No, nor a madder.
Socrates: Whereas true love is a love of beauty and order
- temperate and harmonious?
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Glaucon: Quite true.
Socrates: Then no intemperance or madness should be
allowed to approach true love?
Glaucon: Certainly not.
The exchange occurs in relation to the question of how
lovers (people who love others) should treat their
beloveds (people who are loved). The purpose of the
exchange is to lay down some rules about how adult
men should treat their beloved young boys. In effect,
Socrates is saying that when adult men love young boys,
they should refrain from having sex with them. But this
implies that they can still "love" them.
In response to this exchange:
1. Discuss the definition of love used by the two speakers.
2. Determine whether they are right to strictly separate love
from sex.
3. Mount an argument concerning the question of whether
sex is a kind of madness.
Book
Three
403-417
1. Summarize the training of athletes and how it contrasts
with the physical training of guardians.
2. Summarize the criticisms of medicine and law that are
made by Plato in this passage.
3. What is the purpose of medicine, in your opinion, after
reading this passage?
4. Summarize what Plato believes can happen if one takes
one type of training (music or gymnastics) too far and
does not balance with the other.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
5. Describe the Three Tests mentioned at the end of Book
Three. Note especially the distinction between guardians
and auxiliaries made at about 414b. Note also the use of
the "three metals" in the third test (the "Phoenician Tale").
This concept of the three metals will become important.
Book
Four
419-421
Book
Four
421-427c
1. The book begins with a comment on the life of the
guardian class. Summarize the concern voiced by
Adeimantus.
2. Explain the Socratic response.
3. Do you agree with this response?
1. Desmond Lee titles this section "Final Provisions for
Unity" because he sees in it Plato's last words on how to
unify this large city. At this point, remember that
Socrates/Plato might not be too fond of the complexity of
the city that they have built thus far. As a result of this
complexity, various measures must be introduced to
prevent the usual causes of disunity and strife. It is
diversity - opposed to social homogeneity and unity of
purpose - that is being addressed here. Consider this in the
context of the comments on poverty at 421e. Do you agree
that both poverty and wealth are "evils"?
2. Summarize the Socratic argument that the city will be able
to fend off much more rich and powerful enemies.
3. Speak broadly to the point about unity: is it impossible to
achieve in a large state? Consider this in the context of the
current immigration debate: can there be a U.S.-style
"melting pot" and unity at the same time, or are
heterogenous societies like the U.S. doomed to disunity
and strife? Don't take either stance too far, however:
noting that diversity leads to disunity and strife does not
have to imply that such societies will not persist over time
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
(or that they will destroy themselves via civil war). On the
other hand, arguing that diversity is a net positive for a
nation need not paper over the difficulties involved in
promoting diversity. Finally, consider just what someone
might mean by valuing diversity. Why is difference
inherently good, if it is good at all?
This is a crucial section. Study it well. Try to get a good
understanding of the role of "minding one's own business" in the
argument.
Book
Four
427b434d
Book
Four
434e441a
1. State the four virtues (or "qualities," as Lee calls them) of
the state.
2. Explain where each virtue is located in the people or in the
state itself.
3. Finally, define each virtue briefly. Make sure to capture
the definition of justice in "large letters" (that is, social
justice as opposed to individual justice, which is justice in
small letters).
1. Socrates builds his argument in favor of the definition of
individual justice slowly. He begins the argument by
drawing an analogy to social justice, defined in the last
section. Just as justice in the state is a moderation and
control of various conflicts that arise from disunity, it will
turn out that individual justice involves the same kind of
moderation and control: to be a just city requires us to
control the impulses that arise in a city; to be a just
individual requires us to control the impulses that arise in
an individual. But this requires us to understand the
conflicts inherent to human nature. To do so, we must
know what elements compose the mind. Name, therefore,
the three parts of the soul (or the mind, depending on your
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
translation).
2. Define each part.
3. Describe the conflicts that arise between the three parts.
Focus particularly on the opposition between desire and
reason.
4. Connect this opposition to the conversation about old age
and sex in Book One - 329 to 330.
1. Define justice in the individual.
2. Connect the definition to the taming of the soul that is
described in 442.
3. Explain the role of harmony in the definition.
Book
Four
441b-445
Book
Five
449-457b
Note that mention - at the very end of book four - of the "forms of
vice" which correspond to the forms of the state. The Republic is
about to take a significant detour, and we return to this topic only
in book eight.
A more immediate topic has to be discussed in book five: what to
do with the women and children.
1. Note first Lee's comment that books 5-7 are a digression.
The form of the argument in books 1-4 was roughly this:
once the participants got to talking about justice, the
challenge was given to Socrates to show that justice was
better than injustice. In order to meet that challenge
Socrates believed that he needed first to define justice. But
to define justice properly one has to define it both in the
state (social justice, as we would call it) and in the
individual. The definition of justice in the state in turn
required Socrates to explain the nature of a state (we can't
define social justice without defining society, after all). So,
we can break up the project as follows:
1. Establishing the question of justice and the
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
challenge to Socrates - this is done in book one
and early in book two
2. Defining the state and its bounds - this is the work
of books two and three
3. Defining justice in the state and in the individual this is done in book four
4. Mounting an argument in defense of the claim that
it is better to be just than to be unjust - we haven't
gotten to that point, and that is why Lee says that
books 5-7 are a digression. We will return to the
question of whether it is best to be just in book
eight. So, we can say that the argument in favor of
justice takes place in books 8-10.
5. What happens in books 5-7 is roughly this:
Glaucon and Adeimantus want to know more
about the type of state that Socrates has defined so
far. They specifically want to know more about
women, but they will also have questions about
the training of the guardians. All of that work is
taking place in these three books.
2. What question is raised by Adeimantus concerning women
and children?
3. How does Socrates respond to the idea that women are not
suited for certain jobs?
Resources:



The Rise of Women in Ancient Greece:
http://www.historytoday.com/michael-scott/rise-womenancient-greece.
Ecclesiazusae (Aristophanes):
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/eccles.html.
Lysistrata (Aristophanes):
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions


Book
Five
457b-461
Book
Five
462-466d
Book
Five
466d471c
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3
Atext%3A1999.01.0242.
British Museum Fact Sheet on Women, Children, and
Slaves in Ancient Greece:
http://www.ancientgreece.co.uk/staff/resources/backgroun
d/bg18/home.html.
Background on the Socratic Equality Argument of Book
Five:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophe
rs/Plato/plato_on_women_plain_text.html.
1. "Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue
will be their robe, and let them share in the toils of war
and the defence of their country..." Locate and interpret
the quotation, making sure to explain the "permission" to
let the wives strip.
2. What is the "second wave"?
3. Socrates presents an analogical argument in favor of his
breeding program. Explain the nature of an analogical
argument. Then, explain the two analogues in the Socratic
argument in this section.
1. What is the "chief aim of the legislator" in a state?
2. Socrates once again employs analogical argumentation in
this section. Explain the analogy between community of
property and community of men, women, and children.
Relate it to Question One above and also to 419-422.
1. Socrates argues in favor of making children "spectators of
war." Present an argument with at least two clear premises
in favor or against this conclusion. Defend the premises
with clear reasoning.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
2. Research the etymology and meaning of "Hellene."
Book
Five
471d-480
1. What is the "third wave"?
2. Socrates argues as follows at about 473c: "Until
philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this
world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and
political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those
commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of
the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never
have rest from their evils - no, nor the human race, as I
believe - and then only will this our State have a
possibility of life and behold the light of day." Summarize
the argument that he gives in favor of this conclusion. Try
to list each step in the argument in a clear list of premises
leading to the conclusion.
3. In the context of this argument, what is a philosopher?
Give the etymological definition as used in 475.
4. Discuss the point that Socrates makes in 476 about "the
lover of sights and sounds." Why is such a lover not a
philosopher?
5. How does Socrates define opinion? How does he define
knowledge? How do they differ?
6. Note: This is a very important point in the Republic - the
argument that Socrates is putting together will play an
important role in the argument in favor of justice, for it is
through the love of wisdom (philosophy) that Socrates
believes one becomes a true human being. You will want
to make a clear note of this and return to this passage later.
In addition, the definitions of opinion and knowledge will
be important to the acquisition of wisdom (wisdom, after
all, is a type of knowledge and is not about merely having
opinions). Finally, note also the presence here of the
distinction between the one and the many. While this
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
distinction is largely lost on us moderns, it was crucial to
the Greeks who sought to understand the structure of
reality.
1. A nice encapsulation of this section is attempted
by Jowett's margin notes at 479d: "Opinion is the
knowledge, not of the absolute, but of the many."
In short, the lover of sights and sounds, or the
lover of individual things, lacks something: he
lacks knowledge of generalizations and
knowledge of that which encompasses the
individual. For example, I might know all about
my dog, but if I never extend the knowledge of my
dog into knowledge of dogs in general then I can't
say something like "Dogs have hair." The most I
would be able to say is "My dog has hair." This
might seem strange to you, but Socrates is arguing
that the person who can speak knowingly about
dogs in general has knowledge, while the person
who is limited to knowledge of his own dog
merely has opinion. It is very important for you to
ask yourself at this point why Socrates would
argue like this: why does he say that I would only
be holding an opinion if I could look at my dog,
see that it has hair, and then claim with all of the
certainty rooted in my senses that it does in fact
have hair? Why is that an opinion? Hint: there is a
claim being made about the relationship between
knowledge and the senses. To be continued in
book six, but I'll give you a little teaser: if you've
ever heard about the Allegory of the Cave, then
you've heard of this argument.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Resources:



Book Six
484-487a
Book Six
487b497a
Book Six
Overview of Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy:
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/1presocratics.htm.
Early Greek Philosophy, J. Burnet. Available at
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/burnet/index.htm.
See especially the Introduction. For an overview of the
problem of the one and the many, see §68 in Ch. 3 (the
Heraclitus chapter, which contains a section on the one
and the many).
The One and the Many:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/ and
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2b.htm.
1. What is a philosopher? How is he or she contrasted with
non-philosophers? Note: This will become relevant again
at the end of book six.
2. What does Plato mean by the pleasures of the soul in this
section? With what sorts of pleasures are these being
contrasted?
1. What criticisms are levied against philosophers in this
section?
2. What does Socrates say in response to these accusations?
In particular, how does he argue that philosophical natures
can deteriorate into non-philosophers? What are the
possible pitfalls of the study of philosophy?
3. What draws someone away from philosophy after they
have been initially inclined toward it?
A pair of contrasting visions of philosophy (and philosophers) is
presented in this section. What is the philosopher as Plato sees him
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
497a502d
Book Six
502d509c
Book Six
509d-511
Questions
or her, and what is the philosopher as others (the masses) see him
or her?
Compare and contrast both visions.
This section features Socrates' comments on what has come to be
known as the simile of the sun. More to the point, however, it is a
section that explains just why Plato believes that philosophers
must become kings and kings must adopt the spirit of philosophy.
In your own words, explain the section in that context. Focus on
the educational content of the philosophical life: what do
philosophers know, or learn, and how does this relate to the simile
of the sun and the philosopher's leadership role in Plato's ideal
society?
Explain the Analogy of the Divided Line, focusing on the division
between the parts or aspects of reality. How is it that the parts of
the line relate both to an individual person's development and the
nature of reality?
Resources:

John Uebersax on the Divided Line: http://www.johnuebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm.
This passage features what is probably the most famous of all of
Plato's writing: the allegory of the cave.
Book
Seven
514-521
You have come a long way in your reading of the Republic. At this
time you should stop to take stock of what has come before. In
particular, consider what you did in your reading of the divided
line. Connect that to an analysis of the cave allegory and explain
how the two figures come together. That is, explain how the
elements of the cave story line up with the parts of the divided
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
line.
Here is an image:
Image by Unknown Author – Retrieved from
https://opusverba.wordpress.com/tag/allegory-of-the-cave/
This section is a long exposition of Plato's theory of education of
the philosopher. For our purposes what matters to our analysis are
the following elements:
Book
Seven
521-541
1. What is the purpose of philosophical education? What is
the overall effect that Plato is trying to achieve with regard
to education of the philosopher?
2. What specific subjects shall philosophers be taught? Why?
Explain the nature of both subjects in detail. With regard
to mathematics, explain how it accomplishes (according to
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Plato) the goal that he has in mind. Explain also how it
falls short of the ultimate goal of philosophy, and why it is
that Plato must introduce dialectic to fulfill that ultimate
project.
3. Reflect on your own mathematical training. Explain
whether it has been fulfilling. Explain why it has
succeeded or failed, and consider the way that you would
reform it to suit what you believe would be a productive
purpose.
4. Spend some time defining "dialectic" and its relationship
to philosophy's mission. Consider whether this is a
mission worth pursuing.
In his summary of the eighth book of the Republic, the translator
and Plato scholar CDC Reeve writes as follows:
Book
Eight
543-545
The description of the kallipolis and of the man whose
character resembles it - the philosopher-king - is now
complete, and Socrates returns to the argument interrupted at
the beginning of Book V. he describes four individual
character types and the four types of constitutions that result
when people who possess them rule in a city.
This passage effectively summarizes the task of book eight. In this
first passage we have to contend with the underlying assumption
of this approach: that it is possible to align personality types with
types of states. In other words, Plato is telling us that we should be
able to assess a community by looking at the types of people that
live in it. He is arguing that a community of wealth-mongers, for
example, will be a certain type of community, while a community
of honor-lovers will be a different type of community. And, of
course, the "kallipolis" will be a place filled with people who love
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
wisdom above all else.
Your first question is therefore to address this assumption: is it in
fact the case that when we form a community it will take on the
personality of the people within it? Or, if you want to think of it in
more colorful terms, think of it like this: will a society filled with
nothing but selfish assholes be a certain type of society?
Before you answer "Duh, obviously" think of this possible
counterargument: that it might be possible for a society to improve
its people. In other words, this counterargument might claim, it
might be true that many of us are bad people at birth or by virtue
of the training we receive from our parents. A well-formed society,
however, will be one that properly channels our lower impulses
and makes lemonade out of lemons - or saints out of assholes.
Indeed, look no further than contemporary social theory for this
kind of an argument (this might be an oversimplification, but
consider it nonetheless): yes, it might be true that all human beings
are selfish, but we can take that inherent drive toward selfpromotion and turn it to good account. As all individuals strive for
more and more material wealth society will in fact be improved so
long as there are free markets (properly regulated, perhaps) to
channel that egoism in the directions most appropriate to social
success. So, if people are in fact wealth-mongers that does not
have to mean that the poor among us will be left out in the cold.
Perhaps a rising tide lifts all boats (standard capitalist theory
speaks of the invisible hand, e.g.), or maybe it's the case that where
the least-advantaged among us are likely to be left behind we can
make special provisions for them (i.e., we can create welfare states
to prop them up).
Whether you are a modern capitalist or welfarist, then, it seems
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
that you could have common ground in attacking Plato's theory
that a society is nothing more than the personality of its people.
Discuss.
In this section Socrates explains the devolution of aristocracy (the
best state, being ruled as it is by wisdom-lovers) into timocracy
(sometimes translated timarchy). The best way to understand
timocracy is through its root. You might know that -cracy refers to
the state. This root comes from kratis, which simply means power.
The root timo- comes from the Greek thumos, which means spirit.
Book
Eight
545-550b
Recall the division of the soul into three parts: reason, desire, and
spirit. A wisdom-lover (a philosopher) is someone ruled by reason.
This is a rational man, one that is willing to follow reason and
truth wherever they will lead. There are other types of men,
however: those ruled by desire (e.g., gluttons), and those ruled by
spirit. Those who are ruled by spirit are best explained in book
five: these are individuals who relentlessly pursue honor and who
follow their heart. They are often associated with military men
because of their identification (again, in book five) with the class
of auxiliaries (soldiers).
So the "devolution" into a society of honor is a devolution of the
soul: rather than the soul now being ruled by reason, it is ruled by
the heart and promotes those goals that a military society might
promote. This is not so bad as far as a devolved society goes,
however. It's better than a society that is ruled wholly by desirelovers, at least, and so Plato has set it up so that the structure of
book eight follows a hierarchy: as the aristocratic society dies off
and philosopher-kings stop ruling our city, we lose the focus on
reason and begin to be ruled by other (lesser) parts of the soul. It
might not sound so bad to live in a city ruled by honorable men
and women (and remember, Plato has argued for allowing women
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
to join the military - a revolutionary argument for its time). Is it? Is
there a real devolution here?
To answer this question you must finally come to grips with one of
the central arguments of the Republic: that it is, in fact, best to be a
lover of reason than it is to be ruled by any other part of the soul.
Several questions follow from this line of reasoning at this point in
the text:
1. Is Plato's devolutionary theory of politics correct? Without
being too critical of the details (see Socrates' warning at
548d), consider whether it is possible to describe social
evolution and devolution in this sort of way. Do societies
go through the sorts of cycles that Socrates is describing
here?
2. Has he adequately described the way that the timocratic
son develops? In other words, what do you think of his
armchair pscyhology here? Does it make sense that a
person would turn into a timocrat in the way that he
describes in these pages?
Book
Eight
550c555b
The next stage in our social devolution tour is oligarchy, named
after the oligo - which means simply a few - and therefore
translating into "the rule of the few." Answer the following
questions:
1. How does the oligarchy arise?
2. What are the psychological features of the oligarch? Speak
in terms of the parts of the soul as Plato explains them in
this context.
3. Is this in fact the way that oligarchies are?
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
4. How does the democratic son come to be?
The easy question to ask here is to ask you to examine the parallels
between modern "democracy" and Platonic democracy.
And, while sometimes the easy question is not pedagogically
warranted, in this case it's both easy to ask, obvious that it should
be asked, and necessary to answer it.
Book
Eight
555b563d
So have at it: do you see such parallels? Mount an argument in
favor of your interpretation of this passage as it relates to what we
call "democracy" in the modern world. If you wish to focus on the
U.S., you can do so. If not, then you're welcome to choose another
nation or to speak in general terms about global democratic threads
of thought or governance.
So much can be said about this section that it is best to leave it to
you to examine it. I do have a few notes and questions you might
consider, however:





Book
Democracy is the second worst form of government. Only
tyranny is worse. Why?
Consider how democracy (the rule of the many, after the
root demos for people) is driven by desire-loving people
who love unnecessary desires. Is this descriptive of
modern democracy, or would only a cynical jerk think like
this?
Who are these "drones" that he speaks of?
Is the U.S. a nation of spendthrifts like the situation Plato
describes here?
Is the U.S. too free?
1. Is it indeed the case that "the most severe and cruel
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Eight
563e-569
Questions
slavery" evolves from the "most extreme freedom" (564a).
Or is this hyperbolic?
2. We reach here the pinnacle of the thrasymachean man, the
tyrant who enslaves all and lives the life of Riley. He (or
she!) is - according to Thrasymachus - the happiest of all
men or women in the society. Having taken the lessons of
Thrasymachus to heart, he would have risen to the top by
subterfuge, trickery, injustice, and - in general - taking
every possible advantage over those who are just as well
as over those who are unjust. The obvious question,
therefore, is this: can (or must) a tyrant be happy? Is it
good to be the king? Or does the tyrant instead live the
worst of all possible lives?
1. A humorous moment occurs in Book Nine, where
Socrates actually calculates how much worse the
life of the tyrant is than the life of the lover of
wisdom: 729 times! I doubt that Plato means this
literally; it's probably just a cute way of signaling
to the reader that there is some kind of geometrical
"worseness" or "bestness" relationship between
aristocracy (the best society, led by the best men)
and tyranny (the worst society, led by the worst
men).
3. Must a tyranny be led by the worst person? Couldn't it be
the case that a tyranny is led by a great man or woman?
Maybe Plato gives too little attention to this possibility. Or
is it in fact the case that a tyranny would not be a tyranny
if it was led by an aristocrat or by a lover of wisdom? In
other words, maybe this is Plato's way of saying that when
we allow our people to be degraded into a life of pleasure
(i.e., oligarchy and democracy) we are necessarily going to
end up being led by some kind of megalomaniacal
pleasure-loving monster who uses us for his own
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
pleasures.
1. The most obvious historical example might be
Caligula, but it's possible that he was just
misunderstood.
2. A recent pop culture example is the television
show Tyrant, but beware: anyone who watches
television for meaning and philosophy should read
Theodor Adorno's How to Look at Television.
4. Describe the psychology of the tyrant in Plato's terms.
What is the shape of the tyrant's soul?
Book
Nine
571-573
The passage cited above calls to mind several important points in
the Republic: the argument concerning the tripartite nature of the
soul; the argument on old age and sex from Cephalus; Plato's
fetish for reason, and his understanding of human nature as finding
its excellence in rationality. Here we see the clearest and most
vivid contrasting element with that excellence: sexual lust. The
tyrant is a man or woman who is out of control, unable to control
the appetitive nature that defines human animality, and who has
thus failed as a human being and not merely as a leader of men.
Here we see Plato's prudishness (is that what it is?) as well as the
clearest example of how he wishes to marry psychology and
politics into a single field of inquiry: as we study the nature of
human society so must we also study the nature of control: for if
we wish to be a good society we must either be self-controlled or
we must be controlled by legal means. Interestingly, this seems to
mean that Plato would be comfortable with a society without laws,
so long as that society consisted of the right types of individuals
(rational, self-controlled, and lovers of wisdom).
We might think at first that the following is the best type of life:
"...someone in whom the tyrant of love dwells and in whom it
directs everything next goes in for feasts, revelries, luxuries,
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
girlfriends, and all that sort of thing." - 473d, translation by GMA
Grube and CDC Reeve. But of course, Plato thinks otherwise: this
is the worst type of life because the "tyrant of love" is that which
drives us toward our uncontrolled spiral away from a reasoned and
structured life. Those of us, therefore, who become lustful
creatures are literally mad, insane, devoid of rationality.
All of this, of course, calls to question the very nature of desire
itself: just what are the "right" desires for a human being to have?
In this thread, consider these two questions:
1. How does Plato distinguish between the types of desires?
2. Do you find this tripartite division of desires convincing?
Book
Nine
573-580
Book
Nine
581-585
What comes next - after the argument on desires and their nature is an argument about how this malformation of the soul leads into
the tyrant's desire for control of society. How does Plato argue that
this individual will have the worst possible life? Be specific with
regard to the way that his life deteriorates after some initial (but
superfluous) promise.
Now that we have seen how the tyrannical life develops and
devolves, we can come to some more general questions about
pleasure. Plato has been keen throughout the Republic to show that
the path of justice is best (remember books one and two). To do
that, however, he could not simply show that the path of justice
would lead to great riches (don't forget the challenge of the Ring of
Gyges, not to mention common sense, which restricts Socrates
from arguing that justice will have material benefits).
Here we start to see that argument come to its end: Plato wants to
show that justice is best, but to do this it becomes necessary to
show that it leads to the most pleasurable life. This, of course,
can't just mean pleasurable in the way that the tyrant's life might be
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
superficially pleasurable. Rather, it must be based on a different
kind of pleasure.
What is pleasure in this section? How is it defined and
categorized? What types of pleasures does Plato define? Finally,
explain how "true" pleasure is distinct from the absence of pain.
How do the majority of the people live when it comes to their
experience of pleasure? Why aren't they able to experience
pleasure in the way that a philosopher can experience it? What's
missing, and what can philosophy provide them?
Book
Nine
586-588c
Book
Nine
588d-592
Start to flesh out how this is leading to a final answer in favor of
the claim that justice is the best kind of life. Consider, in this
connection, what is perhaps the most interesting counterexample to
the Platonic thesis: the life of the martyr who dies badly. Consider
perhaps the death of Antipas of Perganum or the Ten Jewish
Martyrs said to have been executed by the Romans. Don't
focus too much on the details of any single case of martyrdom.
Instead, speak to the question of whether such a bad death can be
sid to be part of the best possible life. Plato is claiming that the
righteous path is always best, but doesn't such a path sometimes
condemn individuals to unholy terrors? And if so, how can the
man or woman who suffers such an end be said to have lived the
best of all lives?
The end of book nine is in fact the end of the Republic's main
argument. While book ten does in fact deal with many of the same
themes that we have handled in the first nine books, the
argumentative climax of Plato's argument occurs here. Here it is
that Plato finalizes the argument in favor of the just life. Having
defined justice as a kind of harmony of the soul (and of society,
when we view it in large letters), he has been occupied during the
last several books with developing the argument in favor of the
just life. This has all been in response to the thrasymachean
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
challenge: that justice is the sucker's lot, to be followed only by
those who fail to see that acting justly will lead them into a
disadvantaged life that is lived for the sake and for the welfare of
others.
To combat this powerful line of reasoning Socrates had to redefine
pleasure. It was not to be seen merely as bodily and fleshy
pleasures of the moment, but had to be understood the way that a
mature and rational mind would understand it: over the long term,
not in the moment, and with a proper eye to "true" pleasure and not
merely to pleasures that felt like pleasures because they took away
our pain. If I have back pain and put on some ointment, I do not
"feel pleasure," I simply feel the absence of pain. Likewise, if I
have a cigarette because I think it will give me pleasure, I might be
mistaking true pleasure for the absence of pain that comes with the
nicotine.
So I will ask the question the way that Socrates asks the question
at 591: "...how can we maintain or argue, Glaucon, that injustice,
licentiousness, and doing shameful things are profitable to anyone,
since, even though they may acquire more money or other sort of
power from them, they make him more vicious."
In other words, injustice sours my soul, makes it vicious and
inharmonious, and turns me into a worse person - how can this be
to my advantage?
Discuss.
What can we say about Book Ten that hasn't already been said
Book Ten about the rest of the Republic? In fact, not very much. Some
(Entire
theorists have seen in Book Ten a recapitulation of the rest of the
Book)
text. You will note, for example, that a good portion of the Book
recaps the discussion in Books Two and Three concerning poetry.
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Socrates thus asks once again whether poetry shall be welcomed
into our city. The result? Sure, as long as she can make a rational
case for herself as a possible defender of truth. You will see if you
look at the details of this argument that it all hinges on whether
poetry can be rational. Can it? Feel free to discuss this in this last
post.
What is really wonderful and weird in this last book, however,
does not have much to do (at least not on the surface) with the
structured argumentation of the rest of the Republic. Indeed, it has
to do with the very end of the book, Plato's account of the Myth of
Er (about 614 to 621).
There is no way for text to do this story justice. Unfortunately,
good drawings are also hard to come by. Here is some of what
Google Images has to offer:
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
All Three Images by Unknown Author –Retrieved from
http://wlasseter.blogspot.com/2010/06/myth-of-er-outline.html
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
And now let's see what else we can find:
Courtesy of The Monkey Dance at
http://ladansedusinge.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/the-myth-of-er/.
Well, how much did you expect out of Google Images?
Still, it is always good to see what others' imaginations will yield
when they try to encapsulate in images what they see in text. Can
you imagine a true Hollywood rendition of the Myth of Er (or the
Republic as a whole, for that matter)? It might not be so bad, as
terribly as the production might mangle the ideas themselves.
In any case, I don't want to do too much interpretation of the Myth
for you. I think it's fairly straightforward and the key lies in seeing
the choice at the end as the choice that you and I are making right
now. The message is in fact rather trite, but here it is: we all
Notes/Answers
Book
and
Section
Questions
choose our lives, not just in some mythical afterlife, but in every
moment and every choice that we make. And the reason to be just
- if we needed one at all - is that being just makes our souls
healthier. And if we need a reason to want our souls to be
healthier...well then, maybe that's where reason needs to stop.
Notes/Answers