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?