Download PHIL 219

PHIL 219
PLATO, THE REPUBLIC, PT. 2
The Role of the Philosopher
In the parts of Book V and VI that the editor elided, Plato makes one of
the most startling claims of the Republic: that the role of the ‘best
guardians’ can only be played by philosophers.
◦ “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and
leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political
power and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will have no rest from evils,
Glaucon, no, I think, will the human race” (473c-d).
◦ Plato is advocating a literal “Aristocracy:” rule of the best.
In order to justify this claim, Socrates must answer 2 questions.
◦ Who or what is the philosopher?
◦ What makes the philosopher best suited to rule the city?
Who is the philosopher?
This is a very complicated question, one which
Plato spends a great deal of energy on, both here in
The Republic and in other dialogues.
In Book V, the answer Plato offers focuses our
attention on the relationship the philosopher has
to the truth.
◦ As the “lover of wisdom,” philosophers have a relation to
the truth different from others, and it is their relationship
to the truth (in an absolute, metaphysical sense: the
Forms) that helps us understand why they are best suited
to rule.
Having the Truth in Sight
In his discussion of the soul of the guardians, Plato lists a set
of qualities which return to the discussion here.
As we pick up the text on p. 90, it becomes clear that it is
the ability of the philosopher to grasp, literally “see,” the
truth that makes them uniquely suited to rule.
◦ The best guardian is a keen sighted one.
◦ The philosopher loves the truth and thus hates falsehood
◦ The philosopher’s love for the forms diminishes their love for bodily
goods thus making them moderate.
◦ The philosopher’s familiarity with death makes them courageous.
All Philosophers?
As Adiemantus points out (92c2), however, there is still a
problem. If you look around at the so-called philosophers it
is clear that they don’t all possess these qualities.
We thus have to wonder about the possibility of telling the
true philosophers from the false.
Socrates has a ready answer: ‘real’ philosophers will not
seek power, they will have to be ‘forced’ into ruling.
This is complicated because it turns out that ‘real’
philosophers aren’t all that common.
Making Philosophers
Since they aren’t common, the city (communities) has to
encourage their development.
Plato thus engages in a detailed account of the education of the
philosopher (beginning at 498), an education the final hurdle of
which is to grasp the Form that underwrites the virtues (that
towards which all the virtues aim): the Form of the Good
(100c2).
In other words, Plato needs an argument to the conclusion that
attending to the form of the Good is what makes the philosopher.
This argument takes the form of three famous analogies, that
culminate in the famous Allegory of the Cave.
The Analogy of the Sun
The analogy begins with the distinction central to Plato’s metaphysics
between sensible reality and ultimate reality (the reality of the forms)
(101c2).
He then notes the fact that sight seems different from the other senses in
that it is necessarily supplemented by light.
In vision, light (the sun) is the third, enabling term in the relationship
between the viewer and the thing viewed.
◦ The sun is not sight, nor the thing seen (102c2).
◦ It is the cause of vision and the objects of vision.
On these terms, Plato can draw the analogy. The sun is the ‘offspring’ of the
(form of the) Good. The Good stands in the same relation to intelligence
and intelligible objects that the sun stands to vision and visible objects. See
summary (103c1).
The Analogy of the Line
The Cave
The Prisoners
All that a person like those described as being
chained in front of the wall could see of
themselves, other people, and the puppets would
be shadows on the wall.
All that they could have any sensory experience of
would be mediated by the wall (hearing=echo).
The implication is clear: we are like prisoners in the
cave (for the most part, humans live on the bottom
part of the line), but there is a way out.
The Escapee
What if a prisoner were released? What would her experience be like?
◦ She would be disoriented, her senses painfully struggling to deal with the
increase in illumination/change in object, and her consciousness struggling
to process the new experience.
◦ If someone asked her, she’d likely insist that the familiar shadows were more
real than the blurring/buzzing confusion she was currently experiencing.
Eventually she would orient to her new context and she would grasp the
nature of the illusion that she had lived in. Her senses would be capable
of distinguishing the faint light of the exit of the cave, and she would
likely enough explore it and find her way into the full light of the sun.
What would her experience be like at this stage? Probably much like
when she was first freed (though with more confidence). Eventually she
would discover that the sun (Good) is the truth of the whole.
The Philosopher
What do you think the mood of this lucky person would be? How would
she evaluate her situation relative to the situation of the people still in
the cave? In the face of the gap between the situations, she might be
motivated to return to the cave. Why?
What would the experience of the return be like? She would once again
be blind, but this time by darkness (ignorance) rather than light (access
to knowledge).
◦ Her former colleagues would doubtless be tempted to blame her blindness
and lack of fit on what she know knows, and thus stigmatize her
accomplishment.
◦ If she kept trying to convince people to accept what she knows to be true,
they’d likely end up killing her (like Socrates).
What’s it all mean?
Plato summarizes for us the significance of these three
analogies on (107c1-2).
One interesting implication: the philosophers are no more
‘free’ than anyone else. Their natures determine them to
rule, and rule they must, even if they would rather not.
The alternative, “…[if] persons who hunger after private
goods, take the reins of the city, supposing that they are
priveleged to snatch good from their power, all goes wrong.
For then ruling is made an object of strife, both civil war and
family feuds, and conflicts of this nature, ruin to only these
men themselves, but also the rest of the city” (109-110).
From Aristocracy to Tyranny
Of course, the aristocracy advocated by Plato is an ideal. In reality, this
ideal can be corrupted and thus fall short of its promise.
In Book VIII, Plato offers us an analysis of the possible stages of this
corruption (matched with states of the soul), which is also a
presentation of and analysis of the limitations of other political forms.
1. Timocracy: government of ambition or honor (spirited soul dominates).
2. Oligarchy: government dominated by interests of the wealthy (appetitive
soul dominates, but not exclusively).
3. Democracy: government of the many: poor outnumber the rich, so they
take over (total domination of appetite).
4. Tyranny: government of one: the anarchy of the ‘freedom’ leads people
to yearn for a protector who inevitably takes all power for themselves
(the tyrannical soul, completely without justice)
An Inevitable corruption?
“…when your guardians...arrange unseasonable marriages, the children of
such marriages will not be well-endowed or fortunate. The best of them will
be established in power by their predecessors; but nevertheless they will be
unworthy of it...”(112c1).
“…the instant the son has seen and felt this (the ruin of his honor loving
father)...he turns to money-getting, makes mean and petty savings...he is a
squalid man, making a profit out of everything...the oligarchic city...values
money above everything” (117c1-2).
“Is not the transition from oligarchy to democracy brought about by an
intemperate craving...to become as wealthy as
possible?...Democracy...arises whenever the poor win the day” (118-119).
“…democracy, and only democracy, lays the foundation of tyrany” (125c1).
Why Justice?
So, why does this all come out in a discussion of Dikaiosune?
As we’ve just seen, the explanation for the degeneration of
governments is ultimately attributable to souls that are out
of balance: souls that lack Dikaiosune.
The tyrant is just the most striking and obvious case of this.
The only remedy is to cultivate dikaiosune in souls and in
cities, and the only cultivation possible is philosophy.