Plato and Socrates Part 4: The Republic (III-IV)
Updated: Jun 11, 2020
Alright, we are now done with the first two books of the Republic, an extremely important and influential philosophical text by probably the most famous philosopher, Plato. Before we begin with the third and the fourth book today, I would like to address my plans of bringing on a co-host for a certain number of episodes. So, I had decided that I would bring on a co-host. However, due to some issues, we have decided to push those series of episodes to a later date, maybe right after we finish the Republic on this podcast. So, unlike how I described in the last episode, we will be having just one episode for two books. Regardless of when we come out with that episode or a series of episodes, I received a lot of suggestions to make this podcast more relatable and less philosophical. Now, as much as today's society demands simplicity, I feel that there is a need to keep things like philosophy complex yet understandable, vague yet easily applicable to the scenarios. Therefore, although I will not tone down on the complexity of the text, I will try my level best to make it easily understandable and give as many examples as I can to make it much more relatable. Before we begin with today's episode, I would just like to point out that the Republic moves in the form of one single book which has just been divided into 10 volumes to simplify it. Every subsequent volume picks up where the last one left off. Similarly, this one takes up right where the second book left off. Let's jump into it.
The book resumes its conversation on the topic of censorship. They keep discussing the type of stories that were appropriate to teach young guardians who were going to become protectors/Soldiers of the city of Athens, or rather the ideal city of Plato. The type of censorship that is discussed here, in the beginning, showcases the kind of backward thinking that persisted back then. Socrates is preaching for a type of censorship that is promoting toxic masculinity on an extremely explicit level. He says that in his ideal city, he will make sure that no stories are told to young boys, who will grow up to become men, that might make them fearful of death, get them excited beyond an extent or make them effeminate. It wasn’t just the idea of toxic masculinity being propagated, but also an idea of dehumanization of guardians of the city for them to be much more effective. How is that so? They decided to remove laughter from the equation, they removed the very act of lying and forbade mourning over a comrade’s death because not only is death peaceful according to Plato but also the guardian should be self-sufficient to not let that death affect him. Now, lying would be understandable, right? But even the slightest of lies like lying about a stomach ache to get a certain delicious medicine (considering we’re talking about kids) would also be considered destructive to the state. Now, imagine such a childhood. Does this remind you of anything? Some of you must’ve been sent off to boarding schools with such restrictions and especially those who decided to join the force in their country would have had to face extremely similar circumstances. So, what am I trying to say? Well, every educational institution today is a resemblance to this very system that Plato generated. How, you ask? Three years before writing the Republic, Plato began the first learning institution in the world: the academy. The academy is from where we get words like academia and academics. When I said in the first episode of the Republic that we would be studying, actually learning, about education, I certainly was not lying. The principles of teaching that we are learning in the Republic are the principles that were implemented in the academy, and if every educational institution in the world is built upon the academy, then it only makes sense that we would all be exposed to such a culture sometime or the other. Moreover, until recently, women were not allowed to gain education and this can also be attributed to Plato as he is the one who thought that education is more important for men as they had to guard the city rather than women. This is exactly why a lot of feminists hate Plato. However, a fun fact: later we will discover how Plato is the one who began the very notion of feminism through this very concept of an ideal city.
See, this started as a talk about censorship and has now become talk about education. Rather, it's more of a talk about how to educate. They now come to a discussion on temperament and how it is important for the students, or should I say, boys, to not be exposed to things like sensual pleasures and be obedient to their commanders. They then present us with a story which would be a perfect example of the stories that must not be told to students. While all other gods and humans were sleeping at night, Zeus, the Greek god, used to make plans and strategies for things but he used to forget them all when he used to see Hera, a Greek goddess, due to his lust. Such a story would depict the gods in a bad light and lead to inappropriate consequences. They were also opposed to gifts because well, gifts are obligations, right? Once you accept a gift, you are obligated to return it in some manner or the other.
So, it’s not just about what stories should be told but rather about whats or of poetry is allowed and what sort of music must be banned to make sure that the guardians are much more focussed, disciplined and determined to achieve their orders and goals. This sort of education still exists. When people go to military school or a similar establishment then they go through such an experience. This depicts the influence the Republic, or rather Plato, has had on the modern world.
After these poems and stories, they move on to music. They didn’t want the music to be not aggressive, sensual, sad, depressing or anything negative. Rather, they wanted to have the music to be inspiring and motivating during wartime and peaceful and slow during peacetime. They said everything must go except for Tunes of courage and tunes of temperance. They also discuss what sort of musical instruments they would be okay with having as part of the curriculum. What is funny that they have a whole conversation about music and it’s pretty interesting. Being a musician myself, I found myself interested in what they had to say about music. The conversation might not be that The music was supposed to influence the soul of those aspiring to be guardians of the ideal city of Plato.
Gymnastics was the other major part of this discussion. Gymnastics seems like a fair component, doesn’t it? The guardians must be fit physically to be capable of performing their duty. To ensure that they were good at Gymnastics, they decided to put a limit on the number of sweets you can eat and a limit on drinking alcohol. However, they realised that a perfect balance between music and gymnastics must be established. Too much Gymnastics could make the guardians ferocious, violent and illogical. Too much music would make them sensitive, soft and weak. One thing to notice is how they are not only trying to make better guardians out of those boys but also controlling what those boys feel, do, and express. They were trying their best to make sure that the boys would cut off from the world and were just determined to work as guardians and guard the City.
You might be wondering why I haven't covered any conversations explicitly. When I read this text multiple times, that is, I realised that the learnings from this text were pretty easy to comprehend and access. Therefore, I did not see any point in covering any conversations as that would only be a waste of our time.
Another thing, you must be cursing Plato for building such a totalitarian concept of education and censorship. He is okay with guardians being devoid of simple pleasures in life. He is okay with not revealing the truth about the gods in the poems by Homer and others. He is okay with seriously mentally ill people, those with intemperance and indolence just dying and doesn’t want the doctors to treat them. The funny part here is that indolence or sloth is one of the 7 deadly sins present in Christianity. So, it serves as a reminder that religion is not only philosophical in itself but is also derived from philosophy sometimes. This also shows that inequality might be a characteristic of this place. What we seem to be forgetting is that the Republic needs to be looked at not as a collection of books but as a collection of ideas. That is to say that one idea, although connected to the order in the book, can be taken out separately and examined for its relevance in today's society. The Republic is not really Plato’s Utopia, remember? His vision for the society was complete in book 2 itself. What we’re talking about right now is part of the luxurious city that is required according to others at the supper table. However, many take this to be Plato’s ideal city and call it the Platonic City which is incorrect.
Next on we move to art. Socrates says something really intriguing about art. He says: “ We would not have our guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feed upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little until they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their soul. Let our artists rather be those who are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful; then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the affluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason.”
That sounds like an extremely noble form of training, doesn’t it? Very ideal, in fact, and that’s why it is part of the ideal city. That’s why Socrates proposed this.
One thing to keep in mind is that the third volume has a lot of Greek mythology and poetry present in it which might be hard to understand if you do not know where they are coming from. Therefore, even I have resorted to not go to those mythologies but rather look for the real meaning behind them. You and I are not missing out on anything but the literary examples that Socrates gives to analyse which one is suitable and which one is not.
In a city, even though these are guardians, socialisation is a necessity, right? To make sure that this is taken care of they decide to teach their guardians about the soul and teach them philosophy. This would not only make the guardians better at their job but also teach them how to be humble and good citizens who are extremely determined to guard their state at all costs.
Out of these humble, soulful, well-tempered, and courageous guardians, the best would be selected to become the kings or rulers of the state.
For this utopia, Plato was willing to go the extra mile. What do I mean by the extra mile? Well, Plato was willing to have a myth to propagate patriotism and brotherhood. How can a myth propagate patriotism and brotherhood among the labourers, the warriors and the rulers? Well, this is what we call the Noble Lie or The Myth of the Metals.
This is their discussion and I think it’s best if I quote here:
“They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so, their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their brothers. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. ”
What do we get from this? He is forming a social hierarchy that he will tell his citizens and base its foundation on a completely made-up story. Now, question the social hierarchy in your society. What’s the proof that it didn’t start from some made-up story or a myth? For example, and a lot of my Hindu listeners will relate to this, our social hierarchy has been formed by the Vedas, our holy texts. They were completed about a thousand years before Plato and they highlight our social hierarchy very clearly. We get these Vedas from our mythologies like the Mahabharata and they are all based on mythologies. There is no way for us to find out what happened. The whole of Mahabharata, the text, is even said to have been extended from just a couple of thousand verses to almost a hundred thousand verses just to give a better view of how society functions when it follows the Vedas. Mahabharata was like a proof of concept of the Vedas.
On this note, we end book 3. Book 3 was a critique on art, poetry, music, physical training and education in general. I think it was a reminder for us that the current education system is not a problem of today’s authorities, it’s just how it is and just how it has been for so long.
One thing to see is that Socrates is not pulling anyone down here. He is rather philosophising with the others. He is accepting of their opinions and presenting his own.
On the same note, now, we will begin with Book 4.
Book 4 begins with a problem. What if the citizens complain of life there? I mean they’re all doing different jobs so what if some of them like their jobs and the others don’t? What if life starts sucking for the guardians but the rulers still enjoy? That kind of questions.
They say:
“Do not compel us to assign to the guardians a sort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians; for we too can clothe our husbandmen(rulers) in royal apparel, and set crowns of gold on their heads, and bid them till the ground as much as they like, and no more. Our potters also might be allowed to repose on couches, and feast by the fireside, passing round the winecup, while their wheel is conveniently at hand, and working at pottery only as much as they like; in this way, we might make every class happy—and then, as you imagine, the whole State would be happy. But do not put this idea into our heads; for, if we listen to you, the husbandman will be no longer a husbandman, the potter will cease to be a potter, and no one will have the character of any distinct class in the State. ”
This line clearly shows us that they were very determined to make sure that every class in the state was separate in terms of their activities, their professions, their luxuries and their lifestyles. This is so relatable, is it not? We have this in our society today as well. The social hierarchy is so deeply installed in the very concept of society that you just cannot eliminate it. That’s why we all aim at removing poverty, world hunger, etc and not the very social hierarchy.
Let’s talk about money as Socrates, Adeimantus and Glaucon do at the supper table.
If a porter has more money than he requires then he would not focus on his art but rather enjoy the luxuries of life, simultaneously if a porter had less money then he would not be able to buy the required instruments to create his art. Therefore, a balance is required to avoid degradation of the quality of the art.
He also says something interesting. He says: “Let our city be accounted neither large nor small, but one and self-sufficing.”
Socrates, or Plato, is more concerned with the unity amongst citizens rather than the size of the state. If the state is united and self-reliant, that state is a successful one. Therefore, the happiness of the state as a whole was much more important rather than the happiness of every individual in that state. That doesn't mean that Socrates did not want every citizen to be happy, it just means that they would be happy just not in the regular sense. For us, and even ancient Greece, happiness is often related to material goods, social stature, perks of a certain job, et cetera. However, the citizens of this ideal city, or luxurious city now, would be happy because the state, as a whole, would be happy.
Also, now we can see a shift from the talk about guardians to talk about the state as a whole, especially the social-political scope. They begin talking about the concept of what to govern. They want kids to play games which are constrained by rules to make sure that when these children grow up they follow rules. But, they don’t want to necessarily govern the marketplace, juries, harbours, etc. Socrates is trying to propagate the idea of that which governs the least, governs the best. He wants people to be educated enough to realise the rules for themselves.
With this, he says that the ideal city is complete. Now, think back. How did the city start? They wanted to define justice and injustice. To see that, they created an ideal and hypothetical city. The format of the city is now complete. I want you to pause this podcast for a minute and think about your current city, town, state or country. Do you have injustice there? If so, how? Don’t get political, get philosophical. Which institution is unjust? Which part of the government is just? What community is not appropriate? THINK. Assuming you did pause and thought about it if you think your heads of state, your judiciary or a certain radical community in your area is unjust, why is that so? It’s because you just cannot get rid of it. It is impossible to remove something that forms society. It is impossible to please everyone. That’s why minorities exist. Well, let’s get back to justice and the book. Let’s see what Glaucon, who has been quiet for some time has to say about this.
Socrates asks both Adeimantus and Glaucon to see justice for themselves. Now, just like us, Glaucon is furious. He says to Socrates that he should be the one telling them about justice in the ideal city. Socrates philosophised and now he must protect his opinions, right?
So, he says that the city he has founded is just, temperate, courageous and wise, according to him and those at the supper table. He says that if a city has three qualities, then it must have the fourth one too. The City is temperate, courageous and wise because of the education system that has been set up, right? Therefore, according to Socrates, it will be just too. It’s like a four-piece puzzle where if you’ve fit 3 pieces, you know which fourth piece is missing. Glaucon raises an issue with one section of these 4 pieces: wisdom. He thinks the city that they have mad is too wise. A city is wise because it has people wise enough to counsel the city’s administration, right? In most democratic countries, the permanent civil servants are the ones making the policies and the politicians are the ones presenting them. Similarly, in this city, it is important for the counsellor the advisory board be wise. But, what sort of wisdom, or knowledge rather is required to be capable of counselling in sociological, political and economic matters?
The conclusion from a small dialogue they have is that even though a small group of people, the true guardians or the rulers, of the society, possess the knowledge to govern the society, it reflects that the society has wisdom. Even though that sounds stupid, we all follow this system. We identify so many places with the wise and famous people that have come out of there. For example, India is known for Mahatma Gandhi, right? He was extremely wise, was he not? So, people think that the entire country must have a lot of people like him, which is so far away from the truth though.
They move to courage then. The courage of the city is reflected by the guardians and not the metal workers, carpenters or the rulers even. So, even courage is showcased by only a part of society and not the whole of society. Even if everyone except for the guardians is courageous, the city would be called courageous. The guardians will be courageous if they know what inspires fear, right? Weirdly, I think it is important to point out the concept of Rationalism that emerges here. Rationalism is the principle of knowing something and having opinions on something based on knowledge and experience rather than religion or emotions. Fun Part: the very concept of Rationalism remerges out of the Republic, but later in the book so I think this was a nice form of foreshadowing. When the city educates the guardians, if it makes sure that they know what inspires the right type of fear, the guardians would emerge courageous, right?
“You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool for making the true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white colour first; this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, so that the white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeing then proceeds, and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fast colour, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take away the bloom. But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you will have noticed how poor is the look either of purple or any other colour.”
“Then now, I said, you will understand what our object was in selecting our soldiers, and educating them in music and gymnastic; we were contriving influences which would prepare them to take the dye of the laws in perfection, and the colour of their opinion about dangers and every other opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training, not to be washed away by such potent lyes as pleasure—mightier agent far in washing the soul than any soda or lye; or by sorrow, fear, and desire, the mightiest of all other solvents. And this sort of universal saving power of true opinion in conformity with law about real and false dangers I call and maintain to be courage unless you disagree.”
I think this was a bit self-explanatory so let’s move to temperance. They define having temperance as being a master of oneself and knowing one’s weaknesses and strengths. On this definition, they start finding temperance in the city. They say that complex desires, pain, and pleasures are found in women, children, and workers, basically the inferior section of the society. Here, it becomes clear that equality is not a component of this platonic city. They consider children, women and the third class of the society to be inferior to the guardians and the rulers. However, they believe that this section of society showcases a mastery of itself and is, thus, a good example of temperance. So, as this society has inferior people, according to Socrates, it is a society with temperance.
Through the myth, however, they’ve made it clear that all citizens agree with their roles and the roles of other people as well. The rulers are ruling because everybody knows that they must rule. Therefore, unlike courage or wisdom, temperance is stretched out to the whole of society, from guardians and rulers to the craftsmen.
Now, we have the three pieces and their examples, do we not? Only one is left: justice. They start treating this as a hunt. Socrates says:
“The time then has arrived, Glaucon, when, like huntsmen, we should surround the cover, and look sharp that justice does not steal away, and pass out of sight and escape us; for beyond a doubt she is somewhere in this country: watch therefore and strive to catch a sight of her, and if you see her first, let me know.”
They then realise that Justice has been there at their door all along. He says that Justice is doing one’s work, one’s duty. The city that they formed is based on the very same thing: people will do their part and help society function. That, in itself, is justice. Justice is not putting your nose is someone else’s business, according to them. Now, justice is virtuous and therefore it is good. Meddling in someone else's business is not good, it's injustice and can destroy the city. Therefore, it is not virtuous, unlike courage, wisdom and temperance. So, injustice is not working on your own thing, meddling in someone’s business and thus destroying the fabric of the state. Reversing this, you would get justice as, well, doing your work like you’re supposed to do.
They say that a just man and a just city would have the same principles, it’s just that one is at a micro-level and the other at a macro level. Now, they are reverse engineering this. They are going back to defining justice for one person by taking their definition of justice from a just and ideal city. For a person to be just he must have the other three qualities as well then. But, does the soul have these three things, namely wisdom, courage and temperance, or not?
The rulers, the finest of the guardians that are, represent the intellect of the soul. The Guardians, themselves, represent courage. The others, the workers, represent our soul’s desires and appetites. Now, think about this. Can you be mad and loving towards a person simultaneously? Well, you can say yes but we all know that even though in a larger sense you might love a person when you're mad at them, you don't remember the loving part at that very moment in time. Similarly, you cannot be two things at the same time to one object. It’s like the Heisenberg principle. You can either know the velocity of a particle or its position at a given point in time. Do you know what’s funny? Heisenberg, much like Plato, was a rationalist. This goes to show that the philosophy of science is not just a social science but also a science as it affects so many different things that are a part of the core science. Wow, we detrack a lot. Let’s get back.
So, Socrates says that the soul has either appetite or a rational component. If a person wants to make a decision, it decides based on either the appetite or the rational component. He then gives a story to prove this.
“Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard, and in which I put faith. The story is, that Leontius, the son of Aglaion, coming up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside, observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution. He felt a desire to see them, and also dread and abhorrence of them: for a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length, the desire got the better of him; and forcing them open”
He also says: “The moral of the tale is, that anger at times goes to war with desire, as though they were two distinct things.”
When the appetite to do something wins over the rationality of thought, we get mad at ourselves, don’t we? A simple example would be when we eat junk food, it is for our appetite and not because our rational thought suggested it. We do feel angry and guilty after having something we shouldn’t have.
So, they say that our soul is made up of three components then: our spirit, our rationality and our appetite. This is how we are relating to the city and I think I mentioned this just now too. Socrates says that Rationality and Spirit need to make sure that the appetite is kept in control as it is more materialistic and easily persuaded by the pleasures of society.
Now,
Courage is just retaining one’s spirit in pleasure or pain.
Wisdom is just knowing which part to control and how.
Temperance is just having a friendly relation between courage and wisdom.
Justice is just making sure that these things are clear to oneself and that they do their jobs and not meddle with each other. This is because justice is doing one’s work, according to Socrates, right?
They then talk about the city and make sure that every aspect of this definition applies to both the city and the person. Justice is being concerned with oneself. Making sure that one does good and one does one’s job without letting exterior elements affect one’s capability to do that job.
Socrates in his monologue says:
“But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others,—he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three principles within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals—when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it is ignorance.”
With this definition and some other dialogues, we come to an end to Book 4. Book 4 is where we completed our pursuit of justice and realised a lot many other things about Greek mythology, education, music, wisdom, courage, and society at large. But I want my listeners right now to think about is how are you still mad at you society? 2500 years ago or a similar society existed. That means it's not a problem of today's age but rather the very concept of a society. Are you okay with not having a society rather than a society which is so impure when looked at from an unbiased point of view? Something to think about, is it not? Well, I hope you keep philosophising with or without me and I'll catch you guys in the next episode.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10282580601157935
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeNTC20Pr_M
https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/illinois-state-university/introduction-to-political-theory/lecture-notes/plato-and-the-republic-lecture-notes-20/1053212/view
https://www-jstor-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/stable/20795989?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=plato&searchText=republic&searchText=and&searchText=music&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dplato%2Brepublic%2Band%2Bmusic%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=search%3A1b7417c4ff98a1a1258a588297b0dac3&seq=3
https://www-jstor-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/stable/10.3366/j.ctvxcrtht.8?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=plato&searchText=republic&searchText=and&searchText=music&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dplato%2Brepublic%2Band%2Bmusic%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=search%3A1b7417c4ff98a1a1258a588297b0dac3&seq=3
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/rep/part3.html#gsc.tab=0
https://blogs.ubc.ca/jankoviciva/2014/09/30/platos-republic-book-iii/
https://www.coursehero.com/lit/The-Republic/book-3-summary/
https://www.gradesaver.com/the-republic/study-guide/summary-book-iii
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/republic/section3/
http://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/01/21/plato-on-censoring-artists-a-summary/
Comments