Final Paper

The gloomy end to Socrates’ life is well known, since he was publicly executed. The question unknown to many, however, begs to know why this famous philosopher was put to death in the first place. Socrates was tried for corrupting the youth and impiety, both of which were the direct results of him asking philosophical questions. Socrates was famous for his philosophical method of Socratic questioning, where he would ask a number of questions leading to a central theme or idea- the line of questioning was seemingly a harmless way of achieving the truth, but interpreted the wrong way looked impious.

Philosophy throughout the ages has persistently been a threat to different groups of people, and this fact lead to many tragedies- including the death of Socrates. It seems crucial that the Republic, written after the death of Socrates, would feature none other than Plato’s teacher as the central interlocutor. Not only is Socrates the focal voice of the Republic, but he advocates justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation as the central- good- virtues that can be found in both the individual and society, and that a just life is worth living. The Republic seems to be a forum in which Plato argues for both the benefits that philosophy has on the individual and those that it has on public and political structures as well. This argument, in theory, would show how philosophers shouldn’t be condemned or executed (this point being made even more clearly by Plato’s use of the wrongfully executed Socrates), but should be revered for their wisdom and the benefits they could bestow on individuals and societies. However, it is important to note that only those who were properly raised in an educational environment suited for the virtues of spirit and wisdom can exhibit these beneficial aspects of applying philosophy to their everyday lives.

The entire city in speech was constructed as an allegory to the individual in order to determine what justice is. After the discussion in book one about justice and injustice, Socrates admits to the other interlocutors that “So long as I do not know what the just is, I shall hardly know whether it is a virtue or not and whether the one who has it is unhappy or happy” (354 c). In order to determine the effects justice has on the individual and society, Socrates and the interlocutors set out on the quest of defining and observing justice and injustice. Justice, as it turned out, consisted of each part of the city doing its own designated part (434 a). This is an interesting definition of justice due to its parameters. In order to be just, a person must do what they’re most naturally inclined to do. However, many people don’t know what they’re best at, especially without a proper education to be exposed to many different things in which to choose from. Even with education, sometimes people still don’t find what they’re best at. Does this mean that people who never find their natural talent are unjust? By this definition, maybe; this leads to the question of the plausibility of ever having an entire population who can be just, but that’s just another question of plausibility and application of the city in speech (which we found out in class, there are a lot of).

Looking into the city in speech, one must analyze the division of the city into its classes, each of which encompassed a different virtue. The three classes included the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the many citizens; the guardians represented wisdom, the auxiliaries spirit and courage, and the many represented desire (428 d- 430). The city, in turn, is a political reimagining of the virtues of the soul. The political aspect of the city in speech could be thought of as highlighting the communication and interworkings of the virtues in the soul, to showcase how each virtue can have an effect on the whole. If you think about this, it makes a ton of sense; Plato’s Socrates is trying to find justice, define it, and see its impact on the soul and the individual as a whole. How else would one evaluate this virtue and its effects on the individual without analyzing its interactions with the other virtues within the individual?

With this in mind, it is easy to see the application of Plato using a city and polis as analogous to the virtues’ interactions with each other and the individual. This analysis of the soul, its virtues, and their effects on the individual are all philosophical concepts that Plato uses to understand aspects of humanity. In this light, Plato is using philosophy in order to further understand virtues and human nature/interactions. This knowledge, when truthful and applied correctly, can help people become more just, and ultimately (according to Plato’s Socrates) live better lives. This not only highlights the true (innocent) nature of philosophy, but it also shows how it can be largely beneficial for anyone who properly studies and applies it to their lives. One major image in the city in speech through which Plato uses Socrates to show the benefits of philosophy on a political regime is the guardians.

The guardians were the ruling class of Socrates’ three part city in speech. Each of the citizens in the city in speech were naturally inclined to one type of virtue, with the guardians representing wisdom. When describing the nature of the guardians, Socrates claimed that each must “in his nature be philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong” (376c). The guardians, in order to be able to wisely rule the city, must be philosophic in their nature – a lover of knowledge. For philosophy (in this sense) is only a person who seeks out the most knowledge possible about whatever they’re naturally inclined to. By creating a ruler who is also a philosopher, that ruler would be able to use knowledge and wisdom in ruling their city, and in turn would provide what is necessary for the city and be a great ruler. Philosophy in this light heavily aids politics and would be beneficial for those who used it in their political ruling.

In order for the guardians to pass the test to separate themselves from the auxiliaries and become true guardians, they must first be properly educated. It’s pretty obvious the emphasis Plato places on education, seeing how he dedicated an entire book in The Republic to the education of the guardians and auxiliaries. Plato’s Socrates even claims that, once established, “the regime…will roll on like a circle in its growth. For sound rearing and education, when they are preserved, produce goo natures; and sound natures, in their turn receiving such an education, grow up still better than those before them (424 a).

It is interesting, however, that the guardians and the auxiliaries receive the same education. The only defining difference between the guardians and auxiliaries is established by a test in which “the one who on each occasion, among the children and youths and among the men, is tested and comes through untainted, must be appointed ruler of the city and guardian” (413 d-e). This test displays some difference between the guardians and auxiliaries, a difference that the guardians are benefitted by, and the auxiliaries cannot overcome. This difference lies somewhere beyond the physical, it is something in the nature of the guardians which allows them to retain the knowledge they have learned and apply it correctly. This difference between guardians and auxiliaries could very well be that philosophic nature that guardians possess. It is granted that not every guardian is a philosopher, but that they are naturally inclined to the virtue of wisdom and have a higher power beyond those of the auxiliaries. According to Plato’s Socrates, these are the best fit rulers for the city.

Since there is such an obvious emphasis on education in The Republic, there must be some aspects of early development of wisdom with spirit that allow for a better philosophic nature. As Klein points out in his article Plato on the Relation Between Character Education and Rationality, by teaching children discipline and structure before anything philosophical, they are able to further their education of philosophy (when matured and ready) without distractions or falsities (Klein, 1989). This is crucial, because children who are raised without discipline, even if exposed to a proper education, might not have the drive to properly learn or apply their knowledge. If they lacked this drive, they either wouldn’t philosophize, or would do so incompletely or incorrectly. Without discipline, people cannot focus on anything knowledgeable and be able to ascertain the most out of every situation. By allowing the guardians to receive the same education as the auxiliaries, Plato is ensuring that the guardians will have the proper nature to reach their full philosophic potential later in life. With discipline comes the ability to fully analyze a subject and extract the most knowledge possible from it.

To further stress the benefits of philosophy, Socrates alters the city in speech to include women and children in common (449 c). This idea was radical for the time, and could be thought of as implausible (which Socrates admits in 450 d). Socrates claims that the only way this city could be possible was through the implementation of philosopher kings (473 d). In order to showcase why philosophers would be the best monarchical leader for this altered city, Plato’s Socrates discusses love, and what true love is (in the light of beauty paralleled to philosophy). Socrates describes the love of something as being the love of every aspect of it, not just a part; he elaborates through the example of beauty – how people love beautiful things, but no one appreciates beauty itself (479a). It is here showcased that loving something means loving every aspect of it, not just what is obvious or pleasing to the individual.

This emphasizes that a true philosopher, who is a lover of wisdom, would love all of wisdom. This implies that they would need to know what is, and “what is entirely, is entirely knowable” (477a). In an ideal world, a true philosopher would explore all knowledge and be incredibly wise. This would make for an ideal ruler because he would be able to use his wisdom to properly rule the people, hence the philosopher kings. Steinberger, in his article Plato’s Paradox: Guardians and Philosopher-Kings, stated that “Philosopher kings…do not gravitate spontaneously to the cave but are compelled to return there; once there, they presumably propagate laws and policies explicitly and intentionally designed to ensure that empirical cities function as harmoniously as possible…guided quite strictly by the dictates of right reason” (Steinberger, 1990). Even in the real world, someone who employs their time to gaining knowledge would become wise and in turn would still make a fine ruler, leading to the point Plato makes through Socrates that philosophy is a potential positive and beneficial aspect to the individual and society. 

The benefits of philosophy, however, not only boil down to the many seeing how philosophers could be beneficial, but of philosophers themselves applying their knowledge to society. As Foster points out in his article Some Implications of a Passage in Plato’s “Republic”, “They [philosophers] must be shown that this sacrifice is a debt which they owe to the city in return for the opportunity which it has afforded them of becoming philosophers” (Foster, 1936). Foster is pointing out the responsibility of the philosophers themselves in gaining positive recognition from the many. For even though the many discriminate against philosophers, if philosophers never fight back and show their significance, how will the many ever think them of anything other than useless? It is extremely crucial for philosophers to demonstrate their knowledge and beneficence to society, not just to wait for society to recognize their importance. By writing The Republic, Plato is doing just this; he is using the dialogue as a way of showcasing the importance of philosophy and its beneficial aspects. He is also philosophizing, via the dialogue between interlocutors, showing a way of properly deducing philosophic concepts. All in all, The Republic analyzes philosophy in many different lights, from its interworkings to its beneficial deductions.

It is important to note that in Book 4, justice is found to be “the having and doing of one’s own…for which his nature made him naturally most fit” (433a-434a), and throughout the Republic Socrates’ stresses the importance of doing one’s own work and only one’s own work in order for there to be harmony (moderation) in the city (and in analogy to the soul). This, in extension, is applicable to philosophy as well – that only those naturally inclined to philosophize should. This can be seen when Socrates mentions the philosophy kings in Book 5, “Thus, when they have come plainly to light, one will be able to defend oneself, showing that it is by nature fitting for them both to engage in philosophy and to lead a city, and for the rest not to engage in philosophy and to follow the leader” (474b-c). While philosophy can be largely beneficial, it too needs to be left to those naturally inclined to the virtue of wisdom. Many times, Plato’s Socrates warns against the improper usage of philosophy, and how that can harm not only the individuals, but the name of philosophy itself.

The Republic has many interpretations to its meanings, but it cannot be denied that it casts philosophy in a favorable light in terms of the self and society. By using Socrates to convey this message, Plato seems to casts some significance on the need to see the innocence of philosophy by using his executed mentor. By showing how a philosopher could be a great ruler, and showing a definition of philosophy that is the innocent search of knowledge, Plato is able to reassure the public of the harmless intentions of philosophy, and in turn philosophers.

Works Cited

Foster, M. B. 1936. ‘Some Implications of a Passage in Plato’s “Republic.”’ Philosophy 11: 301-

            308.  

Klein, Sherwin. 1989. 'Plato on the Relation Between Character Education and Rationality.'

            Southern Journal of Philosophy 27: 239-254.

Steinberger, Peter and Duncan, Christopher. 1990. ‘Plato’s Paradox? Guardians and Philosopher-

            Kings.’ The American Political Science Review 84: 1317-1322.