The Case for Democracy - Book 8

I disagree with Socrates in his claim that a democracy is worse than an oligarchy in Book 8. I think an oligarchy is at least as bad as a democracy if not worse. The greedy pursuit of wealth is possibly the worst corruption a city can experience because wealth, material possessions and the pursuit of instant gratification are delicate, temporary and fleeting. The sort of city would only be possible somewhere that already had an abundance of wealth in the first place, because the unabashed pursuit of decadence comes at a heavy economic price.
I also believe the distribution of rule among only those with money is worse than the random distribution of rule in the hypothetical democracy. With the random distribution of rule, at least there will be some good rulers in the mix. I believe the people with wealth and property in Socrates’ oligarchy are less to fit to rule as a whole than the poor people because they’re goal of absolute wealth is so narrow-minded and self-absorbed. At least the democracy has a sense of unity not governed by a dollar sign.
The democracy has the greatest potential of all the “unjust” cities but also has the worst potential for failure in that is the only city that can turn into a tyranny. It has the greatest potential in that it possesses absolute freedom and allows virtuous men to rise up of their own accord without the factor of wealth or lineage. It is the only city that could produce the philosopher king. However, freedom is a double-edged sword that allows the corrupt to rise into power, hence the probability of transformation into a tyranny. I believe the ideal democracy would realize that some freedoms must be sacrificed for the sake of societal unity, which I have concluded is the type of democracy we live in today.

-Justin C

The Consequences of Context

In class on Thursday, we went on a brief tangent considering this question: if the potential philosopher kings dwelled upon the truth for long enough, would they reach the conclusion that the only thing that they can know for certain exists is their own consciousness? We decided that this would not be the case for a few reasons. In my opinion, the most interesting reason is that these people would be assuming, due to the context of their upbringing, that there is such a thing as truth in their lives, and the pursuit of it would be their primary goal.

Let's examine this further. Socrates is, in a way, constructing an elaborate structure for the creation of the ideal people. He builds this city on the premise that people are born with innate skills which, through the structure of the city, will be cultivated and improved. This is a huge concept in the city, and its a concept that modern ideas tend to clash with. Another assumption that is made is that, assuming the city is constructed perfectly, the people within the city will also fulfill their roles perfectly. The idea of a perfect human is quite alien to us, but Socrates proposes that, in theory, it is possible. In fact, the city depends on this. This idealism is very much a consequence of the context of the times: since Christianity's widespread popularity began, this idea has faded. This crucial difference, along with many others, explains quite a bit about many of the troubles we stumble upon when trying to understand The Republic. Context is always an important consideration when reading works of any time period; however, it is important that the work can stand alone and present relevant ideas as well.

Looking up or looking down?

While reading Book 7, I was caught up by sections 529a-b when Socrates was rebuking Glaucon about his praise of astronomy when he says in 529a, "In my opinion it's plain to everyone that astronomy compels the soul to see what's above and leads it there away from the things here." Socrates disagrees and says the opposite: "As it[astronomy] is taken up now by those who lead men up to philosophy, it has quite an effect in causing the soul to look downward." What does Socrates mean by this?

After discussing it in class as well as going back and rereading the passage I have decided what I believe Socrates meant by saying that the soul looks down while the eyes look up. In 529b Socrates says, "Even if a man were to learn something by tilting his head back and looking at decoration on a ceiling, you would probably believe he contemplates with his intellect and not his eyes." I think this is important because it shows that he thinks people who are looking up and studying the stars, are only doing so with their eyes and not using their soul to contemplate things the way they should. Socrates also says that, "I, for my part, am unable to hold that any study makes a soul look upward other than the one that concerns what is and is invisible." In this he is stating that astronomy cannot make the soul look up because it is not the study of what "is."

In 529d Socrates says, concerning the usefulness of studying astronomy, "They[the movements of the stars and planets], of course, must be grasped by argument and thought, not sight." This made me question whether or not Socrates thought that sight, along with the other senses, were worth anything at all because he always seems to be bashing them down like talking about the man looking at a ceiling. Then I remembered the diagram drawn in class about the different levels of thinking. It must first begin with senses such as sight, but it cannot stop there and then progresses into intellect and the soul.

In conclusion, I think that Socrates wasn't saying that astronomy technically makes the soul look down, but that astronomy does not lead to involving the soul. It is a useful study for the philosophers and leaders, but not what they should put all of their effort and time into because it will not answer what is.

-Rachel Tidwell

The Cave

The cave only has one entrance and the men are chained facing towards the back wall. There is a fire behind them and objects in front of the fire. The fire is causing a reflection on the back wall. The chained men have no sense of what this is. They can only perceive this as real because this is all they know. They do not know what a shadow is or even what light comes from. All they know is what they can see in front of them. These are ordinary people, but they have not seen the intellectual/spiritual world.

The cave is a great example of how we perceive things. When a child is little, they only know what they are taught and what they can see. They do not realize that there are other things in the world or how they work. A child has a brain that can be sculpted in any way just like the men that are chained. If a child is sheltered they will not see what the world has to offer. However, when a child goes out of the "cave" they can experience the world for themselves and can learn from their surroundings. When the child leaves the "cave" they will receive a genuine education instead of a sheltered education.

Necessity of the Cave

After reading Socrates' description of the cave and its purpose, I am beginning to see how necessary it really is to produce the type of philosopher that they want to properly rule the city. Up until this point we haven't specifically been told how the philosophers are developed, but as brutal as the cave might seem, I feel it most definitely serves its purpose. To our modern minds, keeping people trapped in a cave their whole life seems incredibly cruel and inhumane, but Socrates says, "we won't be doing injustice to the philosophers who come up to be among us, but rather that we will say just things to them while compelling them besides to care for and guard the others." (520a) This reinforces his idea of the good of the people versus the good of the one. Essentially those philosophers are suffering so that they can rule better in the long run, in "a state of waking." (520b)

Socrates continues his use of the divided line that was started in Book VI and uses the cave to describe the four stages of human development. The cave proves its necessity in order to see the clear progression of the philosophers from sensible thinking to a high degree of intellectual thinking and an understanding of the Forms of the Good. Socrates uses an example of looking at a finger. To our sight, a finger is a finger and when we look at one, our eyes just see "finger." Intellect comes in and distinguishes between a big finger, a small one, the skin tone, the shape, etc. "In order to clear this up the intellect was compelled to see the big and little too, not mixed together but distinguished, doing the opposite of what the sight did." (524c) To be able to do this, it is essential that the philosophers have intellection, and if I am understanding correctly, that is only obtained through the process of the cave.

The Sun

One of my favorite quotes is one by C.S. Lewis that says, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

I thought it was interesting that in class we gave God the metaphor of the sun. He truly is the light by which we see everything else. I think it is pretty evident that by the end of Plato's Republic we will not have a satisfactory answer to what justice is. Due to people's different beliefs and disagreements with what Socrates is doing, the entire group will never be satisfied. I believe that everyone was create with this desire to learn and to know. Most college students are in school because they want to know everything about a certain profession. Similarly, in this philosophy course, we all want to know whatever it is that the class teaches. For now we are speaking about justice, and naturally we all want to know exactly what justice is. However, as I said earlier, I do not believe we will ever reach a satisfactory answer.

For me, I know that my brain is limited. I am aware that there are things that I will never know no matter how long I contemplate or how hard I think. However, just like Mr. Davis said, there is a sort of satisfaction in knowing that we will never know. I am fully aware that I am limited and that God is unlimited and that I truly have to rely on Him for understanding and wisdom. He is the light by which I see everything else, including justice, virtue, and knowledge.

"The Greatest Evil"

I feel like we skimmed over a very important contradiction back in chapter five. This contradiction of plato is related to the "Guardians."

On page 130, line 451 e Plato via Socrates says, in respect to the guardians, they shall have "Everything in common." On page 141, line 462 b Plato (or socrates) says "Have we any greater evil for a city than what splits it and makes it many instead of one?" "No, we don't" was the response to the question. With these words it seems clear that creating factions among the guardians would be at the very least "evil." The contradiction arrives when Plato and his characters decide how the guardians should reproduce with each other. They do exactly what they have agreed is crucial not to do; split them into groups. "There is a need for the best men to have intercourse as often as possible with the best women, and the reverse for the most ordinary men..." Plato is creating factions among the guardians...? How is this possible. As we mentioned in class, Plato's excuse for all of this is his "Noble lie." "Our rulers will have to use a throng of lies and deceptions for the benefit of the ruled." Certainly the "Greatest evil" for a city would outweigh a noble lie which benefits a certain faction which makes up the smallest percentage of the city. None of this makes any sense. Am I missing something here?

The Pilot

Throughout The Republic Socrates has provided us with a string of analogies and stories in an attempt to illustrate his ideas. Towards the beginning of book VI he compares the philosopher to the true pilot of the ship. Not the sailor who quarrels with the others and has never actually learned the art of navigation... but the one who pays attention to the "year and season and sky and stars and winds and whatever else belongs to his art." I found this parable to be clever and extremely effective in promoting the philosopher king. As I continued reading I could not help but have that all-knowing pilot in the back of my head. This was probably the strongest connection I have made between Socrates' ideas and his amusing analogies.

I finally feel like I understand why Socrates chose to build his city the particular way he did. I still have a hard time understanding his different limitation. I feel like it is necessary for a totalitarian society in order for it to be just. For the longest time, I felt like you should understand each side of the situation before you make a decision on what is just or not. Nevertheless, after think back on my past, I have noticed many simlilarities between in how I've dealt with different situations and how Socrates advices the people how their children should be raised in a just society. I have been taught morals all throughout my childhood, especially "Do the right/just thing". My wonderful parents controlled every aspect of my childhood so that they could ensure I was taught the difference between what was right or wrong. I believe that the way my parents raised me has influenced my entire life which has different experiences which have taught them about justice because not all parents/guardians teach their children about justice. It isn't a common topic discussed on a regular basis. It would be a lot easier if there were just one clear definition of justice which would allow individuals to know what they should or should not do. However, I love being able to make my own decisions and decide on what I like to do. Socrates has made his point in different way throughout the different books, and I am finally beginning to understand where he is coming from. It will still take a lot more time to fully understand, but I will figure it out.

Plato's Republic, Book VI

In class, the question was raised as to what Plato’s Republic has to do with “religion.” I wanted to address this question before I addressed anything else. The thing is: Plato’s Republic has everything to do with “religion;” As does everything else we’ve ever read. Our “religion,” so to speak, serves as a filter to everything we comprehend. Even if you don’t believe in God, you then comprehend everything through a filter that denies His existence. If you do believe if God, everything you read is comprehend through a filter that acknowledges His existence. Thus, all of the ideals in Plato’s Republic must answer to each individual’s view of God, or lack thereof. If you don’t believe that justice is established by means of the supernatural, then you therefore believe that justice is determined by something imperfect (man). The theory of justice not being attributed to the supernatural leads to an immediate end in our quest because perfect justice cannot flow from imperfect beings. We must assume that justice is something outside of ourselves.

In Chapter VI, Plato discusses the need for a philosopher king and the ways to which the perfectly just city will acquire its philosopher king. Though I have not put enough thought into it, I disagree with Plato’s idea of having a philosopher king. The king, who is or once was a guardian, has most likely been exposed to things that alter his perception of good and evil i.e. war. It takes someone who has been set apart from the city, detached to a certain extent, to accurately guide the city towards justice and truth. Otherwise, there’s politics (inevitable in office), biasness, etc. that would conflict with pure philosophy.

The Philosopher King

While Socrates makes a decent argument for the idea of the ruling philosopher king, a man with the utmost character, desire for knowledge, and a "soul with memory" (486d), Ademantis' counterpoint, that "those who linger in [the study of philosophy] for a long time...become quite queer, not to say completely vicious...[and] they become useless to the cities" (487d), begins to dissolve the argument of Socrates.

For this reason, in the ideal situation the philosopher would make the greatest, most capable ruler due to his love of learning and truth. It's true that we all at some point have wanted this type of ruler: one that has the higher knowledge, wisdom, and makes sure that we, his people, benefit and flourish in to the greatest degree; however, it seems partially impractical to have this level of knowledge tied to only a minuscule group.

The philosopher, those who explore the nature of the soul, the realms of knowledge as few dare to, and strive to tackle the perennial questions, should be, much like the ship's "true navigator" in Socrates' imagery (488d), not seen as the true ruler. I only say this because it seems that to be a true philosopher one must center themselves around these questions that are left to be discerned and debated over. To do this, however, doesn't leave the time or the capacity to look after an entire city, especially one like the city in speech that requires that the philosopher glean the knowledge to separate each person into their task.

The role of the philosopher, unless, as aforementioned, the ideal world/situation arises, lies within their search for knowledge not on the throne. Throughout history and the world, those on the intellectual level of philosophers have often served as advisers to rulers and have had the precious time to develop their incredible philosophies. Those like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates don't rule, they search and never stop asking questions.

Guardian or King Philosopher?

Line 484c states, "those who look as if they're capable of guarding the laws and practices of cities should be established as guardians." At the end of class today we discussed how guardians and king philosophers are now one and the same. Before we were just speaking of guardians, but now we have gone in-depth into who they should be. I don't agree that kind philosophers should be the same as guardians, and I believe Socrates has contradicted himself as placing them as such. Earlier (I can't find the passage) he talked about how when you are given a duty you will focus on that duty and that alone so as to finish out that task to the best of your abilites. So, if king philosophers are to do just that and study, find knowledge, set the laws, interpret the laws, and teach; then isn't it true that they should not also fight for the safety of their city. They should not be the ones in battle because that will take their focus away from finding what is good and true. A conflict of interest will arise when one is out fighting the enemy from discovering what is good and true within their own mind. Also, what will the people do if all of their king philosophers and leaders are killed off because they're out fighting to keep the city safe. No one will be left that knows truth and solely searches for what is good. It seems to me that in doing both, they are creating a mess.

Blind Faith

The point, or counter-point, I was ultimately trying to make in class that I never got around to saying was that I believe many people use their belief in God as an excuse not to think for themselves. As a Christian myself, I believe God created us with analytical minds and free will for a reason. I believe that if you have never questioned your faith in God and you call yourself a Christian ( or a Muslim, Buddhist, whatever) then you aren’t really a Christian. No one is born a Christian. You have to be “born again.” You must make a conscious decision utilizing your own free will to decide to put faith in God. If you’ve just blindly accepted what your parents have taught you since you were young then you’re faith is simply not real. Basically what you’re communicating to me then is that if you had been born and raised a Muslim rather than a Christian you would be a Muslim right now because you lack the propensity to question your own beliefs and just blindly accept whatever you have been taught. This is why God constantly puts our faith to the test, to strengthen it and determine if it is genuine.
The statement “ I don’t know what justice is so I’m just going to trust that God knows what it is and stop thinking about it” is a very dangerous road to follow. This would only work if there was one universally accepted religion and view of God, but there is not. Justice is defined differently within different religions. In some sects of Islam, there is jihad. In some sects of Christianity, there is persecution of homosexuals. All of the people in these extremist sects trust that what they are doing is right and just and that God condones their actions. This is why blind faith is potentially so dangerous. Just because you were lucky enough to be born into a non-extremist sect of your faith doesn’t mean you should not question your faith. Between a faith in God that has been truly questioned by the individual and put to the test and has stood firm or a faith that has remained delicate and untouched since youth, I’ll take the former, because it will withstand further tests in the future.
It is debatable whether or not God will reveal these concepts such as justice to us once we get to heaven. Do you really believe that because our finite minds cannot comprehend something here on earth that somehow our minds will become like the mind of God once we get to heaven and we will have His powers of understanding? How could God bestow knowledge on us that only He can comprehend? Our minds will never be like the mind of God. This is why we have to trust. Blind trust, however, leads us down a very dangerous road, which is why philosophy and religion must go hand in hand, because religion provides the morality and philosophy provides the analysis. This way, you don’t have infanticide for the greater good of society and you don’t have jihad for the sake of your religion.

On the Lifestyle of the Guardians

In Plato’s Republic, the ruler has no private wealth, he can’t take a trip, and he can’t have a mistress, or do other things that make people happy. “They work simply for their keep and get no extra wages as others do.” Socrates responds to this complaint by stating that the goal is to have a city full of happy people, not just one particular group.

This concept seems really interesting to me because in modern society, those with the most power also have the most privileges. In a capitalist society, those who work the hardest and have the best education are normally the ones who prosper financially. That is a good thing, though. It motivates people to work hard and move up in society, and most people who do that, have many opportunities to succeed. In America, even an innovative idea or the right lottery numbers can make people lot of money.

Another interesting point is that money and position really aren’t what give people happiness, as Socrates leads us to believe. Some of the richest people are the unhappiest and some of the poorest are the happiest. I think it’s really gratitude that makes people happy, and that has nothing to do with how much you have, but has to do with how thankful you are for it. When you are unthankful and always jealous of what others have, you can have a lot and still be miserable.

Socrates was right that when the leaders have more than the others, some of those they are leading get bitter. This seems to be the case especially if leaders take advantage of their position by using taxpayer dollars for their own vacations and mistresses. The people rebel. A case in point is Senator John Edwards. His personal life is all over the news right now. He has used his position to get his mistress a job, a home, and monthly child support payment, all in order to make himself happy at the expense of the taxpayers and those who voted for him. Another example is that President Obama used Air Force One, at enormous cost to the tax-payers, from Washington DC to New York City to take his wife to a Broadway play and dinner. Both of these leaders have gotten very bad press lately and both are scoring lower and lower in public opinion polls.

I wouldn’t want to live in a society where all people have the same amount of money and luxury. There would be no need for serving each other, or to get up every day and work toward a college degree, or work hard on my new internship, or to practice my musical skills. I’m not doing it all for money and position, but if I happen to get either of those things, I will not abuse the privilege.

Do we finally have a working definition of justice?

Over the last few weeks we have discussed the word justice and its meaning many times and I must admit that never before have I given so much thought to one word. There is a "given" definition that I, and I'm sure many others, have grown up with and have learned to understand and accept. However now, that entire understanding has been thrown for a loop and we are faced with defining it in real terms without using examples as we are used to doing. This has proven very difficult.

Now, in Book IV of Plato's Republic, we are for the first time given a wee bit of a definition of the word we have spent so much time on. "... justice is the minding of one's own business and not being a busybody..." (433a) In class we discussed that minding one's own business is a bit misleading here. Generally we think of that as only interfering in what concerns you or the avoidance of meddling when your input serves no contributing purpose. But what does that really entail? Are we supposed to ignore everything that isn't directly related to us (as in the letting-someone-choke example in class)? I don't think that's what Socrates is trying to say. Perhaps he means that when you do not do the task you are meant to perform and instead try to do someone else's, you are performing an injustice because you are not only leaving your tasks undone, but you are probably half-assing someone else's because you were not trained to do them. You are essentially screwing with the natural order of things and consequently causing injustice. If this is the case, I can more easily understand his train of thought.

Right after the aforementioned quote, Socrates goes on to say that what is left over after moderation, courage, and prudence are in the city, is justice. (paraphrased from 433b/c) Therefore, can it be assumed that justice is a by-product of those and those must exist for justice to exist? It becomes the chicken-or-the-egg argument to me. Personally, I think you do have to have those in order for justice to be possible. Without them, then injustice is inevitable.

-Ms. MacDonald

Justice is a part of Moderation

"Moderation doesn't work that way, but actually stretches throughout the whole, from top to bottom of the entire scale, making the weaker, the stronger and those in the middle-whether you wish to view them as such in terms of prudence, or, if you wish, in terms of strength, or multitude, money or anything else whatsoever of that this unanimity is moderation, an accord of worse and better, according to nature, as to which must rule in the city and in each one." (432a)

"He doesn't let each part in him mind other people's business or the three classes in the soul meddle with each other, but really sets his own house in good order and rules himself, he arranges himself, becomes his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts, exactly like three notes in a harmonic scale, lowest, highest and middle. And if there are some other parts in between, he binds them together and becomes entirely one from many, moderate and harmonized. Then and only then, he acts, if he does act in some way-either concerning the acquisition of money, or the care of the body, or something political, or concerning private contracts." (343d-e)

When harmonizing in music you are creating a chord. Each chord is created with a different scale and depending on what scale you are in, the chord will change. Each chord is made up of parts of the scale and without the parts of the scale the chord cannot be completed. Justice is a part of moderation because justice works in harmony with moderation. Moderation is the whole and just is only a partial piece. As the first quote says, "moderation in the entire scale." This is because moderation is the building blocks of everything else. You cannot have justice without moderation since justice is only a part of the scale. Justice is the harmonizing of many things and when you put the three parts together it is good, but if you have all parts of moderation all at once, then it will be all parts and not a specific.

Justice and Moderation

After reading 430d - 435a, my head hurt quite a bit. I was considering what the difference is between justice and moderation. They are both described similarly -- as "the minding of one' s own business and not being a busybody" (433b). But, as i saw in the beginning of this passage, moderation is described first in a man. It is described just as we usually think of moderation -- "[it is a] certain kind of order and mastery of certain kinds of pleasures and desires, as men say when they use....the phrase 'stronger than himself...' (430e). And as they, and i, found that to be true, they moved on to look at moderation in the city to see if it was the same as it was in the man. They noticed that in the man, moderation must be used to fight desires and pleasures in many different areas of life, which they also noticed in the city. To be moderate in the city, they saw that just like in the man, there was a part of a man that "is better by nature [which must be] master over that which is worse" (431a) in order to be 'stronger than himself.' For a city, a city must be moderate and overcome the desires and pleasures that it is tempted to pursue.

Justice on the other hand is seen as "the minding of one's own business and not being a busybody" (433b) -- obviously different from moderation. It is different because being moderate is about resisting temptations and allowing the good to overpower the bad, whereas justice is to do what you are good at and let others do what they're good at. Yes, in a way, this is resisting a temptation to try other occupations, but that is a stretch to say that moderation and justice are similar. But, i WOULD say that, in a way, in order to have justice you have to have moderation because of the ability to be "stronger than yourself."

This is a difficult topic, but i believe that has a bit of clarity. If you're curious and disagree or want to see where i got this, refer to lines 430d - 435a.

Justice, Faith, and Sheep.

First off, while it is very interesting how Socrates rules out any objections to his arguments, i.e. 434 d through 438 e, it's rather frustrating reading things 5 times in 5 different scenarios. The redundancy is slowly killing me.

We've all read the text, but here is a reminder:

443 d & e "But in truth justice was... like three notes in a harmonic scale, lowest, hights and middle... he binds them together and becomes entirely one from many, moderate and harmonized."

We established in class that the discussion of justice is a perennial question, that is one with no answer. I disagree. I think there is certainly an answer, but not one which can be vocalized. I think it is, much like Socrates describes, a chord which resounds deep within a soul. That chord, music if you will, is something struck and heard within but incapable of exterior noise. It is seen - we have all given various examples, we recognize it - but when we attempt to speak it we find ourselves speechless.

To go a little deeper, again these are just my thoughts, do you think that everyone is born with the knowledge of justice? Is everyone born with the potential to do good, not good things, but real good, real justice? For me, it begins with my faith. Christianity is founded on the belief that we are all born sinners and Jesus was crucified as a pure sacrifice to save us from that sin. There are also references within scripture that go along the lines of defining the Saved as sheep and the Damned (blunt I know, but it's easier for what I'm saying) as goats. If you believe in predestination, then you believe that sheep are sheep and goats are goats. Those who are saved, or will be saved, are chosen by God before birth, and vice versa. What this implies is that Christ died for all Sheep... or rather those whom God has chosen and who will be or are saved. Next, if what is Good can only be done by a Sheep, someone Saved, then not everyone can do good. What I'm getting at is if this is true, then not everyone is born with the potential to do justice, or even understand it perhaps. If it is something indescribable, which resounds only within, then how can one teach it (via education as Socrates suggests) to those who are not born with the potential to understand it? Do you think everyone is born with the potential to understand (even without words to express it) justice?

The Methods of Personal Justice

Socrates has presented to us a very elaborate construction in the form of the city which provides us with a detailed, yet understandable, model of the human soul. While one could point out flaws with minute details of the argument, I believe that it is hard pressed to find a fault great enough to undermine it's entirety, so this post assumes that one agrees with the equivalence of the city and the soul, at least in relation to justice and virtue.

In many ways, the definition of justice we are presented towards the end of book four is a method for determining whether or not an action is just. It can nearly be compared to a computer program. With a certain input, say, an example of an action, it is considered within the 3 part soul. It is first considered by desire; if it is an action which fulfills a desire, then we must also consider it by spirit. If the spirited part of the soul seems to be stirred by this action, in one way or another, then it must too be considered by the ruling class of the soul. If this also deems the action necessary, then it is indeed just, assuming the soul is properly conditioned in the way Socrates has set forth. However, it is not that simple, by any means. This is merely one possible way for the soul to deem an action as just, for it is not necessary for all parts of the soul to completely agree upon a decision. If an action is viewed as negative by the desiring part of the soul, it may still be overwritten by the other two parts of the soul; for example, by nature, a violent conflict is not desirable, because it could lead to the harm of the body, and to desire pain would be illogical. However, the spirit might yearn for this, and the calculating area of the soul states that either the conflict is reasonable or not. If it is not, then it is not just, but if it is, the action is deemed just, despite the stance of the desiring part. For an action to be just, it is not necessary for all parts of the soul to be in agreement. In fact, so long as the decisive part deems it for the better of the whole of the soul, then the action might be considered just much the same way as the rulers of the city deem an action to be just or not.

Does this go against the harmonious relationship between these three parts of the soul? I do not see it this way, but I also hesitate to take this analogy too far. In my opinion, to say that these three divisions of the soul are harmonious implies that they are all equal in the process of determining whether or not an action is justified, when the deliberating area of the soul is clearly the most important of the three areas in this regard. While this certainly does not imply that the other parts are not necessary, the idea that they are all equally necessary does not sit well with me.

Every Law Sucks

In my reading of the first half of Book 4 I lingered on Socrates’ narrative concerning inner strife within the city. Part of Socrates definition of the ideal city is that it does not set down laws promoting good manners and good morals but rather a city that allows it’s citizens to make these decisions according to their own judgment, which Socrates says will naturally gravitate towards being good due to the nature of the city. Socrates remarks to Adeimantus “But to set them down as laws is, I believe, foolish. Surely they don’t come into being, nor would they be maintained, by being set down as laws in speech and in writing.” (425b) However, Socrates does believe that a city must have good manners and good morals in order to function properly, these things just have to come into fruition of their own accord, not forced upon by the rulers. This led me to ponder the pro’s and cons of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, censorship and all of the other freedoms and laws concerning those freedoms we have today in America. If all forms of negativity within communication, religion, entertainment and all other facets of life are made illegal through laws (ex. Censoring profanity on television and in music, criminalization of drug usage, even acts of violence), then this does not necessarily accomplish our goals because the true character of the city is neither improved nor worsened but rather blotted out altogether. No one can tell if it is a just city or not because the citizens refrain from illegal activities in fear of being punished, not because they possess knowledge that persuades them against these illegal deeds. Eliminating the choice of the problem does not eliminate the problem itself. The ideal city is one that has NO LAWS yet remains lawful, one where people are able to murder and steal from one another without judicial consequence yet don’t do this because they know that it’s better for society as a whole if they don’t do these things. I believe America has partially failed in this category. We believe the simple act of making something illegal also magically educates the population into realizing why this particular thing is illegal. You cannot eliminate the human experience of trial and error. I’ve never murdered someone before, so how am I to know if murder will negatively affect me or not? I only know because our country’s rulers have established that murder is bad through laws and I’m supposed to trust the law. However, this doesn’t always work because not everyone trusts the government, even though in this case it’s the wise thing to do. In 427a Socrates remarks “I, for one, therefore thought that the true lawgiver wouldn’t have to bother with that class of things in the laws and the regime, either in a city with a bad regime or in one with a good regime-in the one case because it’s useless and accomplishes nothing; in the other, partly because anyone at all could find some of these things, and partly because the rest follow of themselves from the practices already.” The idea is that a city without laws from the very beginning will grow in such a way that it naturally develops good moral character because of trial and error. However, we can’t all afford to go through the trial and error process of breaking every law and realizing the negative consequences. We are forced to trust the laws given to us by the authorities because the laws are based upon the wisdom of people who have gone through trial and error before us. This is why we must place a greater emphasis on educating our youth as to why these laws are in place and less emphasis on blindly enforcing
Butttttttt……in order for a law preventing, let’s say murder, has to be set, at least one act of murder had to have been committed in the first place for us to realize that murder is bad and should be discouraged against. If murder had never occurred in the first place it wouldn’t exist and anti-murder laws also wouldn’t exist. I believe this is Socrates’ point, that the more absence of law there is the better because every law is merely a representation and consequence of some flaw in our city or society.

Book III and Justice

Is the fictional city a good plan for modeling justice?

Many people will say that Socrates' perfect city will not suffice for the definition of justice. They will say that this city is a controlled environment in which the definition of justice for this perfect city does not coincide with the ever-changing, multiple variable filled world that humans actually live in. I however disagree, with this argument. Back when we read Plato's "Meno," the conclusion that virtue does not change due to circumstances was realized. I believe the same pertains to justice. If justice can be defined in this fictional city, then I do not believe that it will change when it is thrown into reality. The definition will be the same, and will not change based on environments.

Second, Does Socrates know what justice is and cannot say it?

I believe this statement to be true. We have already established that many things in life can be taught, but in the same aspect, we have established that many things cannot be taught. I believe justice is something that cannot be taught. Therefore, even if Socrates knows what justice is, he will not be able to teach it. The only thing he can do is to help someone discover (or rather recollect) what justice is.

The Noble Lie

While building this just city, Socrates introduced us to the idea of "lying for the public good." At first I disagreed and actually felt a bit of disappointment in this proposal because it seemed to counteract everything this city supposedly stood for. My entire life I have viewed lying as something with a negative connotation... even in the "do I look fat in this outfit..." example. The only difference is that while I still considered lying in those situations to be wrong, it was an acceptable wrong. It was the "nice" thing to do, and in an unorthodox sense, that made up for the lie.

After the discussion in class Thursday i realized that maybe my perceptions of "lying" were not true reality. Perhaps lying for the good of others is not an acceptable wrong but simply acceptable. If the lie is told with good intentions and will benefit the other person more than the truth, it seems to be a cogent solution. While I am still on the fence about Socrates' proposal of the "noble lie," I am beginning to see his perspective and understand how lying could be justified.

Teacher of justice?

It is my opinion that Socrates is a teacher of justice and so far into The Republic has been his lesson on the subject. Socrates even calls himself a teacher while talking to Ademantus - "I seem to be a ridiculous teacher, and an unclear one" (392e). Even though Socrates is directly talking about teaching the styles of speech and poetry, it correlates to justice as well since everything they are inquiring about is supposed to lead them to find what justice is.
In the same passage (392e) Socrates goes on to say, "So just like men who are incompetent at speaking, instead of speaking about the whole in general, I'll cut off a part and with it attempt to make plain to you what I want." Here Socrates is telling us how it is that a teacher may teach something. Through the use of examples and by means of relation the student can learn first with what they are familiar with, and then expand that knowledge further. For example, when you are first learning math your teacher would tell you that Adam has 2 apples, then Sally gave him 3 more apples. How many apples does Adam have now? This is the process Socrates is going through with Glaucon and Ademantus; giving them items or ideas that they can understand. The building of the city is the main idea Socrates is using to teach justice.
Socrates is also shown as a teacher by the process in which he is talking with the others. He knows that you cannot truly understand something if you don't figure it out for yourself. Using another math example, your teacher will ask questions like, what are you trying to find? In what ways can you find it? What should you do next? so that their student can find the answer themself and then be able to do it alone. By Socrates only asking questions and not giving direct answers, he is doing the same thing. And because they are seeking to "learn" justice, that is what Socrates is teaching.

By: Rachel Tidwell

Plato's Republic, Book III

I am going to defend Socrates’ attempted representation of justice through an ideal city.

Because there is no “teacher of justice,” we can only assume that justice doesn’t derive from man. Thus, we cannot look to men to find justice itself. There must be an outside source. We can only look to men in hopes of finding illustrations of justice. So, if we are, in fact, trying to find justice, we must look to its source, not its outcomes. We must see it for what it is when it’s not mixed up in human emotion, varied perceptions, evil, etc. The city that Socrates is building is being built on justice and justice alone—not its interactions with human nature or city life. Because we are on the pursuit for something much grander than ourselves, we have to aim at something higher than our natural scope. We must aim at justice, in its purest form, so that we have something to look to. By establishing justice alone, we gain access to a model of the way things should be (though they are not). Though it's impossible to have a perfectly just society (given human nature), and he knows this, Socrates is attempting to make it possible to aim for one.

Also, when CIA agents are trained to detect counterfeit money, they do not study all the ways that a dollar bill can be counterfeit. Rather, they study the real dollar bill so diligently that they know the second they touch or see a counterfeit. This is a response to the question raised about the possiblity of knowing justice when we have not studied injustice. If we come to know justice well, we will eventually know the second we come across an area or action that is absent of justice.

Is Building The City Helpful For A Definition Of Justice?

I would say no. In saying so I do understand why Socrates is creating a test-group society. Test-groups are helpful in finding answers, as long as those test groups are representational. From my understanding Socrates is searching for a definition of justice in how it is present in the world. Justice being present in the world will only be found within the real, natural flow of the world. In restricting the city from acting in such a way as a normal city would, and shielding its citizens from such things that any other city in the world have access to, will not result in an accurate portrayal of justice in the world.

Different factors will affect the definition in a society where certain things are withheld as opposed to one with more freedoms. For example, if there is no laughter what will citizens do to act out these goofy and endorphin-filled releases? If glamour is taken out of certain jobs, i have a hard time believing that there will not naturally fall a distinct rank of glamorous jobs and those less glamorous. I don't trust that women won't naturally go after gold-metal souls, and in such, create a desire for that type. Women chasing this type would create a desire for non-warrior born souls to strive to be that. Beings are selfish, and I feel a number of beings stuck doing what's "best for the city", but not themselves wanting to do it will create a problem for the city in the long run. Possibly a social uprising from lack of freedoms and unhappy citizens.

Also, what if a warrior has a moral issue with murder and violence? Forcing someone to kill...is that just? Unwillingness to hear opposition from any citizen unhappy with their job, so long as it benefits the city...is that just?

Again, I would say no.

Book III, The Literary Critic

The first half of Book III of the Republic poses many questions that simply cannot be ignored. The most powerful among those, at least in my own opinion, is Socrates' misconstruing of the tales of the poets. In his attempt to banish all that would hinder the growth and perfect development of the guardians/warriors, it seems that he has blatantly and purposefully misconstrued what the poets have shown through their narratives. Socrates seems to be picking, choosing, twisting and shaping the words and tales of the poets for his own purposes. By doing this, Socrates sullies the text from which he has derived the center of his reasoning for eliminating these texts from their “justice city” and I feel that tarnishes his credibility within his arguments at least within the arguments pertaining to the role this poetry/prose is to play in the new "justice city."

As I stated Tuesday in class, a perfect example of this occurs in section 390b, "Hunger is the most pitiful way to die and find one's fate[.]" As stated in the explanatory notes, it is not Odysseus, the protagonist, who states those words-it is one who dies from the sin of gluttony; however, this is not the only instance of Socrates' wrongful context of the literature. For example, also from 390b, Odysseus is said to state the finest things deal with gluttony, Socrates fails to mention Odysseus believing among those finest of things is a "whole people in harmony listening to a singer" (Notes Book III, 452). While the second isn’t completely a misrepresentation, it does fail to leave out a critical piece of the information. While I am not completely fresh with either the Iliad or the Odyssey, it is clear that much more could have been confiscated for Socrates' own causes. He leaves out bits and pieces that could, and occasionally do, change the context and strength of his argument.

What I don't understand is, if he is so opposed to the way in which the poets depict the gods and how they “imitate” others to create their narratives, why Socrates even decides to salvage their works in their justice city. It is clear the three men find all that “poets and prose writers say concerning the most important things about human beings is bad” (392b), why even continue argue over their relevance and intended impact upon the city? They’ve already proclaimed that there is no room for the narrative in their society, so why even take what the poets have written and sew them into the fabric of their stagnant society?

I feel that, when going this direction in this creation of the just city, that one doesn’t even need to consider the works of the past if all they do is “contaminate” the minds and possible justices within the children and simply start all over with new writers who will be given the guidelines to writing? Instead of censorship and needless time spent destroying the works that were actually intended to serve as a guide for morals, why not simply start from the beginning as we did with the city itself? This “justice city” started from nothing, so shouldn’t the literature, text, beliefs, and ideas also rise from the interactions within the confines and limitations of the city at least from the beginning and later develop and transmit ideas?

-J. Spradlin

Justice or Injustice?

Justice or injustice? There are so many different layers to Plato's Republic. It is really up to the individual on how and what to believe. Throughout my reading, I have yet to find a definite definition on what justice and injustice truly is. I think Glaucone has danced around the idea or answer, but it as yet been openly defined. It is difficult for the reader to fully know which is correct when that answer as yet been given.

I am currently at a cross road with this post because their are so many different directions I could currently go. Since so much information has been discussed within this entire book about both Socrates and Glaucone, it makes answer specific questions difficult for the reader. Some type of common ground would be nice. Hopefully, after reading the Book 4, I will be able to make a better analogy.