Plato and Socrates Part 3: The Republic (I-II)
Updated: Jun 11, 2020
We are finally done with Plato’s early dialogues or Socratic dialogues, and now we are going to begin with Plato’s middle dialogues. His most famous book, ever, is the Republic and that's what we'll be tackling as well. Now, I put a lot of thought into how I wanted to do this book and stay true to your suggestions. I finally came to a conclusion: I will divide up this book. Not only that, but I will also change the whole format of this podcast. Originally, my plan was to release just an understanding of the text. But, I have realized that it only does so much good and more people are interested in how philosophy applies to current society. So, I have decided to pair up with a co-host for the upcoming episodes. Who is that co-host? Well, how about you stay tuned and I am sure you’ll find out in the next episode. Now, how will we function? Well, we'll have a 30-minute episode with me blabbering about the text and explaining it. Post this, we will have a bit longer of an episode focused on exploring the relevance of the philosophical text in today’s society. This episode is not just conversational but is going to be creative in its own true sense. This way, we will be able to cater to the people who are listening just for pure knowledge and those who are trying to ease their way into philosophy by studying its applications in the modern world.
The Piraeus became an integral part of the democratic government of Athens’ functionality so it is kind of ironic because Socrates will argue that an oligarchy is the best form of government later in the book and this conversation will take place here itself. Why are we giving the Republic so much thought? I mean, it does have a lot of topics covered in it, but is that our only reason? No, the Republic is the book that started it all. Some people even call it the seed out of which Philosophy grew. Some call it the Bible of philosophy. In a way, every book written after the Republic is either a critique, a comment, or a rebuttal to the thoughts present in the Republic. Yeah, that’s how amazing the book is. Just before we begin, I would like to inform you that there is a link on my website from which you can access the Republic in the format of play, or rather a dialogue. So if you want to listen to this podcast while reading the transcript for the text, please feel free to do so. Furthermore, the text is not that hard to understand, honestly. So don't think that you will not understand or face problems while reading. If you still think that there is something that you don't understand or have some comment on the book itself, feel free to drop a review or message me on my socials. Well, let’s get started. ying its applications in the modern world.
So, the Republic. What is this book about? Well, I think the more appropriate question would be: what is this book NOT about? In the span of the next couple of episodes, we will cover topics like wisdom, politics, democracy, justice, dictatorship, epistemology, knowledge, feminism, soul, truth, education and a lot more. Sometimes, we find ourselves in situations where we don’t know what these things mean and how they apply there. We are lost and the only way out is through knowing yourself. Well, maybe Plato and Socrates can help us out there. Afterall, they’re the ones who said: know thyself.
The book is in itself divided into 10 volumes. Every two episodes, one where I explain and the other where I will indulge in a conversation with my co-host, we will cover three books. In the last pair of episodes, however, we will cover the last four volumes. Why are we giving the Republic so much thought? I mean, it does have a lot of topics covered in it, but is that our only reason? No, the Republic is the book that started it all. Some people even call it the seed out of which Philosophy grew. Some call it the Bible of philosophy. In a way, every book written after the Republic is either a critique, a comment or a rebuttal to the thoughts present in the Republic. Yeah, that’s how amazing the book is. Just before we begin, I would like to inform you that there is a link on my website from which you can access the Republic in the format of play, or rather a dialogue. So if you want to listen to this podcast while reading the transcript for the text, please feel free to do so. Furthermore, the text is not that hard to understand, honestly. So don't think that you will not understand or face problems while reading. If you still think that there is something that you don't understand or have some comment on the book itself, feel free to drop a review or message me on my socials. Well, let’s get started.
The book begins with Socrates and Glaucon going to the Piraeus to offer their prayers to the new goddess ‘Bendis’. Plato plays with us again. Socrates was considered an Atheist, wasn’t he? Well, this is a contradictory statement, isn’t it? Why would Socrates go pay tribute to a goddess if he is an atheist? The funny part: The book’s very first sentence is probably the most researched sentence of the whole book: I went down to the Piraeus. Pretty easy to understand, right? Piraeus is a port town and Socrates is going there. Then why is it so heavily researched by the readers? Well,
‘Went down’ is foreshadowing the allegory of the cave, a very famous dialogue in the republic which introduces us to the concept of Rationalism.
The Piraues became an integral part of the democratic government of Athens’ functionality so it is kind of ironic because Socrates will argue that an oligarchy is the best form of government later in the book and this conversation will take place here itself.
There’s much more to it and it’s a long explanation and I don’t want to bore you but if you’re really interested, why don’t you head to my website: thephilosophyjunkie.com and find resources explaining this sentence in detail on there. (Dobbs, Darrell. “The Piety of Thought in Plato's Republic, Book 1.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 3, 1994, pp. 668–683. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2944802)
Now, this is probably the hundredth time I'm saying this: Plato was a playwright as much as he was a philosopher. So, let’s keep that in mind. Now, Socrates and Glaucon are interrupted midway by Polemarchus and a couple of other people. They ask Socrates and Glaucon to go with them for supper at Polemarchus’ place. That is the setting we’re looking at. A reminder: the Republic, much likes all of Socrates’ work, is present in a dialogue format and can also be called a full-fledged play. We will have a similar approach to the book. So, the first volume of The Republic, for which we have set the setting, is about Justice. The first definition of justice provided in the book is by Cephalus, a character in the book, at the supper table:
“To give back what is owed to each is just.”
Cephalus gets this from the lines of a famous Greek poet: Simonides and takes them to be true because he finds Simonides to be one of the wisest people in all of Athens.
Socrates then presents his argumentation against this: Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. That makes sense, right? I mean his friend wouldn’t be fit to bear arms and so he mustn’t for his and everyone else’s safety.
This argumentation happens after a series of dialogues conducted by the Socratic Method and thus appears quite persuading to us. I would recommend you go read those back and forth dialogues to understand the Socratic Method at an even deeper level.
However, with this method, Socrates leads Polemarchus to agree to the fact that justice is useless. I think we should go over that conversation. So, Polemarchus says that a just man is better than any other person in matters of money. ‘Most True’ has to be more than 100 for sure. This is why I have always said that even though the Socratic Method has its merits and has been regarded as one of the best educational instruments in the world, it has its fair share of demerits.
However, with this method, Socrates leads Polemarchus to agree to the fact that justice is useless. I think we should go over that conversation. So, Polemarchus says that a just man is better than any other person in the matters of money.
Socrates: Yes, Polemarchus, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?
Polemarchus: Certainly
Socrates: And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the captain of the ship would be better?
Polemarchus: True
Socrates: Then what is that joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?
Polemarchus: When you want a deposit to be kept safely.
Socrates: You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie idle?
Polemarchus: Precisely.
Socrates: That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless?
Polemarchus: That is the inference.
Socrates: And when you want to keep a shield or a harp, and not to use them, you would say that justice is useful; but when you want to use them, then the art of the soldier or of the musician?
Polemarchus: Certainly
Socrates: And so of all the other things-justice is useful when those things are useless, and useless when they are useful?
Polemarchus: That is the inference.
But, think about this: if I am good at keeping things safe then I am probably also good at stealing things, right? I mean if I know how to keep things safe, then I will probably know how to steal things because I’ll know where to look. Socrates says something similar and this confuses Polemarchus and so he changes his definition to "Justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies.”
No, it feels like Socrates is trying to make Polemarchus feel like he's dumb. This is where Thrasymachus, a Greek sophist or philosopher more like, comes in and thrashes Socrates. He basically says that he is done with Socrates trying to manipulate the meaning multiple times. He wants to know the real truth. What is justice?
What happens next is very interesting; finally, he exposes Socrates and says to Polemarchus and Socrates: “How characteristic of Socrates—that’s your ironical style! Did I not foresee—have I not already told you, that whatever he was asked he would refuse to answer, and try irony or any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?”
“Observe also what happens when they take an office; there is the just man neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothing out of the public because he is just; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways.” This does make sense and unjust people seek corruption to avoid suffering through such problems. be the best for their subjects. This is a very ideal situation that he sets up, isn’t it? s justice. Therefore, justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, herein referred to as the government. Now, let's go back to Crito. Do you remember when I said that Socrates supports a tyrannical state? Well, I also said that Plato will evolve once we move to the middle dialogues. As you will see, Plato has indeed evolved. He goes against this definition of justice in a manner that clearly shows us that he is not a supporter of a government that is bigoted. He didn’t explicitly state that he was a supporter of such a state in Crito but if you go back and listen to my argumentation and inferences, I am sure you’ll understand how he was indirectly okay with it.
Let's think about this. If I were to ask you which numbers make up 12 and prohibit you from answering 6×2, 2×6, 4×3, 3×4, 12×1, 1×12, what would your answer be then? Well, if you're forbidden to do something, but no matter how many alternatives you choose or even how many alternatives are actually present, you would never get the right answer. Basically, you cannot philosophise with the restrictions. This is a basic phenomenon: everything is open for criticism. Once you start criticising everything that comes your way, you will truly start philosophising.
Socrates further says: “Thrasymachus, what do you mean? If one of these numbers, which you prohibit, be the true answer to the question, am I to falsely say some other number which is not the right one? Is that your meaning?’-How would you answer him?”
This is exactly what we said, right? If the real answer lies in those answers that have been prohibited, then it would be unethical, or rather just plain wrong, to blurt out false answers.
Thrasymachus goes to redefine it as “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” and to explain that he says: in every state, there is some sort of government (democracy, tyranny, monarchy, oligarchy, et cetera) and every government has a vested interest in the society, which vary from Government to government. We know that the government is running the society, therefore the government is stronger than any other force in the society. Furthermore, the government decides justice. Therefore, justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, herein referred to as the government. Now, let's go back to Crito. You remember when I said that Socrates supports a tyrannical state? Well, I also said that Plato will evolve once we move to the middle dialogues. As you will see, Plato has indeed evolved. He goes against this definition of justice in a manner that clearly shows us that he is not a supporter of a government that is bigoted. He didn’t explicitly state that he was a supporter of such a state in Crito but if you go back and listen to my argumentation and inferences, I am sure you’ll understand how he was indirectly okay with it.
Well, we know Socrates and so we know that he will argue against this and he certainly doesn't disappoint. He says: sometimes the rulers [unintentionally] command things evil for themselves, and it is just for subjects to do them.
This is a constant back-and-forth discussion in which both sides are providing the definition of justice. Thrasymachus is erred by Socrates and clarifies his definition by saying: the ruler, as far as he is a ruler, makes no mistakes, and, making no mistakes, he lays down what is best for himself, and this the subject must do. What he is trying to say is that the rulers make no mistakes and they always make sure that they are doing what is best for them, which is followed by their subjects.
Socrates hits him back by saying: no one else in any place of rule at all, insofar as he is a ruler, enquires or commands what is his own advantage, but the advantage of his subjects. What he means by this is that if someone is a ruler in any place on this earth, he/she/they will never command anything that would advantage them personally but would rather be in favour of whatever would be the best for their subjects. This is a very ideal situation that he sets up, isn’t it?
I am not convinced because it is obviously not practical and so I am glad Thrasymachus offers another refutation: the most perfect injustice...makes the unjust man most happy, and injustice when it is grand enough is more mighty than justice, more generous, more masterly.
Through a long dialogue, we witness Thrasymachus coming back to the defence and he does this quite elegantly. He very logically explains how injustice is a virtue and justice is a vice. All of us might disagree with him but you have to give it up for how carries it out. His points are as follows:
“First of all, in private contracts: wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less.” This is true. After every economic meltdown, the banks have gotten away but the people have suffered.
“Secondly, in their dealings with the State: when there is an income-tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much.” Do we even need to proof of this? Two words: Panama Papers.
“Observe also what happens when they take an office; there is the just man neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothing out of the public, because he is just; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways.” This does make sense and unjust people seek corruption to avoid suffering through such problems.
Thrasymachus does something beautiful: he loops this back to prove his initial definition: “justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man’s own profit and interest.”
As we are moving forward, I would like to inform you that these arguments might just be random conversations and may just be some random Greek man's thoughts to you. But, if you sit down and start mapping the whole of the Republic, you will realise that these conversations, these arguments, these inferences are drawn out using axioms, postulates, hypotheses, and social theorems.
Socrates says that:
‘Ruling’ is not providing an advantage to oneself because if it had been then rulers would have higher wages.
A genuine artist (assuming that governing or ruling is an art) does not take advantage and thus acts justly.
Justice is a fundamental requirement for a government’s functionality.
A ruler will rule well and live well if he/she is just.
After a couple of more dialogues, the book ends. What is this final definition of justice? Well, that’s for you to decide because as we all know and even Socrates mentions it again: he knows nothing. And with this, we come to an end to Book 1. What did I learn personally? Well, nothing about justice but something about craftsmanship, something about art. An art’s benefit, an artist’s benefit, lies within the betterment of the thing that the artworks on. For eg: the art of medicine has just one direct benefit: the betterment of health. The high paying jobs, the prestige, the respect, etc. are secondary benefits and are in no way related to the practice of that art in the first place.
So, don’t worry. I am not yet done boring you. Let’s talk about the second book.
The second book picks up right where the first book left off and I think we’re all a bit relieved because of that. It takes up the topic of justice again and this time Glaucon raises his voice. He tells Socrates that he’s barely convinced with what he says Justice to be.
Glaucon says that there are three types of goods:
Goods which are valued for themselves like playing a game just for the fun of it
Goods which are valued for themselves and their results like being healthy, being knowledgeable, et cetera.
The very first humans (primitive people, basically) realized that even though being a victim of injustice was definitely not fun, doing injustice to others was. But, they also realised that the pain from being a victim was bigger than the pleasure they got from being an unjust person. So, they basically decided that they would not be hard on each other and they would call this justice. This happened mostly because almost everybody fell in the middle of the spectrum, where they were acting unjustly and being acted on unjustly. Therefore, to remove any sort of injustice, they decided to build a contract among fellow citizens. This is like a truce in order to stop the war of injustice, in a sense. But, you see justice is not everybody's first choice. People find themselves bound by justice, rather than being freed by it. So, my perfect scenario would be that I'm strong enough to overcome all of the people and assume my supremacy. If I'm unable to do that, then I will take the path of justice. So, because people feel that justice bounds them, they never really choose it willingly.
What glaucon wanted to know was in which category did justice lie. Socrates, to this, replies that justice falls in the highest class, that is it provides value for itself and for its results.
Glaucon says that the masses would disagree with this and put justice in the troublesome class where goods are pursued for their rewards and reputation rather than their own value. Now, mind you, they do agree on the benefits of justice. They disagree on whether justice is a valuable good in itself or not. Socrates says that what Glaucon is saying basically matches what Thrasymachus was trying to say when he said injustice is a virtue and justice isn’t. Socrates says that he is too stupid to be convinced by Thrasymachus. Don’t worry, Socrates. We all are.
But Glaucon then starts taking Thrasymachus’ side and he now wants Socrates to explain the value of justice within itself rather than value of its consequences.
What we need to realise is that Glaucon is doing us a huge favour. Thrasymachus was quite literally done with Socrates and realised that no matter how much argumentation he might put in front of Socrates no logical outcome would emerge and all of us would still be lost on the definition of justice. However, with Glaucon continuing the pursuit to answer the question of what is justice, we are almost assured that we will arrive at a concrete definition. In a way, though, this is basically Glaucon using the Socratic method. He’s setting up the enemy’s argument in the best form possible only to be beaten down with reality.
Glaucon then goes on to give the Natural Origin of Justice:
Now, why these people in particular? Artisans were dominated by their appetites or desires and therefore destined to produce material goods. Auxiliaries, a class of guardians, were ruled by the spirit in their souls and possessed the courage necessary to protect the state from invasion. Philosopher-kings, the leaders of the ideal state, had souls in which reason reigned over spirit and appetite, and as a result possessed the foresight and knowledge to rule wisely.ree types of people:one happy, and being unjust makes one sad. No, instead of Socrates stepping in, Glaucon’s brother, Adeimantus steps in and defends justice from his point of view. He says people who praise justice are only actually praising the reputation that justice has and not what it brings to the person doing the justice. He further says that injustice is easy but an unjust man who has a reputation of a just one lives like a god. So, Adeimantus changes the question a bit. He asks Socrates to show them how justice, by itself, can make someone content and how injustice, by itself can harm a person. se it willingly.
To further strengthen his point, Glaucon uses a parable. This parable is known as the Ring of Gyges. In the story, the Shepherd was with his sheep when the Earth separated and chasm in the Earth was created. When he went down there. He found a corpse with nothing but a golden ring on the corpse’s finger. He puts on that ring and goes back home. Once, he starts fiddling with the ring and as soon as he turns the ring, he becomes invisible. As soon as he discovers this power, he realises that whatever he does while he is invisible will bring no harm to his reputation and he won't have to handle any consequences. So, he decides to kill his enemies, steal, kill the King, seduce the Queen and become a king himself to rule the kingdom.
Through the story, Glaucon is basically trying to explain that if actions had no consequences, people would do whatever they want and not care about justice. And, he doesn't stop there. To explain the benefits of reputation, Glaucon takes the example of two people: one who is deemed unjust but in actuality is just and one who is deemed just but in actuality is unjust. He’s comparing two extremes. So, both these people would be happy and miserable simultaneously if being just makes one happy and being unjust makes one sad. No, instead of Socrates stepping in, Glaucon’s brother, Adeimantus steps in and defends justice from his point of view. He says people who praise justice are only actually praising the reputation that justice has and not what it brings to the person doing the justice. He further says that injustice is easy but an unjust man who has a reputation of a just one lives like a god. So, Adeimantus changes the question a bit. He asks Socrates to show them how justice, by itself, can make someone content and how injustice, by itself can harm a person.
Now, Socrates makes this a topic of political philosophy rather than of moral philosophy. He asks people to imagine an ideal city, a very large city to understand this political metaphor that he is about to present. We’re also assuming that justice in a city is justice in the soul. He says that cities are founded because no individual is self sufficient and we need fellow human beings to thrive. Plato defines his ideal (or healthy) city as one where there are three types of people:
Artisans
Auxiliaries
Philosopher-Kings
Now, why these people in particular? Artisans were dominated by their appetites or desires, and therefore destined to produce material goods. Auxiliaries, a class of guardians, were ruled by spirit in their souls and possessed the courage necessary to protect the state from invasion. Philosopher-kings, the leaders of the ideal state, had souls in which reason reigned over spirit and appetite, and as a result possessed the foresight and knowledge to rule wisely.
Now, as you switch off this podcast and curse me for throwing so much information at you, sit back and think for a second: would you be okay with learning only the virtuous stories and not the ones that will expose the harsh reality of society? The answer will be no, I know that. But, what about your children? Do you want them to know how twisted society can be sometimes and expose them to the negativity around us? It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? Well, you keep thinking and you keep philosophizing, with or without me. I’ll catch you guys in the next one.t now has been edited to make sure that the kids are not exposed to the harsh realities. For example, in Hindu mythology, we are told that Ravan, an evil king, abducted Sita, the wife of Lord Ram, and raped her due to which she had to prove her innocence by walking through fire when Lord Ram took her back from Ravan. In actuality, the act between Ravan and Sita was consensual, but we are never told that because that would portray Sita in a bad light.
Now, the education of these guardians is actually very important because that’s what we’re still following in society in a manner. They wanted children to read mythological texts and stories about gods and heroes because their minds are malleable at that age and so they must be told the right stories. He further says that they should only be told stories that are nice and heroic in the nature, not the stories that might appear as a bad influence and I think this has seeped into today’s society as well. Almost every mythological story in the world right now has been edited to make sure that the kids are not exposed to the harsh realities. For example, in hindu mythology, we are told that Ravan, an evil king, abducted Sita, the wife of lord Ram, and raped her due to which she had to prove her innocence by walking through fire when Lord Ram took her back from Ravan. In actuality, the act between Ravan and Sita was consensual, but we are never told that because that would portray Sita in a bad light.
This also leads to the talk about some official censorship that must be in place to make sure that the people in the city are only exposed to the right things. The poets, dramatists and writers had to make sure that their stories were true and portrayed the gods as virtuous and valiant. Socrates lays down examples of stories that must be prohibited, just like I did. And with this, we come to an end to book 2.
Now, as you switch off this podcast and curse me for throwing so much information at you, sit back and think for a second: would you be okay with learning only the virtuous stories and not the ones that will expose the harsh reality of society? The answer will be no, I know that. But, what about your children? Do you want them to know how twisted society can be sometimes and expose them to the negativity around us? It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? Well, you keep thinking and you keep philosophising, with or without me. I’ll catch you guys in the next one.
Resources:
Comments