Category: The Republic

The Homecoming of the Truth

In The Republic, Plato argues that the ideal society is one that “uses propaganda and lies to perpetuate the rule of a single class, insisting that justice is everyone keeping his or her place”. Upon reading The Republic, I am convinced that such a society cannot be ideal. Plato seems to contradict himself by proposing a society based on the “noble lie” because he himself elevates truth and convinces his rulers to abide by the truth. Upon examining various passages from The Republic, and grounding myself in properly understanding the terms and concepts Plato puts out, it is clear to me that Plato’s society cannot be the ideal society according to his own terms.

Building upon the concept of the noble lie is the principle of the “ideal city” or the “ideal society”, for Plato, an ideal society is one that is built upon the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderateness, and justice. The rulers would inherit wisdom, and the auxiliaries would have within themselves courage, while moderateness was to be instilled among everyone within the hierarchy since moderateness is the recognition of who should be ruled, and who should rule (see 428b- 432b). Plato theorized that once the three virtues of wisdom, courage, and moderateness, are present within the society, justice would be present. Once justice is present, that would result in harmony. When all these four virtues are present in society, Plato deduces that that would be an ideal society.

However, Plato believes that in order for the ideal society to happen, everyone in the society would need to abide by the principle of specialization. Yet, for people to appreciate their “place” in society, Plato saw in necessary to propose what is called, the “noble lie,” or “myth of metals” (see 414d–417b). In the noble lie, Plato outlines a plan that would allow people to be appreciative of their place within society, and therefore actively do what they are good at. Plato unveils his plan of the “noble lie” in which the society would be built upon the thought that people were born with metal within them, either gold, silver, or bronze. If you were born with gold then you were a ruler, silver then you were an auxiliary, or bronze then you would be a craftsman. The people who fall within each category would be very well versed in their position. Plato believed that people should do what they are good at (see 369a-372a), hence the principle of specialization. Plato thought that a noble lie would allow society to exist in harmony and therefore be the ideal society. This myth or lie is “noble” because Plato believed that it would be imposed for the good and well-being of a society (416b-c).

While Plato’s theory may seem appealing, I found that Plato seems to be contradicting himself in other areas of The Republic when it comes to using the terms “lie and truth”. As I have laid out, Plato seems to think that for society to be ideal (in his terms), it must be built on the foundation of the “noble lie” so that harmony may be circulated within that society. However, it is interesting to note that after proposing the “noble lie”, in Book V, while in dialogue with Glaucon, Socrates (the mouthpiece of Plato in The Republic) questions if he should be acting truthfully as he says to Glaucon, “I am not afraid of being ridiculed […] but I am afraid that if I fail to secure truth, just where it is most important to do so, I will not only fall myself but drag my friends down as well.” (451a) Here, it seems that Socrates is not scared of what others may think about his ideas, but rather, he fears the consequence that may come if he fails to propose the truth. Socrates is not only minding about his own well-being but also that of others. Upon reading this in The Republic, I question, “If Plato believes that there is a consequence to lying, then why propose the “noble lie” in the first place”?

Within The Republic, Socrates does not only question if he should act truthfully, but rather, at various moments within the text, he elevates the truth. In Book III, while speaking about truth, Socrates says, “Moreover, we have to be concerned about the truth as well.” (389b) I think Benjamin Jowett’s translation is easier to understand, translating line 389b as, “truth should be highly valued.” (emphasis added) In just a couple of lines below that, Socrates says that only rulers should have the privilege to lie “because of enemies or citizens for the good of the city,” (389c) while craftsmen should be “punished” if they were to lie (390d). This fact is contradictory because later on, in Book V of The Republic, Socrates mentions that philosophers should be rulers because they have knowledge of the Forms. In Book V, while in conversation with Glaucon, both men discuss who are the true philosophers since Glaucon noted that “many strange people will be philosophers” (475d). Upon being asked by Glaucon, “Who do you think, then are the true ones [philosopher],” Socrates replies, “The lovers of seeing the truth.” (475e) It is for that reason that I say it is not possible for rulers (in Plato’s case the philosophers) to be acting upon any lie if they were, whom Socrates defined it as “lovers of seeing the truth”, because society built on the “noble lie” would not contain within itself any truth in sight. There would be no truth for the rulers to love. A ruler, therefore, cannot both be upholding a lie and be loving the sight of truth at the same time.

Going back to the Platonian definition of the ideal society is one that contains in itself a balance between the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderateness, and justice, therefore making it harmonious and ideal. If in Plato’s terms, the rulers were to uphold the “noble lie” for all of society, I do not believe there would be harmony at all due to the imbalance of virtues. Plato attributes the virtue of wisdom to the role of the rulers. Earlier, I mentioned that Plato defined wisdom in the context of The Republic as possessing and using good judgment (see 428b–429a). However, as Plato defined, the rulers, or the philosophers rather, should be “lovers of seeing the truth”. Therefore, connecting these two ideas, it is reasonable to say that to use good judgment is not only to ensure decisions are made for the good of society but also through the lens of truth, not lies. Failing to do so will result in an imbalance of virtues in society, and through the Platonian lens, the imbalance of virtues will not create the ideal society due to the absence of justice (which is the result of the balance of the three virtues stated). While some may argue that Socrates said, “justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own,” (433b), I think it is critical to understand that a clearer definition in a Platonian context is to do “one’s own work” in the spirit of truth, which means recognizing what we are good at, and develop skills to either lead, guide, or assist society within our capacity. It is important to recognize that people change and develop skills throughout time and therefore, it is critical to recognize that truth, rather than sticking too closely with the “noble lie”, which would not result in virtuous people, nor would there be an ideal society in Platonian terms.

[bookmark: _gjdgxs] While Plato proposed that a society built upon “lies and propaganda” would be the ideal society, upon examining Plato’s quality of truth required of the rulers, the impact of having a “noble lie” circulating through society and looking at it all through the Platonian definition of an ideal society, it has proven to me that such a society would not be ideal. Instead of the ideal society, Plato would hope for, I have found that one based upon the noble lie fails to meet Plato’s virtues required of an ideal society. Rather, from my perspective, a society based on truth will be virtuous, and therefore likely lead to an ideal society.

Works Cited

1. Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory Fifth edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2011. Print.
2. “The Republic by Plato.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html.

In Greece, we discover the roots of a considerable lot of our instructive arrangements and frameworks as it is the beginning wellsprings of Western human advancement. Greek thoughts regarding training and their instructive practices have been extremely compelling to different societies. One of Rome’s most noteworthy support of humankind is that it conveyed the Greek convention to all the Western terrains. Greek human advancement was created somewhere in the range of 1200 and 490 B.C. It is in the Age of Pericles, around 500 B.C., that we see the main sorted out exertion in Western culture for formal training. 1

The investigation of old Greek human advancement gives significant exercises on citizenship and city training that outlines the significant job of instruction in molding great citizens. Textual examination of his different discourses uncovers Plato’s perspectives on the reason for instruction, what it is that ought to be educated to other people and how the instructor ought to give this information. Plato’s instructive idea enlightens numerous issues the present instructors face: Who are commendable models for kids to mimic? How does instruction help to shape good citizenship? How does instruction serve mankind’s quest for truth? In particular, we will extrapolate Plato’s reaction to the present basic center discussion.

We think about Plato and his family from the remarks he makes in his exchanges. Plato was conceived in 427 B.C., the child of Ariston and Perictione, both of whom were plunged from recognized Athenians of eminence. His dad passed on when Plato was a couple of years old and his mom remarried a companion of the incomparable Athenian statesman Pericles which implied that Plato knew about Athenian governmental issues from his youth and was hoping to take up a political profession himself.2

Plato got the normal instruction of an adolescent in Athens, where the training of the youthful was taken a gander at as an open as opposed to a private issue and was endowed only to proficient hands. In the Republic, Plato diagrams the ordinary training of a Greek kid, which he additionally got – figuring out how to peruse and compose and study the writers. Training started in Athens around 640-550 BC with Solon’s decree that each kid ought to be educated to swim and to peruse in schools and palestras, or gymnastic schools. Solon didn’t characterize the educational program or the strategies yet just the age and rank of understudies and the capabilities of the teachers, that is the slaves who mentored every understudy. Athenian residents were required to have the option to peruse and compose, to tally and sing or play the lyre. Schools in Athens were not a production of the state but rather a private endeavor with the instructor bolstered by educational cost installments. The school was not necessary in Athens, nor was it open to all, however just to the male offspring of the residents. Between the ages of eight and sixteen, some Athenian young men went to a progression of government-funded schools. 3 The Athenian instructed perfectly was a balanced, generously taught person who was able in legislative issues, military undertakings, and general network life and could partake in the direct participatory majority rule government.

The point of instruction for Athenian ladies was more at the degree of preparing, empowering them to ace residential errands as opposed to scholarly. Most Athenian young ladies were just taught in the home. A couple of ladies’ schools existed. Sappho of Lesbos, most eminently, worked at a school that showed ladies of rank such subjects as singing, music, moving, and sports.4 Most quality of Athenian life was the general sentiment that training – culture and municipal instruction was craftsmanship to be learned by every person. 5 This is especially solid in Plato’s way of thinking of training. He was the first to suggest equal training for people; in view of their common capacity. He was may be impacted by the arrangement of instructions created in the south of Greece in Sparta. 6

We see the impact of this Spartan way of thinking of instruction in the framework turned out by Plato in his Republic.

Plato experienced childhood in a city at war; the Peloponnesian war started before he was conceived and went on until he was 23 years of age. The discouragement of Athens because of destruction during the war prompted a government upheaval, trailed by savage oppression that at last offered a path to the re-foundation of a law-based constitution. During this unrest, Socrates was killed on a charge of iconoclasm and debasing the adolescent. A few researchers keep up that Plato filled in as the ‘resistance lawyer’ for Socrates during his preliminary. The way that he lost the case and his darling guide profoundly affected him made him on edge to safeguard the memory of Socrates. 7

Plato established The Academy in 387 BC, the main organization of higher learning in Greece. It turned into the scholarly focus in Greece and what could be compared to the principal college throughout the entire existence of Europe. It proceeded for more than 900 years until it was disintegrated by Justin in 529 A.D. alongside other Pagan institutions.8 a definitive object of all exercises at The Academy was to accomplish the last insightful truth. The strategy for instructing was by addressing and answering contention and dialog. Plato gave a few talks however his principal technique was oral discourse and exchange (equivalent to the cutting-edge course class). The subjects instructed at the foundation included a way of thinking, science, stargazing, and geometry. 9 It is intriguing to take note of that two ladies’ understudies were individuals from the institute: the possibility of university co-training is obviously as old as the possibility of a school itself. This, as different thoughts proposed by the school, incited analysis, as advanced education for ladies went legitimately against the custom of the times.10 The Academy was an incredible achievement. Aristotle went to Plato’s Academy in 367 B.C. at 17 years old and stayed there until Plato passed on in 347 B.C. Plato composed the Meno and Protagoras around a similar time as he established the Academy; one can unmistakably find in the discoursed the amount Plato was considering training and instructive issues at the time. 11

Plato committed his life to the vindication of Socrates’ memory and lessons. He composed 34 exchanges, with The Republic in the center. It is of general agreement that the primary discourse composed by Plato were the deification of his tutor’s considerations, and

to be sure a particularly unmistakable Socratic way of thinking and reasoning of instruction is displayed in these works. Starting with the Republic and the accompanying later discourse, a Platonic way of thinking and reasoning of training is sketched out.

Plato stayed at the Academy educating, composting, and living serenely until he kicked the bucket in 347 B.C. at 81 years old. Aristotle lauded his educator by saying that Plato ‘unmistakably uncovered by his very own life and by the techniques for his words to be cheerful is to be great.’ 12

Plato’s contribution to educational thought

One of the surprising actualities throughout the entire existence of culture is that the principal lucid treatise on government and training which we have in Western progress, Plato’sRepublic, is the most significant. Plato’s entering mind uncovered the issues with which humanity has battled, intentionally or unknowingly, as far back as it has had a sorted-out society and training. Plato treats the subject of instruction in The Republicas a basic and essential piece of a more extensive subject of the prosperity of human culture. A definitive point of instruction is to assist individuals with knowing the Idea of the Good, which is to be prudent. 13 According to Plato, an equitable society constantly attempts to give the best training to the entirety of its individuals as per their capacity.

Plato’s Philosophy of Education

In The Republic, Plato sets up a hypothesis of what instruction implies for both the individual and the state, concentrating on the significant job of the individuals who should cautiously pick

the material to show the future watchmen of the state. Verifiable in a way of thinking of training is a hidden comprehension of who the understudy is to be instructed; at the end of the day what is Plato’s way of thinking of the human individual? Plato clarifies his way of thinking of the individual in a few discourses, the Republic, Timaeus, the Laws. In the Platonic way of thinking, the most elevated personnel for man is a reason which is established in the profound soul. In the Laws x. 892 he expresses: the spirit is one of the primary presences, and preceding all bodies, and it …administers every one of the progressions and alterations of bodies. In The Republic, Book IV.. he proposes a tripartite nature to the spirit; the spirit comprises of three ‘sections’ – the sound part, the gutsy or energetic part, and the appetitive part 441d. In Timaeus70a Plato finds the discerning piece of the spirit in the head, the energetic part in the bosom, and the appetitive part in the stomach. The spirit, particularly the levelheaded soul, is undying as indicated by Plato and somehow or another has previous information which must be ‘drawn out by the procedure of training. He says: “That piece of the spirit, at that point, which participates in boldness and soul, since it is an admirer of triumph, they planted increasingly close to the head, …. What’s more, the heart, which is the intersection of the veins and the wellspring of the blood which flows vivaciously through every one of the appendages, they named to be the load of the guardian, to the end that when the warmth of the energy bubbles up when reason passes the word round that some low activity is being finished.”

Plato saw uniformity in people in their personhood as so he was one of the first to propose equivalent training for men and for ladies dependent on their capacity to learn, not on their sex. In the Republic, he states ‘On the off chance that ladies are to have indistinguishable obligations from men, they should have similar support and training?.. At that point, ladies must be shown music and vaulting and furthermore the craft of war, which they should rehearse like the men?” Book V

The instructor’s job is to be both an ace and a guide for the understudy. Regarding The education of the ‘professional subjects,’ the instructor would ‘train’ the understudies in order for them to become familiar with expressions of the human experience, artworks and employment aptitudes essential. The understudy would learn by watching the educator, take an interest in the action under the heading of the master, and afterward imitate the developments and abilities of the instructor, rehearsing until the individual has aced the aptitude. The disciple must submit to the techniques for his lord. This carries us to an increasingly significant job for the educator in the Platonic arrangement of training and that is the relationship that ought to from between the instructor and the understudy. Plato feels that learning will happen all the more effectively when the scholarly and the instructor have an incredible love for each other, for, therefore, the youthful understudies will tune in to the ace and attempt to imitate him since he cherishes him. The instructor must have a profound warmth for his/her understudies so as to be effective in educating them.

Be that as it may, are we to accept that …Protagoras and numerous others are capable by private instruction to present for their peers the conviction that they won’t be equipped for overseeing their homes or the city1 except if they put them responsible for their training, and make themselves so adored for this wisdom2 that their associates all but3 convey them about on their shoulders. The Republic Book X, 600

Plato’s educational plan is cautious picked to incorporate preparing for the soul (music) and preparing for the body (vaulting), with progressively troublesome scholastic subjects included when the kid is formatively prepared. In the Republic, Book II, Plato tells Glaucon.

‘What will be the instruction of our legends? – the two divisions, gymnastics for the body, and music for the spirit. Gymnastics has likewise two branches—moving and wrestling Music incorporates writing. they will start by recounting to little youngsters fictitious stories; … Be that as it may, it is more significant than just great stories be told so there must be restrictions of the essayists of fiction, keeping great, and dismissing the terrible; approving moms and medical caretakers to just tell their kids the great ones as it were.

At the age when the essential tumbling are finished: the period, regardless of whether of a few years, the individuals who are chosen from the class of twenty years of age will be elevated to higher respect, and the sciences which they learned with no organization in their initial training will presently be united, and they will have the option to see the characteristic relationship of them to each other and to genuine being who are generally immovable in their learning, and in their military and other delegated obligations, when they have landed at thirty years old should be picked by you out of the select class, acquainting them with dialectic the investigation of reasoning …for a long time, At the finish of the time they should be sent down again into the sanctum and constrained to hold any military or other office which youngsters are able to hold for a long time …and when they have arrived at fifty years old, at that point let the individuals who still endure and have separated themselves in each activity of their lives, and in each part of information, come finally to their culmination: the time has now landed at which they should raise the eye of the spirit to the widespread light which helps all things, and observe without a doubt the great; for that is the example as per which they are to arrange the State and the lives of people, and the rest of their own lives additionally; making philosophy their main interest, in any case, when their turn comes, drudging likewise at legislative issues and managing for the open great, not just as they were playing out some brave activity, yet basically as an issue of obligation; for you should not assume that what I have been stating applies to men just and not to ladies to the extent their inclinations can go.

We see that Plato upheld a kind of professional training, instruction to finish your job throughout everyday life; instruction for the maker, the watchmen and the scholar lords, enough education to carry out your responsibility well, however, each assembled by one’s capacities. Similarly, as he told me, he said for ladies ‘One lady has an endowment of recuperating, another not; one is an artist, and another has no music in her tendency? What’s more, one lady has a turn for gymnastic and military activities, and another is unwarlike and despises aerobatics?” Republic V

Plato’s Contribution to the Common Core banter

In as much as the basic center expresses that ‘The norms were made to guarantee that all understudies move on from secondary school with the abilities and information important to prevail in school, profession, and life, paying little respect to where they live.’ He would be supportive of them in the event that they are really attached to explicit aptitudes required in different career jobs as should be obvious that he was an advocate of ‘professional training’ or getting the education that you need so as to make a specific showing; yet as in the common center models are ‘all things considered, predictable rules for what each understudy should know and have the option to do in math and English language expressions from kindergarten through twelfth’, I figure Plato would concur with those guardians who challenge the basic center saying that they are bringing down or instruction by determining least guidelines for all. Plato would not bolster the regular center in that he sees that instruction ought to be diverse for the individuals who have greater capacity. In that CommonCore says it ‘centers around building up the basic reasoning, critical thinking, and analytical skills understudies should be effective.’ Plato would be supportive of it as he demands the incredible significance of the job of instruction, to carry the youthful to bit by bit observe endless and outright certainties and qualities; to be spared from passing their lives in the shadow-universe of blunder, deception, bias and visual deficiency to genuine qualities. The purposeful anecdote of the cave in the Republic clarifies that the ‘climb’ of the line was viewed as progress, but an advancement that requirements exertion and mental order to be acknowledged, subsequently the significance of training. For Plato, instruction involves driving an individual from simple conviction to genuine information. This training is of essential significance on account of the individuals who are to be statesmen and pioneers.

Plato’s instructive speculations have the handy point of preparing for citizenship and authority; his central intrigue is training for a character. 14 A significant proverb proposed by Plato is, ‘The nature of the State relies upon the sort of instruction that the individuals (gatherings) of the state get’ thus again he would be supportive of the American central government advancing the different states’ reception of the normal center principles

Plato pursued the inquiry answer strategy utilized by Socrates, particularly at the propelled degrees of training. By utilizing infiltrating questions, the instructor can go underneath the outside of the things which the sense see and land at an absolutely educated comprehension of the pith behind the objects of sense. The great educator must turn into a dialectician who doesn’t allow understudies to acknowledge the appearances of things, yet makes them utilize the eyes of the spirit to see their genuine importance. The instructor subsequently draws out the reality which is in the psyche of the understudy, removing him from the domain of sense understanding. This argumentative strategy drives the understudy away from the domain of sense information with functional applications to life and takes off to the statutes of unadulterated reason.’This is the elective I pick,’ he stated, ‘that it is for the wellbeing of my own mostly that I talk about what’s more, pose inquiries and answer.’ Book VII, 528. Plato’s technique supports the ‘profound thought and close perusing strategies’ proposed as essential to the normal central subjects.

Another technique utilized by Plato, yet frequently neglected when combining his way of thinking of training, is his utilization of fanciful circumstances. Plato requests that his group of spectators venture themselves into these risky circumstances or contextual investigations as we call them today, and reason about them, taking care of the issue by representing the uncertainties and, buts, advantages, and disadvantages.

At the point when a man attempts by talk – by methods for contention without the utilization of any of the sense- – to accomplish everything itself that which is and doesn’t surrender before he gets a handle on by intellection itself that which is great itself, he reaches the finish of the coherent domain similarly as that other man was then toward the finish of the noticeable Republic Book VII (532b).

History of Political Though

‘It looks to me as though the investigation we are undertaking is no ordinary thing, but one for a man who sees sharply. Since we’re not clever men, […] we should make this kind of investigation of it: if someone had, for example, ordered men who don’t see very sharply to read little letters from afar and then someone had the thought that the same letters are somewhere else also, but bigger and in a bigger place, I suppose it would look like a godsend to be able to consider the littler ones after having read these first, if, of course, they do happen to be the same. […] We say, don’t we, that there is a justice that belongs to a single man, and also one that belongs to a whole city? […] Perhaps, then, there will be more justice in the larger thing, and it will be easier to discern.

Introduction

The passage considered comes from the second book of Plato’s Republic. The latter is composed of ten books in which Plato, using Socrates as a speaking figure, defines what justice is and what makes a good state. The way in which the whole work is formed is through dialogues between Socrates and other Athenians. What is important here is the role of the city-soul analogy, which paves the floor for the entire discussion made in the ten books and in this paper. Plato uses the analogy to support his idea of justice, good state, and individual, but we shall see to that later. The parallel has led to many interpretations and criticisms and because of it Plato has been considered many things: a communist, a utilitarian, a totalitarian, and even an incoherent utopian. Not all of them are so believable, but they have some foundation in the text. Therefore, it should be kept to mind that such a complex work, which gave rise to several contrasting opinions, is not a straightforward one, even though Plato’s writing style and choice of dialogues may make it seem like that.

This paper aims at providing an explanation of the analogy and address, at least partially, some of the interpretations mentioned above.

Context

With the cited passage, Plato opens the way for the parallel between the just state and the just man. He does that in order to justify the answer he provided to Glaucon’s question (Glaucon was Plato’s older brother and one of the main characters of the Republic). The latter had indeed divided goods into three different types: goods that we desire only for their own sake, such as joy; goods that we desire both for their own sake and for their consequences, such as knowledge; goods that we desire only for their consequences, such as physical training. He then asked Socrates where he would place justice, who put it in the second type. Consequently, Socrates’ aim is to prove that justice is not only desirable but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their own sake and their consequences. This is indeed the concept behind his words in cited passage: “’It looks to me as though the investigation we are undertaking…”. The investigation here refers to the explanation Socrates has to provide in order to fully persuade Glaucon and he will do that through the use of the analogy.

The ideal city

“We say, don’t we, that there is a justice that belongs to a single man, and also one that belongs to a whole city?” Plato is convinced that there are two types of justice: one “political” and one “individual”. Because it is easier to discover justice in a big setting, as it is easier to read big letters rather than little ones, Socrates will start by explaining what constitutes a just city. However, there is no existing example of a completely just city and therefore, he begins to describe his ideal one.

Plato believed that individuals are not self-sufficient. The only way in which they can fulfill their needs -in the best possible method- is by joining together and forming a city. Important to specify is that people must carry out the task that they were naturally born to do. The principle of specialization was in this way introduced. Plato indeed was convinced that we are not all alike, but rather people differ from one another, one being suited for one job, one for another. This principle is not to be understood as a mere Fordist division of labour, but as a natural way to have the most tailored job assigned to each individual. This rule must always be followed, even in the case in which a person dislikes the job for which he or she is naturally suited. Secondly, as the city expands, more professions are created, more wealth is generated and more territory is needed. This will inevitably lead to the creation of an army, which, still according to the specialization principle, must be formed by specialized people. Those forming the army are called “guardians” and they are trained on the basis of platonic education, which has the task of forming good people with a disdain for evil. Guardians should be violent to people who try to trespass, but gentle with respect to citizens within the city. The formation process is extremely important since the best guardians -those more suited- will be chosen to be philosophers, namely rulers and organizers of the city (the so-called philosopher kings). The training, even though physical and cognitive in nature, has the main objective of developing the guardians’ character so that they can become the wisest individuals in the city in taking decisions and making judgments. More clearly, the group which until now has been called guardians is divided in two. The greatest from this group will be selected as rulers, and only they will now be called “guardians,” whereas the rest will remain as soldiers and will be labeled as “auxiliaries,” because their task is to aid rulers by fulfilling and enforcing their decisions. These two connotations are important since they form two of three classes that, according to Plato, compose the ideal state. The third are the ruled or just the rest of the citizenry. In addition to that, as we are talking about the ideal state, Socrates says that the city, in order to be just, must have three virtues: wisdom, courage, and temperance.

Wisdom belongs only to a few guardians and it is related to their education. It is only them indeed who have the ability to make fair judgments without favoring themselves or any of the other two classes and know how the city should be run. The courage of the city instead lies with the auxiliaries, considering that they have to defend the city from external attacks. The virtue of temperance resides in all three classes and refers to the agreement between people over who shall be in charge of the city. Two elements of this virtue must now be analyzed: self-knowledge and deference. Self-knowledge is when all citizenry agrees that those most suited individuals are ruling; more simply, the rulers know that they are the right people for the job, and the ruled know that they are not the right people for the job. Deference instead refers to the fact that the rulers impose their demands in accordance to justice and the ruled accept this imposition of desires and see it as fixed and given.

The virtue of justice can now be seen as encompassing all the other virtues. It is indeed fully accomplished only when each citizen recognizes his/her role in the city and starts acting according to his/her virtue. Only in this way, the state can be said to be united and just.

The just individual

“I suppose it would look like a godsend to be able to consider the littler ones after having read these first, if, of course, they do happen to be the same”[footnoteRef:5]. As initially envisaged by Socrates, once having analyzed the bigger picture, we should do the same but with the small one, namely the person, since now it will be easier. We are now turning to the previously cited “individual justice” and naturally, for the parallel to work, Socrates must find a similar tripartition of the individual to the one expressed with the ideal state. Should not this be the case However, the soul, differently from the state, is not a complete unity. More precisely, an individual’s behavior originates from a different source of desires -i.e. motivational sources-. These desires conflict with one another (one may want to drink, but control this temptation), so it is the form in which the person lives and acts that indicates how these sources of behavior are related. Having said this, this time we will not have three classes, but rather three aspects of the soul: reason, spirit, and desire. The reason is the rational aspect, the one that allows the individual to reason critically and to dominate his/her passions. It is composed of two main functions: one is to look for the truth and increase one’s knowledge; the reason is indeed the only part of the soul that desires to extend our knowledge of truths to all the other parts and finds pleasure in it. The second function is that of ruling the soul, its other parts, and all the impulses we naturally have. It is of extreme importance that the second function is carried out by reason. That is because it is the source of practical judgment about what is best for the person as a whole, meaning that reason is the only part of the soul that cares for the interest of the whole and not just for itself, differently from desire and spirit.

The latter is “by nature an auxiliary to the calculating part” -i.e. reason. Spirit is the part that provides the motivational background necessary to reason and that gets what one can be proud of, namely what the individual believes to be right. It may seem similar to reason, as it involves the rejection of desires which are not “recognized” by the person. Also, Socrates admits this by saying: “it sets its arms on the side of the calculating part”. However, there is an important difference: spirit must be understood as something educable and malleable, while reason is something fixed and given which cannot be changed. Finally, we have a desire, which lusts for every natural instinct, such as drinking, eating, or sexual pleasure. Important to say is that desire is blind to any thoughtful consideration beyond those of fulfilling what it wants.

All three aspects have a sort of cognitive power that allows them to recognize each other and to conflict in order to pursue their own interest. As we addressed before, it is a reason that should “rule” over the others, but ultimately the ideal model of the just person requires an agreement of the three aspects. Each of them should “doing its own” -i.e. act in accordance to their function. The individual is just if reason rules, spirit provides the motivational background, and desire is controlled. In this way, also individual justice has been defined.

The analogy

In order to conclude the investigation, Socrates must now trace the parallelism between political justice and individual justice. The tripartition of the city’s classes and its virtues is obviously linked to the tripartition of the soul of the individual. Guardians are those guided by reason and possess the virtue of wisdom; those which instead are guided by spirit are the auxiliaries and possess the virtue of courage; those in which desire prevails are the ruled, which only have the virtue of temperance.

Plato does not care if all individuals are not just. Indeed, only guardians can be said to be strictly speaking just, since it is only them who are dominated by reason. Fundamental is that guardians impose justice on the other classes and counterbalance the unjust tendencies brought about by the other aspects of the soul.

To conclude, we can say that one’s membership to a certain class depends on the dominating part of its soul. Plato links the separation of the city in three classes with one of the individuals, bringing a sort of natural justification to the hierarchy created.

Critical analysis and objections

Incoherence?

One of the most important criticisms of the city-soul analogy is the one given by Bernard Williams. He indeed investigated two implicit assumptions of the parallel: (i) a city is F if and only if its people are F (where F stands for “just”), and (ii) the explanation of a city’s being F is the same as the explanation of a person’s being F. Williams argued that according to (ii) and as we saw above, the just city and the just soul have the same structure, meaning that each contains a rational, spirited, and appetitive/desire element. Consequently, the rational element in the city is made up of individuals who are ruled by reason (guardians), the spirited element is made up of individuals ruled by a spirit (auxiliaries), and the appetitive element is comprised of individuals ruled by desire (the ruled). But then the just city is made of individuals who are ruled by spirit and appetite, and this conflicts with (i) since Socrates does not think that an individual who is ruled by spirit or appetite is completely just. However, according to many, this interpretation results erroneously. When describing the ideal city, Plato did not imply that all individuals had to be just in the same way. Having a just city does not mean that all citizens within it should be just. Plato is interested in the justice of the city, but not in the justice of its constituent parts -i.e. individuals. That can be understood when Socrates introduced the “Myth of Metals”, whereby assigning a different type of metals to each social class, he aimed at reaching the city’s happiness and justice and not that of the single individual. Indeed, the only necessary condition for the city to be just is that each class performs its function correctly. This explanation provides an effective counterargument to (i).

Authoritarian

Many have also criticized how the state structure envisaged by Plato had some anti-egalitarian and authoritarian features. Above all, these can be found in the class system; one born in a class will remain in it from birth to death, leaving no space for social mobility. Distinctions are innate and fixed. On this regard, particularly influential has been Karl Popper in “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. Popper considered Plato a real totalitarian. He “accused” him of having designed a city in which only the ruling class is allowed to rule, carry arms, and to receive a proper education. Amongst the several claims raised by Popper, two are of real importance. First, he criticized Plato’s belief of an ideal city without any sort of social and political change, going in countertrend to the principles of individualism and egalitarianism that were typical of Athens in that period. As Popper puts it: “The idealist formula is: Arrest all political change! Change is evil, rest divine”. Secondly, he disagreed with Plato’s undemocratic view that a just city requires individuals to sacrifice their needs to the interests of the state. This according to Popper (and to the majority of people living in accordance with western values) is one of the most significant characteristics of totalitarianism, either ancient o modern. Nazism, for example, underlined the needs of the Aryan race to excuse their cruel policies, while communists in the Soviet Union were interested in class aims and interests as the motor of history to which the individual must be subject. Popper saw Plato as the first enemy of the open society and although many other writers have counterargued these claims, his work introduced a new understanding of Plato and of the Republic.

Utilitarianism

For the second claim just raised – that regarding individuals sacrificing their interests for the sake of the state- totalitarianism has not been the only political doctrine associated with the Republic. There are many who linked it to Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, in its simplest formulation, claims that the morally right policy is that which produces the greatest happiness for the members of society[footnoteRef:9]. On this account, according to Robin Barrow, “Plato is quite explicit that the aim of the arrangements of the republic is to ensure the greatest happiness of the city as a whole”. We see then how both Plato and the utilitarianists are interested only in the benefit of the city (or of the whole) rather than that of the individual. Another similarity regards the role of the guardians. We know that Plato puts at the command of the city those individuals dominated by reason because it is them who can take decisions for the sake of the entire city. In other words, Plato allows a small elite to be in charge. Analogously, with utilitarianism, we find something similar with the so-called “government house” utilitarianism. This sub-doctrine was born as a solution needed to overcome the self-defeat of utilitarianism, for which society would do better in terms of utility by employing a non-utilitarian decision-making procedure. According to this view, a small elite would know that utilitarianism was the right moral theory, and they would employ utilitarian decision procedures to design utility-maximizing rules or institutions. The vast bulk of the population, however, would not be taught to believe in utilitarianism. They would be taught to view social rules and conventions as intrinsically justified. Both elites (the one of Plato and the one of the government house utilitarianism) take decisions in the interest of all population, one because is dominated by reason, one because knows what utilitarianism is. Besides, in both scenarios, the rest of the population sees rules and institutions as fixed and given.

This being said, it would be risky to call Plato a utilitarian. The term utility never shows in Plato’s works and he had, as all other ancient Greeks, a different conception of the good. Even though similarities can be found, Plato can be considered, if anything, only a great grandfather of utilitarianism.

Communism

Others instead have related the Republic to communism, up to the extent that some has talked even about “Platonic communism”. The main analogies are to be found in guardians and auxiliaries and their relationship with private property. These indeed are not allowed to have any property of their own beyond what is absolutely necessary to survive. They will not possess a private house, any land, or gold and silver (wealth). Their needs will be taken care by the ruled under the form of taxes. Since it only applies to only a minor part of the population, Platonic communism has been defined by Ernest Barker as “Half communism”: “It affects less than half of the persons and much less than half of the goods of the society to which it belongs”. However, once again, we should be cautious in talking about platonic communism at all. It is true that in this regard Plato and Marx share a common point, but that is mainly all. Indeed, while Marxist’s claims for the abolition of private property are mainly economic and social (which aim at the socialization of the means of production), those used by Plato are of moral and political nature. Lastly, there is a big difference that cannot pass unobserved: Marx wants a classless society; Plato wants to preserve the virtues of the ruling class in a highly hierarchical society.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is clear how relevant the city-soul analogy is in the whole Republic. It envelops all the most important arguments and gives credibility to Plato’s argument. It is through the analogy that we know how the ideal state is structured, when a just individual is so and how justice is related to them.

Ultimately, even though it has been highly criticized for its controversial and incoherent characteristics, we see how Plato had already come up with a theory including numerous elements of many of the most influential theories of the last centuries.

Bibliography

1. Bloom, Allan. 1968. The Republic Of Plato. 2nd ed. basic books.
2. Sparknotes: The Republic: Book II, Page 2′. 2019. Sparknotes.Com. https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/republic/section2/page/2/.
3. Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Creed, J. L. ‘Is It Wrong to Call Plato a Utilitarian?’ The Classical Quarterly 28, no. 2 (1978): 349-65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/638685.
5. Barker, Ernest. 2013. Greek Political Theory. Routledge.
6. Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. 1st ed. London: GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS, LTD.
7. Annas, Julia. 1981. An Introduction To Plato’s Republic. New York: Clarendon Press.

1. Introduction

Born and raised during a period of constant political turmoil and dramatic societal change, the Athenian philosopher, Plato has had numerous influences during his lifetime. Many different types of rulers and governments existed during his youth and had a lasting impact on his opinion on government and society. The first two of these big events is the seizure of power by the Four Hundred and later the Thirty. These powers were made up of wealthy families to took control after the Peloponnesian War, which turned Athens into an oligarchy. During this time period, Plato saw that power in the hands of power-loving people was corruption to government and advocated for the restoration of democracy. Despite his initial support, Plato realized the dangers that democracy had when his mentor and teacher Socrates was persecuted by a general public that made decisions based on emotion rather than reason. Power, he thought, cannot be in the hands of people that are unfit to have it. Unfortunately, also after the Peloponnesian War was the rise of Sophists. The Sophists were no governing class, and therefore did not influence Plato’s views on government but were teachers who mentored wealthy families for the gain of money, rather than for sharing truth and wisdom. The sophists generally believed that justice was not a seeking of truth, but a definition made by people who were stronger. This was an idea that Plato actively sought to refute. Having experienced such fluctuations in government and ideology throughout his lifetime, Plato sought out to identify his own perfect government, which he elaborates on in The Republic. It is through this text that he defends truth, virtue, and ultimately justice against the Sophist-dominated ideology at the time. In this essay, we will examine what Plato has established about ideals, and claims about different forms of government, and conduct a critical examination of his theories. Through the many dialogues, discussions, and allegories presented in The Republic, Plato illustrates what he believes to be the Ideal State or the perfect form of government. However, as he creates his utopia filled with perfect rulers, citizens, and guardians, a lot of contradictions arise. This raises the question: What is the true Ideal State, and does it even exist?

Before we begin to analyze the content in The Republic, we first must acknowledge how to interpret this text. Of course, literary interpretation should be done under will free will of the reader, but, as many esteemed literary critics have constantly emphasized time after time, there are some generally agreed upon principles, some of them regarding The Republic in particular. The first essential rule in interpreting texts is to separate the author from the narrator. In the Republic, there is no first-person narrator, but a third-person omniscient narrator. Because this text is supposedly a collection of dialogues that Plato records, the third person-narrator is most likely Plato himself, following the character Socrates in his many discussions. However, because of the length of these many books, it is doubtful that Plato truly remembered every conversation. These Dialogues are not complete and true accounts of Socrates, but rather Plato’s own ideas and philosophies. Although it is undeniable that some of these Dialogues would be inspired by Socrates, we cannot confirm which ones are truly a memory account, so we must interpret all of the messages in these books to be Plato’s own ideas. As previously mentioned, Plato’s motivation in creating this text was to refute the prevalent ideas of the Sophists. Because it is unrealistic for Plato to remember every Sophist in every dialogue, and it would be bothersome to point out to readers who held Sophist ideas and who didn’t, Plato uses the character Thrasymachus to represent Sophists as an entity. Whenever Socrates interacts with or cross-examinations Thrasymachus, Plato is really trying to disprove Sophist ideology in general. Now knowing a proper way to interpret this text, we can now examine its content.

2. Types of Government

Plato discusses five types of regimes, starting from the aristocracy, which he claims is the best kind of government. If aristocracy is performed poorly, then the government will continue to degenerate until it reaches tyranny. Below are the characteristics of each of these regimes and a description of how they each degenerate to the next regime.

2.1 Aristocracy

Aristocracy, in Plato’s eyes, is the ideal form of government. In an aristocracy, power is in the hands of a small, privileged, ruling class. The general masses are far too ignorant to have complete freedom or equal opportunity in government positions. The rulers in an aristocracy are ideally made up of people who govern with reason. Perversion of power or lack of wisdom can lead to aristocracy’s downfall.

2.2 Timocracy

“Time” means to honor, and the concept of “timocracy” is where the silver or middle class dominates. This form of government arises out of miscalculation of the ruling class during aristocracy, and people of the poorer soul take on positions that they are inferior to. Due to inequality and irregularity and, thus, war, eventually, people will distribute their land among individuals and enslave others. The state will resemble aristocracy in the honor given to rulers and the absence of the warrior class from other trades. But it will resemble oligarchy in the fear of admitting philosophers to power. These people will be secretly greedy for money despite having no way to openly obtain it and will thus resort to stealing and dishonesty. The people who deviate from an aristocracy into timocracy are those who focus more on the passionate than rational and eventually end up in the middle ground: arrogance and ambition.

2.3 Oligarchy

This government depends on the valuation of property, in which the rich have power. The accumulation of gold in the private treasury of individuals is the ruin of timocracy. The richer the government officials get, the less they think of virtue. This type of state is always divided because everyone is always conspiring against each other. Money is highly valued, but not education.

2.4 Democracy

Democracy must arise from a revolution by the people who are tired of oligarchy. Democracy is the fairest of the states and the most charming because it is made up of many different kinds of people who have the freedom to choose for their own lives. However, this is not considered to be the best kind of government according to Plato. If everyone is so equal then people who are inferior in some positions will take away from those who are superior. This diminishes efficiency within society.

2.5 Tyranny

After democracy, anarchy will inevitably find its way into houses, families, governments, and everything. There will be no social order and nobody will care for any laws. A tyrant will first seem to be a protector of those who is being bullied and will continue to progress until he really is a tyrant. By the time the people discover this, it will be too late; he will simply use force to get his way. A tyrannical man arises out of too much passion. Although he is in control, he is not happy; he never tastes true freedom or friendship. Such a state and such a man will always be full of fear. He has desires he will never be able to satisfy, has more wants than anyone, and is utterly miserable.

3. Theory of Forms

One of the most famous and most important philosophical theories associated with Plato is the Theory of Forms. This theory establishes what is “the ideal”, or the Form of Good, and is illustrated through the allegory of the cave.

The situation goes like this: a group of prisoners are forever bound in a cave staring at one wall with a fire behind them. Because they have been like this since the beginning of their lives, they will begin to think that the shadows in front of them are real. They even believe each other to be the shadows they perceive before them, talking and moving. If one prisoner is freed and forced to walk outside and into the sun, he will first be unable to process true reality. When returning to the cave, he will pity those insides for they have no knowledge of the truth. In fact, they see how the freed prisoner has changed and they begin to despise reality and falsely believe the shadows to be the world.

Plato’s Theory of Forms describes how in everything we see in our world–the world of substance–is a mere shadow of the world of Forms. Every object we see–take a table for an example–has an ideal version–the perfect table– and all tables in the substance world carry the essence of the object Form but are unable to attain the same traits as the perfect form. A mathematical example would be a perfect circle. The perfect circle obviously exists in our theoretical minds, but it is impossible for anyone to draw the perfect circle: even with a compass, there is a slight imperfection that disqualifies it from being a circle. Every round that exists in our world may look like the perfect circle, and therefore carry its essence, but there will never be a perfect circle to come into reality.

If we examine the allegory that Plato describes and compare it to his Theory of Forms, we can see that we are all stuck inside the cave. Everything we experience is a mere shadow of the purest forms: we simply cannot escape this world and experience the Form of Good. However, Plato brings up the idea that philosophers, in comparison to the people around them, are the only ones that are able to step outside the cave and experience reality for what it is. Philosophers, he says, are simply more enlightened than the rest. Of course, it would be best for the philosopher to remain in the world of truth, forever seeing true objects and things to be reality. However, just as the prisoner in the cave returned to his earlier peers, the philosopher has a duty to his society. This idea will become a core element of Plato’s Ideal State.

4. Construction of the Ideal State

As stated previously, the Ideal State is in the form of an aristocracy as is ruled by a philosopher king. All rulers of the Ideal State become rulers not because they want power, but rather because they don’t want it. These people feel compelled to become rulers, despite their lack of desire to do so, because they feel that it is their duty to their state, and they cannot let the whole society fall to pieces. These philosopher kings’ ultimate goal is to pull their fellow citizens into enlightenment as much as possible–or in terms of the cave analogy, pull them out of the cave. The main goal of this Ideal State is to maintain justice, because without justice the state would spiral out of control and go through the cycle of the five regimes, ultimately resulting in democracy and then tyranny. So, in order to maintain order, Plato develops the Allegory of the Metals, also known as the “noble lie.” This lie, which can come in the form of a myth or story, is the idea that everyone in society is made up of certain metals: gold, silver, or a mixture of brass or iron (bronze). People who have much gold in their souls, the element of reason, tend to become philosopher rulers; those with mostly silver, or the element of spirit, tend to be guardians or part of the army; and those who are made up of bronze, or the element of desire, are likely to become masters of menial tasks like farming or crafting. This mixture in the soul would determine which of the three denominations of society an individual would belong in: producers, warriors, and rulers. In addition, “[members of society] will appeal to [this] prophecy that ruin will come upon the state when it passes into the keeping of a man of iron or brass’ (Plato 107). This means that no warrior will become a producer, or no producer will become a ruler. There is no mobility. Everything and everyone work for the state and work for themselves. This is because everyone is in charge of only one task: whichever task they are naturally talented at. This means that everyone has no need to work in any other area and does not have to do other people’s work. At the same time, by working for themselves, members of the Ideal State are able to give their all to the state. From all these characteristics, the Ideal State will have ultimate justice, efficiency, and general good for all people within it.

5. Issues in Utopia

The idea of the “noble lie” is something that has tarnished Plato’s name for centuries. And although it is not a completely original idea–many readers of The Republic before me must have had the same thought–my first reaction to this concept is that it is quite hypocritical. Whereas Plato claims that philosophers assume the role of rulers for the sake of bringing the citizens to be enlightened with wisdom–or bring them out of the prisoner’s cave. But, if Plato really advocated “just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers . . . and at any rate, the rest of the city,” isn’t he essentially proposing an idea that he had adamantly argued against? (Plato 111) The Allegory of the Cave was his way of illustrating how philosophers were different from the general people because they see reality for what it is, but the noble lie deceives philosophers as well. That would mean that philosophers don’t see reality as it is, and therefore are no less deceived by illusions than the rest of the citizens. If Plato’s definition of a philosopher matches the freed prisoner, then no one is fit to become king, because no one is truly a philosopher. This is the incongruency in The Republic that will trouble past, current, and likely future readers to come.

But even with this incongruency in the Republic, there is a lot we can gain in understanding the development of society both in fiction and real life. When we examine utopian or dystopian texts in literature, such as The Giver, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, we–as people outside of the characters’ cave–recognize that people in these societies are blinded by what society tells them is right. They have simply blinded sheep, deep in ignorance and completely unaware of nature and truth in the world. And it can only take a hero of these stories to awaken from this illusion and reach enlightenment. As we continue to search for perfection in not only our societies but also in ourselves, we risk falling into the trap of a seemingly perfect utopia. Eugenics–the belief and practice that aims to improve the genetic quality of the human race–is not unlike Plato’s idea of what we now call selective breeding and even gained impressive support from the American population. During World War II when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he put in place his “Final Solution” where he tried to realize what he thought to be a more “perfect world.” Even though we now believe that such ideas are disgusting and extremely immoral, it is important to still acknowledge how it did receive widespread support at times. And that makes us no less vulnerable to them in the present and future. Although on a much smaller scale, we still have ongoing arguments about the actions and decisions of our own political leaders about whether or not their ideas or visions will actually help our countries and humanity progress.

Perhaps the question of utopia is just as Plato says. There is no perfect government or society that will ever exist on Earth; it is simply unattainable. Maybe the perfect Form of the Ideal State exists in theory, and philosophers, politicians, and all rational thinkers alike will continue to debate its characteristics and figure out its nature. But perhaps, just as we are not the perfect forms of humans ourselves and do not have the perfect form of logical thinking, we are simply incapable of identifying the Ideal State. But whether or not we are able to, we will still debate about the perfect society for generations to come.

Works Cited

1. Biography.com Editors. “Plato Biography.” biography.com. Biography.com, n.d. Web. 4 December 2018.
2. Goeke, Niklas. “The Republic Summary.” Four Minute Books. Web. 2 December 2018.
3. Plato. Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2004. Print.
4. Wikipedia contributors. ‘Republic (Plato).’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 1 Dec. 2018. Web. 3 Dec. 2018.