Download Julie`s Thoughts On Plato`s Republic (Part 2 of 3) You`ll remember

Julie’s Thoughts On Plato’s Republic
(Part 2 of 3)
You’ll remember that they were discussing what some might call an ‘ideal state’, and
building on a conception they’ve taken from the Spartan way of life, Plato’s brothers are
wondering about private property, and if women and children ought to be held
communally. Socrates hems and haws for awhile, but then decides to go on to draw them
into the contradiction, as he is so good at. He does agree that it seems to make sense
because friends hold all things in common. But he adds again that, for the same reason
that they agreed earlier that decisions must be made, not by elites, but at the right scale or
level of activity, it probably wouldn’t work if elders chose who will and will not breed
with whom; they’d be bound to make mistakes because it’s what you don’t know that
will get you. Such mistakes would be less likely to be made if you let people make free
choices about these things themselves. So this would be one place where injustice an evil
would set in, but he lets you draw that conclusion yourself. He does make the case that in
a truly ideal community, there would be full education for women and men alike, with
similar pursuits for similar natures, because they’ve concluded that, all other things being
equal (which they seldom are), women can do the same work as men. Different degrees
of goodness are particular to individuals, they conclude, not to genders, and natural gifts
are found here and there in both men and women alike, so every occupation and
education should be open to both. So while it may not be our convention to treat women
as equals, Socrates says, convention should not stand in the way of good. As in economic
and procreation matters, in male and female relations, individuals should be free to
follow their won intrinsic pursuits, and in this way, a natural partnership of responsibility
and dependence of the sexes will develop. Unity and public spirit are generally good
things, he argues, and private interests often lead to discord. But to say that all should
share in the interests of each, the state should be like one family is not to say that they
should be like the Spartans. To say we should be slaves to the laws sounds good in
theory, but is easy to abuse in practice. There is such a thing as taking a good idea too far.
In a healthy community (most translations say democracy, but Socrates argues later on
that democracy is the unhealthy form of polity) there ought not to be masters and slaves.
In fact, there is no form or essence of master and slave in nature – this is purely a human
construct.
At this point in a reading of the Republic, students are usually pretty confused. It’s hard
to hear what exactly Socrates is saying here because he’s trying to bait Glaucon and
Adeimantus into thinking for themselves, so much of what he says is in question form to
see whether they agree or disagree. But b/c most translations leave out or misplace the
question marks, a first time reader would hear him asserting these things, instead of
merely expressing them for the sake of argument. You have to back up sufficiently to
hear his complaints. He does say, rather too vaguely, that they are talking about the state
to begin to see how it is analogous to the soul, and so, like the soul, it has to be
considered one living thing. Therefore, all will hurt for any part, and the whole state will
make the individual case its own, from which it follows that any freedom and rights it
would give to anyone, it ought to give to everyone. He consistently upholds this idea that
justice is doing one’s own business, and that each should be free to do the things or job
they do best, and there will be no meddling between arts (e.g. rulers should not interfere
in the family, crafts, etc.), from which it seems to follow that one class ought not o
interfere with the work of other classes (which is where Popper gets his idea that Socrates
is defending a caste system). But, again, he’s putting this forward to ask, what’s wrong
with this picture? Where does this go wrong? So all this is subject to what they say
later… (Here’s where a focused and extended attentions span comes in handy… )
They then get into a discussion about the stories we tell childen. Socrates worries about
stories of the gods, passed down from Homer and Hasid, that represent the gods as unjust,
and yet praise them anyway, saying this sets the wrong example for the young. Since the
state exists or the purpose of raising and protecting children from evil, what are we to
think about the ‘noble lies’ we tall children about the gods? Myths are false tales, and as
such, they falsely represent the gods, showing the bad to be happy and the good to be
unhappy, which goes against nature and shows a deep misunderstanding of how good and
evil work. (Btw, Critias, Plato’s uncle, to whom Socrates is relaying all this, has recently
written a piece about how fear of an all powerful god is a good way to keep people under
control. We don’t hear about this in the Republic, but it seems relevant…) The beginning
of anything is the most important, after all, Socrates says, because children never forget.
Therefore the stories we tell them when they are young leave the strongest impressions,
sort of making a case for the butterfly effect of ideas. Children can’t distinguish between
allegory and literal stories, so the images they take in are likely to become indelibly fixed
in their minds. Therefore, it’s very important that the first stories they hear should be
designed to produce the best effect on their character. So first teachers, e.g. parents and
grandparents, should tell only true stories, including those about war, because children
ought to see war for what it truly, its true costs and just rewards and punishments.
All of this is why people take Plato to be advocating censorship, but in fact, all he’s
saying is that, not knowing the full truth about the distant past, or the gods, we should
make the stories we tell as close to truth as possible – and the truth is that the divine
nature is good, and we ought to represent it as such. True stories are uplifting because
they don’t glorify injustice. He’s not saying that the state should control what literature or
music is created, only that creative artists and poets ought to take responsibility for what
their work teaches. We are improved by good, and harmed by evil, and the rewards and
price are greater than we recognize – not just for this life, but for the whole of existence
(which may or may not go on after death, Socrates thinks, since we can’t know on this
side of it what goes on on the other – remember his claim in Apology that being afraid of
death is just another way of pretending to know more than we possibly can). Plato is
known for his distaste of poetry and comedy, but it’s because it uses pleasure and
emotion and rhetoric and the catharsis effect to move people to less than honorable ends,
which is the wrong use of power, especially if it bypasses reason. When reason fails to
constrain, then these feed the passions, encourage appetites to rule the mind, and in this
way, it has the power to do harm to the good itself. It’s a bigger deal than we think, he
says. Which is why there’s an ancient quarrel between philosophy and fiction. Socrates
says let poetry and fiction encourage human goodness, rather than just promote pleasure.
Then there will be no objection to them. Stick to the truth about human nature, he says,
which, like the divine nature, is good, and ought to be described as such.
"... While our (negative) description of the soul is true of her present
appearance; we have seen her afflicted by countless evils, like the sea-god
Glaucus...But we must rather fix our eyes, Glaucon, on her love of
wisdom and note how he seeks to apprehend and hold converse with the
divine, immortal, and everlasting world to which she is akin, and what she
would become if her affections were entirely set on following the impulse
that would life her out of the sea in which she is now sunken...then one
might see her true nature...the soul...to understand her real nature, we must
look at her, not as we see her now, m marred by association with the body
and other evils, but when she has regained that pure condition which the
eye of reason can discern. Then you will then find her to be a far lovelier
thing and will distinguish more clearly justice and injustice and all the
qualities we have discussed. "[C10.611]
Which is why…
"We shall not tell a child that, if he commits the foulest crimes or goes to
any length in punishing his father's misdeeds, he will be doing nothing out
of the way, but only what the first and greatest of the gods have done
before him."[C2.377] In fact, "If by any means we can make them
believe that no one has ever had a quarrel with a fellow citizen and it is a
sin to have one, that is the sort of thing our old men and women should tell
from the first;"[C2.377]
This is why literature ought always to aim to mold character, not harm it; only praise of
the good ought to be written if humans wish to avoid being ruled by pleasure and pain.
This is also the reason, he argues, that actors ought not degrade themselves by playing
evil men (though there might be some good in this to show how evil gets its due, but evil
men should play them then, he seems to think.) Only good men should play the roles of
good men, because good men don’t look at themselves from outside in, so can’t fake or
act or imitate, they can only be real, which is hard for those who are strangers to the
feeling of goodness to imitate. Their voice quality too will reflect their internal harmony
and sincerity. Such style is an expression of the soul, so can’ be faked. This is why truth
is intuitively recognizable to another truthful person, as are lies, but liars don’t know the
truth when they see it. (Later he argues that the good recognize both good and evil when
they see it, but the evil only recognize other evil.)
Plato has a lot to say about imitation because he’s trying to draw a distinction between
the real thing and the mere appearance of it, between the truth and deceit. The fiction
writer creates appearances only, part of why he so easily goes astray. Homer is good, as
far as his lights actually reach, Socrates says, but when he writes about what he is second
removed from, like the gods, then he misses the mark of truth. The real artist who really
knows what he is imitating would not be interested in imitation, but would prefer to tell
the truth – which is why Plato says that a good person will not make himself the author of
stories, but the theme of them. He gets into the idea of ‘creation’ and ‘creativity’ and ‘the
creator’ here, saying that there is a sense in which we can ourselves become ‘divine
beings’ by creativity, but we must be careful not to create appearances. A painter creates
a picture, but it’s once removed from the object being painted itself, so only a copy of the
idea. There are three kinds of artists therefore, and the tragic poets are thus thrice
removed from the truth, just as the politicians are thrice removed from true kings. The
true creator doesn’t bother with appearances in the same way that the ‘true king’ doesn’t
bother with politics, which is only the appearance of leadership. So statesmen ought not
be imitators, but should do at least that one thing well. This is especially important
because the example of excellence in leaders will repeat itself in the population, like the
example set by parents is repeated by the child. Wisdom in leaders will become wisdom
in the state, as the smallest part will be reflected in the whole. So the one who takes the
lead and governs the rest is responsible for the example he sets. (Hmmm…)
Anyway, it’s because we teach that wrongdoers can be happy that the effects on the
young will be an excuse to do wrong, as Adeimantus argued earlier. So we should reform
our mythology to tell our children the truth – that the gods don’t lie or mislead, and that
the unjust do not end up happy. He also says that people are not free if taught to believe
in and fear hell. Being moved by fear just makes us easy to control. So leave religion to
the goddess at Delphi, and take her advice – Know Thyself!
In a healthy state or soul there should be no noble lies, they decide, because untruth is
fatal to both, subversive to the proper function of anything. The proper function of the
soul, the end or virtue or excellence of it, is wisdom. Untruth is a form of violence, too
often used to coerce change in the mind, and deceit is destructive to state and individual
alike, giving incentive to manipulate human behavior by way of stories and myths,
creating an ongoing battle between self and other control. Without words, there can be no
lying, hence the reason god cannot lie, and so cannot be held responsible for evil. The
origin of evil turns out to be in human activity, because we have the power to control it,
to cause or prevent the harm we cause (hence the distinction they drew earlier between
that which nature changes and that which humans can change. God and nature have not
evil in them, except where evil itself is being punished. Nature’s course is guided by
necessity, not self-interest, and so humans cannot change it. Thus the source of evil is
somewhere here inside the choice to act even despite the foreseeable consequences of
possible harm to others. In human nature, foresight and freewill give responsibility to
human action; we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, and in fact, evil
turns out to be simply a category of human action, that which is done, despite knowing
the harm it will cause. Actively doing unjustified harm is evil. If not destroyed by our
own evil in this way, they say, we cannot be destroyed by another’s. Which is the
argument behind Socrates’ claim that no harm can come to a good person. Misfortune
will happen, but a good person will bear it nobly, for law and reason are within him, and
so he is one of those systems they were talking about earlier that is impervious to change
from without. Such a person knows a kind of ‘healing art’, Socrates says, b/c “the sound
mind has the power in itself to make the bodily condition as perfect as it can be.”
Thus, he argues, if we had education that helps people improve their souls, every person
would be their own best doctor. This is sort of a Buddhist take, I think – when the dice
are thrown, a just person simply responds with wisdom. Whereas an unjust person will
try to make things happen, and in hurrying, will error, and so karma kicks in. They
rationalize excuses that pass as reasons for unjustified actions, but bad reasoning is bad
reasoning, fooling only fools, if those. Seldom if ever does it fool the self. Self-deceit is
just active ignorance. To be deceived about the truth is something no one would consent
to, and since justice (they decided in another dialogue) involves consent, deceit becomes
the source of injustice in the soul, which destroys the possibility of happiness, because
happiness depends on justice in the soul, i.e. it’s internal order, health, proper function.
(This connects later with why you can’t really fight evil, you’re more effective trying to
promote good.)
All of which is why education needs reform, and why we need a better understanding of
human nature. For "education is not in reality what some people proclaim it to be in their
professions...they aver...that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess
it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes." The power of imparting comes of
harmony, the harmony of soul and body, from the work of a true musician, who knows
the essential forms of virtue and vice. As the mind has power over the body, the good
soul improves the body as it grows. It is by improving body and mind that virtue
develops. Thus every person would be their own best doctor and lawyer, had he better
education. The true aim of music and gymnastics is balance, not excess of either, but the
mean between them. Right education needs to balance mind and body, music and
gymnastics, but it doesn't, which is where our mistake begins. To provide right education,
at least for our guardians, we must see better to education and nurture, the one great
thing… (guess?)
They then discuss that, just as the warriors art is not equal to statesman's art, b/c a soldier
is watchdog -- gentle to friends, dangerous to enemies – but the true guardian must unite
these opposite qualities, courage and temperance. For the state needs on with passions
controlled by reason to lead it. And it is the philosophical nature which has both courage
and gentleness. One who has courage -- knows what is to be feared and not feared, and
temperance, is master of himself. When intemperate, a man is a slave of self. We need
temperance in whole state – then justice is the residue. Courage and temperance must be
united, but the problem is, they are rarely found together.
So where to find a leader with both? It won’t be easy, but neither is it impossible, for the
genuine philosopher is one who has a passion for truth. And such people do indeed exist.
Philosophy is simply the love of wisdom. It is simply curiosity. It is love of learning. The
true philosopher is one who is absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, where as the false
philosopher is blind and too impressed with human knowledge, the true philosopher
knows that no man is to be reverenced more than truth. For “only the man who has a taste
for every sort of knowledge and throws himself into acquiring it with an insatiable
curiosity will deserve to be called philosopher.” The philosopher is gentle, harmonious,
spontaneous, and proportional, and has a good memory. "[The true philosopher seeks
true knowledge – desires to distinguish between the idea and the object in which it
partakes.[Rap Book V] For the human mind is vulnerable to appearances; things appear
smaller or larger, depending on if one is close up or at distance. As light bends in water,
appearances can change. Apparent contradictions are everywhere, and we need to have a
good measure to trust, to help us reconcile the confusion in order to have unity within
self. Appearances are relative, and so confusing, as relative pleasures to pains. A higher
wit says no one wants mere appearance, but knowledge. We seek reality of the good, the
end of every soul, not the mere appearance of it. This is why our fiction is as likely to be
false as true, for the measuring art corrects for appearances only imperfectly. For
knowledge of true nature is the only antidote to poetical images that ruin the
understanding.
Adeimantus interjects here that we all know philosophers are strange monsters. Socrates
replies that this is true enough, and if we had time, we'd figure out the difference in the
true and false philosopher, and know which to choose as guardians. But Adeimantus says,
you'll never convince Thrasymachus of that. To which Socrates replies, careful, we've
only just become friends, Thresymachus and I, and you’ll ruin it. Besides, people aren't
convinced because they've only seen conventional philosophy, but general philosophy is
different. We've just never seen or heard the real thing, only imitators. We mistake
fighters with words, (i.e. Sophists) a thing for which true philosophers don't have time,
with true philosophy. If philosophers seem to us useless, perhaps it’s because we don't
use them properly. Satesmen ought not also be imitators, but should do only one thing
well. Here again, untruth is subversive. It is a form of violence, too often used to coerce
change in the mind. Again, people are not free in their choices if taught to fear. They
must behave from love of a true model of goodness.
Perhaps the philosophers’ nature is too sensitive, he says, a rare flower, and thus more
corruptible for this reason, more vulnerable to injury (b/c natural empathy can turn one
inside-out, if one looks from others eyes and finds them looking back in judgment on
them). They are vulnerable to worse side of public opinion – the great brute. If they are
associated with this, they are likely to conform to it. Whereas if they associate with better
side, they may be saved only by the power of god, for capable or reason, same quality
that makes philosophy can corrupt him -- great nature capable of great good or evil.
Philosophers have a love of essence, of truth, of justice, which are high qualities, but
easily distracted. So philosophers are liable to injury. The youth with most gifts will be
flattered, and used for others’ purposes. Philosophy attractive to the vulgar, b/c sophisms
please the ear only, and there is often a misalliance of words and motives going on, to
which the young philosopher falls prey. Or they might be distracted by want of ordinary
goods, or even by their own virtues. They could be corrupted by private sophists or the
opinion of the world, or compulsion of violent death. Certainly, there are few are worthy
disciples. Few hear the voice Socrates hears, because few are able to resist the madness
of the world.
States are not conducive to philosophy, which requires a living authority. This is what
forces us to admit, he says, that no state will ever reach perfection until...either
philosophers become kings, or kings become philosophers. For no state can be happy
without an artist after the divine pattern. Finding such a leader is certainly difficult, but
not impossible. There might be one somewhere, and when found, the enemies of
philosophy will understand, become gentle, when hear the truth. So a philosopher king is
not an impossible ideal.
And so, "...I was driven to affirm, in praise of true philosophy, that only
from the standpoint of such philosophy was it possible to take a correct
view of public and private right, and that accordingly the human race
would never see the end of trouble until true lovers of wisdom should
come to hold political power, or the holders of political power should, by
some divine appointment, become true lovers of wisdom."(RepC p.xxv)
"Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who
are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a
genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and
philosophy meet together...there can be no rest from troubles, my dear
Glaucon, for states, nor yet, as I believe, for all mankind... This it was that
I have so long hung back from saying; I knew what a paradox it would be,
because it is hard to see that there is no other way of happiness either for
the state or for the individual."[RepC p.179]
The genuine philosopher...[is one] whose passion it is to see the truth." As was noted in
my thoughts on dialectic thinking, and "...the genuine lover of knowledge cannot fail,
from his youth up, to strive after the whole of truth." So our earlier exposition of
education is still inadequate, Socrates says. Our guardians must take the longer road to
higher learning, which leads up to ideal of good.
To Glaucon's request to explain the good, Socrates says we can't talk about that directly,
but only about the children of the good. He can't say with certainty what he does or
doesn't know, but he can say what he thinks. "...the Sun is not vision, but it is the cause
of vision and also is seen by the vision it causes...” And just as the Sun is the cause of
vision, and seen by the vision it causes, so knowledge and truth are like the Good, but not
identical. Just as light makes objects visible, grows and nourishes them. The good is to
the invisible world of truth what the sun is to the visible world of sense, it illuminates it,
causes generation of being, nurtures its growth. Sight is a complex sense – it requires
light before it can be used. The good is higher than science, knowledge and truth, opinion
and intellect. It involves insight. We can reach things of the mind through things of the
sense, we can reach absolute beauty through our sense of beauty. He contrasts inner/outer
beauty here. True love will not mind defects, for true love is temperate and harmonious,
fairest of sights, free from vulnerability to baser passions. He who doesn't know how
beautiful and just are good is a sorry guardian.
“It was the Sun, then that I meant...[has] the same relation to vision and
visible things as that which the Good itself bears in the intelligible world
to intelligence and to intelligible objects." "This, then, which gives to the
objects of knowledge their truth and to him who knows them his power of
knowing, is the Form or essential nature of Goodness. It is the cause of
knowledge and truth; and so, while you may think of it as an object of
knowledge, you will do well to regard it as something beyond truth and
knowledge and, precious as these both are, of still higher worth. And, just
as in our analogy light and vision were to be thought of as like the Sun,
but not identical with it, so here both knowledge and truth are to be
regarded as like the Good, but to identify either with the Good is wrong.
The Good must hold a yet higher place of honor... the Sun not only makes
the things we see visible, but also brings them into existence and gives
them growth and nourishment."[RepC p.220] What the sun is to vision,
the good is to knowledge and truth.”
Socrates illustrates this by his famous allegory of the cave, in which he describes human
life as being like being imprisoned in a cave, where a fire at the back illuminates shadows
against the wall made by puppets behind us. We have little choice but to mistake shadows
for realities, seeing first mere images [imagining], then objects [belief], then
mathematical objects [thinking], forms [knowledge], then only finally, if at all, the form
of the good. The Sun, he explains, is the light of fire; the Good is outside the café, the
light in distance. In order to see it, the mind:
"must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the
entire soul...until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essences
and the brightest region of being."(Rep 518c)
"[T]he ascent and the contemplation of the things above is the soul's
ascension to the intelligible region."(RepC 517b)
"[A] conversion and turning about of the soul from a day whose light is
darkness to the veritable day -- that ascension to reality...we will affirm to
be true philosophy."(RepC 521c)
"[T]he conversion from the shadows to the images that cast them and to
the light and the ascent from the subterranean cavern to the world
above,"(RepC 532b) is as turning "away from the world of becoming to
the world of being."(RepC 521d) "And this, we say, is the good."(RepC
518d)
The problem is an excess of light makes going either way difficult, dark to light, light to
dark. Hence the reason philosophers seem so strange – they are unable to see in dark, see
and understand this world of the cave only at length, after the eyes have adjusted,
assuming the ever do. Hence the reason that "those who have attained to this height are
not willing to occupy themselves with the affairs of men...their souls ever feel the upward
urge..." Socrates says. But "Down you must go then, each in his turn, to the habitation of
the others...because you have seen the reality of the beautiful, the just and the good." [Of
those to whom much is given, much is required.] Only then will:
"our city…be governed by us and you with waking minds, and not, as
most cities now which are inhabited and ruled darkly as in a dream by men
who fight one another for shadows and wrangle for office as if that were a
great good, when the truth is that the city in which those who are to rule
are least eager to hold office...they will assuredly approach office as an
unavoidable necessity."(RepC7.520d-e)
Thus, "We require...that those who take office should not be lovers of
rule."(RepC7.521b) "All goes wrong when...they set about fighting for
power, and this internecine conflict ruins them and their country. The life
of true philosophy is the only one that looks down upon offices of state;
and access to power must be confined to men who are not in love with
it."[RepC p.235]
"Could anything show a more shameful lack of culture than to have so
little justice in oneself that one must get it from others, who thus become
masters and judges over one?"[RepC p.95]
"[T]he life of true philosophers" looks with scorn on political
office.(RepC 521b) But "the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be
ruled by someone inferior to yourself. That is the fear, I believe, that
makes decent people accept power... If there could ever be a society of
perfect men, there might well be as much competition to evade office as
there now is to gain it; and it would then be clearly seen that the genuine
ruler's nature is to seek only the advantage of the subject."[RepC p.29]
Thus, "...the truth is that you can have a well-governed society only if you
can discover for your future rulers a better way of life than being in office;
then only will power be in the hands of men who are rich, not in gold, but
in the wealth that brings happiness, a good and wise life."(RepC7.521)
“But is the ideal even possible,” someone asks. To which Socrates replies that “ the ideal
is merely a target, never perfectly realized in this life. Still, when we keep ideal targets in
mind, are we not ever moving closer all the time? Is her light not enough to steer by?
Considering that a single change can revolutionize a state, are we not wise to take aim
wisely toward what the state – and the soul -- could be?
"...when we set out to discover the essential nature of justice and injustice
and what a perfectly just and perfectly unjust man would be like,
supposing them to exist, our purpose was to use them as ideal patterns; we
were to observe the degree of happiness or unhappiness that each
exhibited, and to draw the necessary inferences that our own destiny
would be like that of the one we most resembled. We did not set out to
show that these ideals could exist in fact."[RepC p.177]
Still...who is to say, for in enough time one might be found, either a man or a woman.
Our state may be difficult, but not impossible! For a single change could revolutionize it.
A realistic ideal at which to aim is the city within, mastery of one’s own excellence. And
"...whereas there is only one form of excellence, imperfection exists in innumerable
shapes..." And "...perhaps there is a pattern set up in the heavens for one who desire to
see it and, seeing it, to found one in himself." And "there might be an art...of bringing
this about." Of helping the young to "discover rhythms appropriate to a life of courage
and self-control." This is why "[Children] must devote themselves especially to the
discipline which will make them masters of the technique of asking and answering
questions....Dialectic...study..."
Thus, “The practice we propose to establish is not impossible or visionary, since it is in
accordance with nature. Rather, the contrary practice which now prevails turns out to be
unnatural." So those who want power need only earn it through good work, which earns
respect. Goodness earns charisma, and the charisma of fairness, all will love. And
happiness comes of being a master of one's own craft. That is, a 'master of oneself' which
means... -- minding one's business, not in the sense of caring about no one else, but in the
sense of taking responsibility for realizing one’s potentials, doing one’s duty.
And the public "will change their opinion, if you avoid controversy and try gently to
remove their prejudice against love of learning." "And…when they see that we have
described him truly, they will be reconciled to the philosopher and no longer disbelieve
our assertion that happiness can only come to a state when its lineaments are traced by an
artist working after the divine pattern." And then:
"He will take society and human character as his canvas, and begin by
scraping it clean... Next, he will sketch in the outline of the constitution.
Then as the work goes on, he will frequently refer to his model, the ideals
of justice, goodness, temperance, and the rest, and compare with them the
copy of those qualities which he is trying to create in human society...he
will reproduce the complexion of true humanity, guided by that divine
pattern whose likeness Homer saw in the men he called godlike. He will
rub out and paint in again this or that feature, until he has produced, so far
as may be, a type of human character that heaven can approve."[RepC
p.209]
Thus,"...truth compelled me to declare that there will never be a perfect
state or constitution, nor yet a perfect man,” Socrates says, “until some
happy circumstance compels these few philosophers who have escaped
corruption but are now called useless, to take charge, whether they like it
or not, of a state which will submit to their authority; or else until kings
and rulers or their sons are divinely inspired with a genuine passion for
true philosophy If either alternative or both were impossible, we might
justly be laughed at as idle dreamers; but, as I maintain, there is no ground
for saying so. But, if ever in the infinity of time, past or future...men of the
highest gifts for philosophy are constrained to take charge of a
commonwealth, we are ready to maintain that, then and there, the
constitution we have described has been realized, or will be realized when
once the philosophic muse becomes mistress of a state. For that might
happen.
Our plan is
impossible."[RepC p.208]
difficult--we
have
admitted--but
not
They conclude then that, "until philosophers are kings, or kings are
philosophers...there will be no peace in the state...[RepJ BookV] "It is
better for everyone, we believe, to be subject to a power of godlike
wisdom residing within himself, or, failing that, imposed from without, in
order that all of us, being under one guidance, may be so far as possible
equal and united."[RepC9.590, p.318] So "...all who need to be governed
should seek out the man who can govern them; it is not for him to beg
them to accept his rule."[RepC p.196]
And much as I would like to say that this is the conclusion, there is just a bit
more…which I will email to you in a day or two. 