by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett.
Back to The Everything Civilopedia...
On the surface, The Republic seems to have been written by Socrates, Plato's teacher. However, at the time of its creation, Socrates had been dead, put to death by the same city he spent his life instructing. Plato wanted to keep the memory of Socrates alive by using him as the main character. To do this, Plato wrote this dialogue as Socrates asking his followers questions aimed at defining justice. Plato develops what he believes is justice through the answers provided by the students. In order to develop the idea of justice he first formulates a perfectly just society by using Socrates' method of question and answer.
This perfectly just society has three castes forming a pyramid. The base of the pyramid, constituting the majority of the society, is the producers. This element of society followed nothing more than their desires. These people would go about their daily lives as doctors and merchants, buying and selling products and services. They would perform one job, and one job alone. This job would be what they were naturally suited for, what they had an aptitude for, such as farming or building. A doctor would not be found building a house or farming. Instead, he would stick to healing. This he saw a just, everyone doing what they were best suited for. In all other aspects the producers would live their lives very similarly to the present American social system.
The rest of the population made up the Guardian class. This was the educated class. They were taken from birth and educated in the right modes of music, logical thinking, physical conditioning, and given a formal philosophical background. For years, the guardian class would receive a formal education. The city would provide them with their basic needs. They would be provided shelter in the home of a citizen. They would be given enough food to sustain them. However, they would not lead a luxurious life. Luxuries would deter them from the proper mind set that Guardians should have. Guards were not to be after possession, but personal pride. Therefore, only their most basic and simple needs would be provided for. In order to procreate, the city would host a sort of breeding festival for the Guardians to produce children at as high a caliber, thus providing the city with another generation of Guardians. As their education progressed, those who appear to devote their lives toward furthering justice would be placed in the highest caste, that of the philosopher king. The remaining in the guardian class would form the Auxiliaries.
The Auxiliaries simply would carry out the orders of the Philosopher Kings. They were the soldiering class of the city, protecting the city from all outside enemies. A majority of their training would be physical. However, they would not stop educating themselves in the hope of one day becoming a philosopher king.
The Philosopher King was at the top of society's pyramid. He was there, not because he wished to rule, instead he was there because he did not want someone of less intelligence ruling over him. There was also an aspect of personal pride and respect. A philosopher king was never after money, luxury, or outside recognition. He was not one who would be after prizes, trophies, or awards. Instead, a philosopher king ruled so that an idiot would not rule him. He ruled for the personal feeling of doing a good job.
With this setup and class system, many believe that Plato favored a utopia. This, however, was not his plan. Instead, Plato defined justice. This system of government provided a just system. The elements and ideas in the dialogue can be applied to everyday life. With this in mind, a reader can utilize this to live a just life in an otherwise unjust world.
Another topic worth mentioning is Sigmund Freud's idea of the id, ego, and superego. When Freud's ideas are placed next to Plato's system of government in The Republic, they are identical. The id becomes the producers, the ego is the Auxiliaries, and the superego is the Philosopher King. Thus, Plato's ideas have made their way in to modern thought. However, these ideas are definitely not followed in today's world. Plato hails the intellectual ruler who is after nothing but personal pride. With campaign finances what they are, the election of George W. Bush to the Presidency, and the fact that Colin Powell will not become a leader one can see how little Plato's ideals are adhered to.
Plato's thoughts might not be followed, but they still exist, and are studied by many intellectuals. Many people read and re-read his dialogue. In fact, because of its immortal basis in philosophy, it has been placed in the Western Canon, the list of writings that most western thinkers study to get a broad philosophical background.
The Republic; Why this book, is so immensely good, and (even more importantly) Why you should read it
Plato's Republic is, any many ways, the exact opposite of contemporary political science - This is what makes it such a substantial work for politically interested people. In contrast with just about every other book on political science, The Republic is written in a captivating way. It discusses politics and political change - but it does not just tell you what needs to be changed, but also how and why - two questions frequently ignored otherwise.
Plato's radical way of observing politics is a substantial challenge to the modern reader. It provokes you to to think critically about politics, society, and the way in which we study them - the primary objective of any good book.
The best example of a thought-provoking issue is how readers today react to Plato's critique of democracy. The fun part is that everybody assumes that they have an answer of why democracy is the best form of government. By raising fundamental questions, both political and philosophical, the reader is forced to reconsider (or at least rethink) their views. Plato teaches us to have a closer look at our biases about democracy - we are forced to "defend" our form of government, based on reason in stead of emotion or authority
Another thing you can't help but admire with Plato is his way of manipulating his discussion partners. Closely related to other, less amicable debate techniques, but also with truly good speech and deduction techniques, Plato invariably puts his point across nicely.
In any case; If you have any interest in politics at all, go read this book!
In Book Three of The Republic, Plato provides an account of the type of education (or mousiké, which is best translated as education, but denotes something slightly different; according to translator Desmond Lee, mousiké includes training in philosophy, music, poetry and so on. This is a bit different from what we think of as education today!) he considers appropriate for children chosen to be the Guardians of The Republic (Plato's ideal state). Rather than prescribing an education in which one learns subjects such as mathematics, literature and so on, Plato chooses to proclaim that the Guardians be educated in a manner that will enable them to be the ultimate military force. In Plato's view, this involves not only teaching certain skills, but also restricting students from being exposed to certain "inappropriate" materials and/or aspects of society. In two sections, he deals with the mental and physical training which are necessary to successfully produce the Guardians. I will briefly discuss each section of Plato's conception of a proper education as described in The Republic, Book Three.
Plato examines the moral and theological qualities of the poets (most notable Homer and Hesiod) and their works. In traditional Athenian education, reading poetry was considered essential. Unlike the Judeo-Christian cultures, the Ancient Greeks did not have theological scriptures based on some sort of direct contact with or divine revelation from God. Instead of a Bible, Torah or Qu'ran, the collected myths and epic poems (which arose from the culture) of Greece provided both the ontological and ethical bases for the culture. Plato, however, identifies flaws within this tradition.
First, Plato says (of course, Plato always makes his points through the character of Socrates, who engages in dialogues with others) that the misrepresentation of God is unacceptable. Plato's conception of God as the Good (Thomas Aquinas also writes of the summum bonum much later) dictates that God is perfectly good, and therefore changeless and incapable of deceit, and must never be otherwise represented1. In traditional Greek mythology, the gods (aside from being a pantheon rather than a theological unity) are depicted anthropromorphically. They can be cruel, sadistic, selfish, petty and vengeful: We can admit to our state no stories about Hera being tied up by her son, or Hephaestus being flung out of Heaven for trying to help his mother when she was getting a beating2. In addition, they can change shape, and often take the forms of human beings as well as animals. Initially, this may appear to simply go along with the idea of deities being omnipotent, but this may not actually be the case. In the myths, whenever a god takes the form of an animal, he or she is subject to the physical qualities of that animal. For instance, when Zeus takes the form of a snake, he has sexual intercourse in the manner of a snake, and moves like a snake, and so on. Again, while this may be attributed to a deity's omnipotence, Plato sees it as oxymoronic because by taking the form of an earthly creature, a god (Plato uses the terms God and god(s) interchangeably) automatically becomes less than absolutely perfect. Since God is absolutely perfect, according to Plato, there is no possibility that he would take any form other than that of God; this is not from the lack of omnipotence on God's part, it simply would not and does not happen. Because of this fallacy, Plato says that the poetry of Homer and similar bards is theologically incorrect and must not be permitted to be used in the education of the Guardians.
perfectly good, and therefore changeless and incapable of deceit, and must never be otherwise represented
We can admit to our state no stories about Hera being tied up by her son, or Hephaestus being flung out of Heaven for trying to help his mother when she was getting a beating
Second, the moral fibre of the gods as portrayed in Greek mythology is somewhat less than inflexible; they are often seen displaying licentious behaviour:
And then there is the story of how Zeus stayed awake, when all the other gods and men were asleep, with some plan in mind, but forgot it easily enough when his desire for sex was aroused; he was indeed so struck by Hera's appearance that he wanted to make love to her on the spot, without going indoors, saying that he had never desired he so much since the days when they first used to make love 'without their parents' knowledge'3
It looks, then,
that we shall have to control story-tellers on this topic too. We must ask the poets to stop giving their present gloomy account of the after-life, which is both untrue and unsuitable to produce a fighting spirit, and make them speak more favourably of it.
Content is one part of the puzzle; Plato takes time to pay attention to form in his investigation of poetry. In the epics, the poets often spoke as the characters they were portraying, straying out of a consistent narrative form. Plato objects to this, saying that he does not want ... Guardians to deviate from their own character by representing other characters, especially bad characters.5 He privileges straight ahead prose over forms of poetry and literature that involve the first person representation of characters in their narration. Plato prohibits this literary form of identity juggling in order to stress the importance of each man playing his specified role. A man, he says, cannot play many parts as well as he can one.6
does not want ... Guardians to deviate from their own character by representing other characters, especially bad characters.
A man,
cannot play many parts as well as he can one.
Obviously, Plato's goal is to keep the Guardians from having the minds set on anything other than the Good. That is not necessarily to say that the Guardians are meant to understand the Good in the same way that a philosopher might; they have nothing to compare and contrast their received view with. Their access to material that portrays any sort of undesirable theological or moral ideas is to be entirely cut off, so that they have an inflexible understanding of the world. Since The Republic is to be built on the ideals of order and goodness, the opinions of the Guardians will be utterly in sync with state-sanctioned religion and morals. They will carry out the wishes of its leaders as though as though those wishes were their own; in truth, their wishes will be entirely in accord as those which the state makes known to them. This is the project of Plato's mental training: to produce warriors who will unquestioningly march into battle to defend the ideals of The Republic without the fear of death.
An update (aside from the bigger update that will be done soonish- ok, consider it an afterthought): Given that Plato posits an immortal soul, and that he says that you can only learn what is already in your soul and can be recollected through education, it appears to me that
This is a short paper I wrote for my political theory course I took as a breadth requirement for my degree this past year.
The `noble lie' that Socrates proposes at the end of book three of the Republic (414b-415d) is intended as support for the city model that he, Adeimantus and Glaucon have been building. The lie is a means of justifying the social and political structure of the city to its citizenry. The `nobility' of the lie is meant to rest in its goal. By reinforcing the social order, and by binding each class to one another in a spirit of brotherhood, the lie contributes to the stability of the society. Certain truths are contained in the lie, but although it is seemingly made with good intentions, the fact of its necessity suggests that there are fundamental problems with the model. In the end, the lie could prove to be the biggest problem of all.
Socrates recognizes that it is going to take more than honour and pride instilled through education to ensure that the guardian class stays in line with the established order. He says: " `Could we . . . somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need . . . some one noble lie to persuade, in the best case, even the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city?' " (414c) The myth is meant to cement the guardians, auxiliaries and artisans together as a kind of `super-family'. " `All of you in the city are certainly brothers,' "(415a), they will be told. Socrates is bringing in again the idea of familial attachment that he had banished before the discussion of the lie. In its original form, it was thought that this attachment would encourage people to hold their families as a priority before the needs of the city. Shifting this familial attachment to the city is meant to shift the loyalty of each citizen from the personal to the communal. In caring for their brothers, the citizens of each class are meant to submit to the order of things by performing the tasks assigned to them by their lot in life.
This is where the `nobility' of this lie is to be found. One may think of the lie as noble in that it cements the citizens into a mutually dependent whole. Without a common bond, what would ultimately hold the city together? What would prevent the guardian-class from becoming a nomadic band of high-minded mercenaries, or the artisans from being a self-sufficient city with a citizen militia? Why should the guardians protect and care for a class that, by the standards of the guardians' own education, seems beneath them? How could the artisans relate to the austere and intellectual guardians, and desire to be ruled by them, rather than by themselves? The lie is noble then, in that it creates the sensibility that (supposedly) allows Socrates' experiment in justice to exist. It justifies the interdependency that allows this particular city to exist, and not some other that might develop naturally from the founding conditions that were laid down at the beginning of Socrates' conversation with Glaucon and Adeimantus.
One can say that there are some truths in this founding myth. People are born with different abilities and aptitudes, and some are more fit to rule than others. Those who are fit to rule however, can come from anywhere, and should be sought and recognized for what they are. Given the proper chance, a well-suited person from any background can succeed. Those in the city have common origins, and need each other to survive, and live well. All of these ideas are contained in the founding myth, and give it a `ring of truth', perhaps. These truths strengthen the power of the myth, in that they lend their credibility to the story as a whole. The artisans, who don't have the guardian's education, may intuitively sense these truths and accept the myth as a whole. The guardians, however, may come to recognize the myth for what it is, but hold on to it and perpetuate it for the sake of these truths.
The fact that this lie seems necessary to the well-being of the city, however, reveals that there are real problems with this model. The need to fabricate a reason to hold the city together underlines the schisms inherent in the way the city is designed. While the guardian-rulers and guardian-auxiliaries are made for each other, the third class of artisans has a lifestyle, education and outlook that are fundamentally different from that of the guardians. Beyond the lie, there isn't much to prevent the sundering of the city, or perhaps an ultimate subjugation of the artisans by the guardians, should things go badly. If the lie fails, the city, at worst, would be destroyed. At best, it would greatly deviate from their plans. The problems caused by the structure of the city are intractable, and to be rid of them, the city would have to be rebuilt.
All citations from: The Republic of Plato, translated by Allan Bloom, Basic Books, 1991.
Introduction
Plato's Republic is both a political and a moral work in that it discusses both individual morality and the nature of justice in a political community. The book's argument is focused on a discussion of the benefits of justice to the individual, and it ends when Socrates is done describing the benefits both in this life and the next of practicing justice. However, in the course of this discussion many political issues are discussed. Whether or not Plato wrote Republic primarily as a political or moral work, the city/soul analogy means that it necessarily carries a political message. This message is twofold.
Firstly, it contains a specific and prescriptive political program which describes how to establish a city which is 'wholly good' (427e). Secondly, it contains a more general message, one which is highly sceptical about politics as an activity and very pessimistic about the possibilities of collective human action. The philosopher-kings gain most pleasure from engaging in contemplation with their peers, but must engage in political action by necessity to keep the city going and so maintain the conditions for their own personal fulfilment. Hence it is man's fallibility which makes politics necessary, so the philosophers have no choice but to descend back into the cave to engage in it. Callipolis is designed so as to contain the optimum amount of justice - as a political community it is just, and the individuals within contain balanced and just souls. One would not be possible without the other, and so both are interconnected.
The political
The political dimension of The Republic first becomes apparent when Thrasymachus claims that no city exists which is non-exploitative, something Socrates never refutes. He instead describes how the ideal form of such a city can be logically imagined, whilst admitting that it would require 'heaven-sent' conditions for it to come about (592a - b). In constructing the concept of the ideal city, Plato, through Socrates, passes extensive comment on how the politics of the city should be constructed. Its institutions are described, as are its fundamental laws. The system of education is specifically designed to perpetuate the political system that the interlocutors lay down, and itself is deemed sufficient to guarantee that legislation in the areas not specifically discussed will be worthy of the city.
In the light of the latter, Plato could be seen to be cutting the political discussion short to get back to the topic of personal morality. However, the discussion of the city's laws, culture and institutions seems to exceed that which is necessary to sustain the analogy to the soul. Plato's focus here on education carries a joint political and moral message. Plato is convinced of man's educability, and education is a way of forging a cohesive political community and guaranteeing it does not disintegrate.
However, it is also the key to an individual striking the balance in their soul between the three warring parts and hence attaining individual morality. Here we see one example where the political and moral parts of The Republic are inseparable - the city could not be ideal without the education proposals laid out, and these proposals are designed to hone the individual morality of individuals. A political order, as an aggregate of individuals, necessarily takes its character from the nature of these individuals. Hence these proposals are politically and morally desirable.
Early on, Socrates decides on a definition of justice which is essentially political. Justice, he says, consists of 'this business of everyone performing his own task' (433b). The principle of the division of labor was established early on as necessary to producing an effective city, but this division necessarily intertwines people together and requires them to make moral choices in their lives. It is important that early on Plato puts the following words in Socrates' mouth: 'The origin of a city lies, I think, in the fact that we are not, any of us, self-sufficient; we have all sorts of needs' (369b). As none of us are self-sufficient and we hence have to live in political communities, questions of morality are all asked within this framework.
This means that The Republic's moral component must have a political dimension, even if it is possible to imagine Socrates' definition of the good life as possible outside of a political community. Philosophers could theoretically spend their time seeking the Form of the Good outside of a human society, but the interlocutors decide when they reject the 'city of pigs' (the uncultured city) that by eliminating culture from their city they would also eliminate education, and so create a city of idiots: hardly likely to produce philosopher-kings. Civilization is hence a prerequisite for philosophizing and achieving morality. As Plato also writes throughout The Republic of the danger of adverse social and cultural contexts tarnishing the morality of an individual, the nature of the political context becomes a matter of first order importance in Plato's discussion of justice in the soul.
The second source of political discussion to Plato in The Republic is the city/soul analogy. After the long discussion of the city's laws, institutions and its culture, he turns to the soul and carries the parts of the analogy across which he believes to be relevant. The most relevant part in his opinion is the division of labour - as the city is divided into several classes of people who form distinct functions, the soul has a similar tripartite division. However, it must be questioned whether the analogy is logically viable. Socrates believes that the city's excellence consists in its division of labour and specialization, but it does not necessarily follow that this must be the source of the soul's excellence. This means the analogy does not necessarily strengthen Plato's argument, and the discussion of the soul's nature would have been possible without using analogy at all.
However, the analogy is an incredibly rich heuristic device and allows Plato to make relevant comments on both morality and politics simultaneously. In this way as well it is impossible to separate the political parts of the work from the moral; as Thrasymachus remarks, the character of a city's political order reflect the character of its rulers, be they the whole people in a democracy or one tyrant. However, it is telling to consider just how utopian the city used in the analogy is, although the analogy still holds because Socrates also considers it a remote possibility that a philosopher-king with an analogously well-ordered mind could emerge.
Like the Form of the Good, the ideal city cannot be known outside the world of forms, but virtue is sufficiently constituted by a constant orientation towards the good, or towards the ideal city. The Republic hence describes a political techne (science) possessed by philosopher-kings by which the perfect city can be aimed for, even if the light from the Good can never penetrate the cave and illuminate it entirely.
The moral
The moral element of The Republic argues that personal morality and justice consist of having a well-balanced and cohesive soul in which reason is sovereign, spirit the deputy, and the desires are restrained. This is a rather strange concept of personal morality, as it does not make any specific prescriptions on the activities of 'making money, or taking care of his body, or some political action, or contractual agreements with private individuals' (443e) which Socrates says a man with such a soul can now engage in. At this point in the dialogue, Socrates has done little to convince us that a man with such a soul will act in a way which is considered just.
It is when he comes to describe the character of the tyrannical individual that Socrates describes why a well-ordered soul will cause an individual to act justly. An unbalanced soul is associated with rampant desire and hence immorality and criminality. The morality of the philosopher-king resides in his constant orientation towards the Good and his all-consuming eros (desire) for it, qualities which are likely to dissuade him from dissolute or immoral behaviour. The morality of the rest of the population is taken to be represented by their deference to the class hierarchy and the sovereignty of the philosopher-kings in matters of rule, as they do not have knowledge of the political techne.
There are hence different rules for different groups in the political order, which confuses The Republic's moral message and the issue of whether it is primarily political. As has already been noted, orientation towards the Form of the Good is a theoretical possibility in a non-political environment; however, the moral behaviour of the mass of the population is defined with reference to the city. The philosopher-kings are not much freer, for if they choose not to rule then the city will disintegrate and they will become corrupted and unable to seek the Good.
Conclusion
It appears then that the relationship of politics and morals in The Republic is highly complex. The inner polity of the soul and the outer polity of the city cannot exist without each other, and so it is conceded that neither form will ever exist in reality. Plato says that the only politics a philosopher-king would wish to engage in are those of the perfect city, and as the perfect city can never exist he is sending a highly pessimistic message about politics in general: individuals who are supremely virtuous and wise shun politics down in the cave.
The city itself is only held together by an elaborate system of lies and myths which deny most of the common people their individualism, and the philosopher-kings are taken to be acting morally because of their individual search for wisdom, not because of their civic values or method of rule. The Republic's account of political justice is hence very basic, as it is taken to consist in the utilitarian notion that everyone should do what they are best at, acting in a merely supporting role for the ultimate good. There is little clue as to how people should conduct themselves in everyday affairs, although we are told that when properly educated they cannot fail to do so. Furthermore, the relationship between the rulers and the common people is far from ideal -
'Don't you think it's a disgrace, and a sure sign of poor education, to be forced to rely on extraneous justice - that of masters or judges - for want of a sense of justice of one's own?' (405b)
The good and virtuous life is unattainable for those who must have surrogate justice through the decisions of others. The appropriate conclusion seems to be that The Republic is primarily a work expressing a morality of the excellent life, a life which is beyond the reach of most people. As a political order must by necessity exist, it should be one which advances the virtues of the excellent life and facilitates those capable to seek the Form of the Good. However, this order requires the existence of individuals with the morality which Plato considers to be supremely virtuous and it exists to perpetuate this virtue. The perfectly balanced inner polity of the guardians is hence the key to the city's political structure, and is in fact a corollary of the political techne they possess by virtue of their balanced souls. So, in the final analysis, The Republic is primarily a moral work, but one which passes extensive comment on the nature and practice of politics, which is itself inseparable from the psychology of the individuals who practice it.
