Kyle
McAlpin
Dr.
Thomas
PHI
360
16
May 2016
Plato’s
use of Afterlife to appeal to the masses
In The Republic of Plato, Plato writes a dialogue between Socrates and
the interlocutors that discusses the ultimate questions: what is justice, and
if justice itself is better than injustice? The
Republic analogously answers what justice is in the soul through Socrates’
examination of justice in the city, and his defense of justice against
injustice. Book X ends with a discussion between Socrates and Glaucon about the
immortality of the soul and how the gods favor the just. Plato, using Socrates’
interlocutors akin for his own audience, writes that the gods favor the just
because he realizes that the only way the average person will seek perfect
justice in the soul is if there is an otherworldly reward for doing so. Most
humans will never become a philosopher as it goes against human nature and in
mentioning the Myth of Er, Plato,
just as those in the cave, is casting a shadow by adding the reward of the gods
to justice.
Justice is the highest virtue a soul
can achieve and it is only possible if the soul is able to harmonize its calculating,
spirited, and desiring parts. Socrates’ objective is to teach how justice in
the soul can be achieved analogously through the search of justice in the city.
Justice is something that, “we like both for its own sake and for what comes
out of it” (Book II 357 c). Plato uses Socrates’ views in The Republic of Plato to attempt to create a more just and happy
city: “in founding the city we are not looking to the exceptional happiness of
any one group among us but… that of the city as a whole” (Book IV 420b). For a
city to be just, the citizens must seek out justice in themselves; however,
most humans refuse to follow philosophy. As a means to get the average person
to consider justice, a reward must be presented.
After answering what justice is and whether
or not justice is in itself better than injustice, Plato chooses to end the Republic with the discussion of the immortality
of the soul: “Therefore, since it’s not destroyed by a single evil-either its
own or an alien-it’s plainly necessary that it be always and, if it is always,
that it be immortal” (Book X 611a). By
stating that the soul is immortal, Plato is setting up his premise that there
exists an afterlife and a reincarnation of sorts. Once he establishes the
concept of an afterlife Plato can then build off of his idea that the gods are
watching man, “And if they don’t escape notice, the one would be dear to the
gods and the other hateful, as we also agreed at the beginning” (Book X 612e).
If the gods exist and care whether or not a man is just, and there is an
afterlife, both provide a reason for the average man who is not a philosopher
king to turn towards justice. Some of the unjust in a society would start to
analyze themselves and their soul, and seek harmony of their soul if it meant
that they would please the gods and be rewarded in the afterlife.
Plato goes into further detail about
the afterlife and how the just soul is rewarded in the Myth of Er, which tells the account of a Pamphylian warrior’s
journey through the afterlife after being killed in battle. A key point in this
myth is that it sets up the concept of there being two different paths a soul
could be sent depending on how just it was: “He said that when his soul
departed, it made a journey in the company of many, and they came to a certain
demonic place, where there were two openings in the earth next to one another,
and, again, two in the heaven, above and opposite the others” (Book X 614b-c).
This separation of a good and bad afterlife provides another reason besides
those Plato had previously mentioned in The
Republic as to why justice is favorable. A stronger motivation for a human
to follow justice than the promise of a heaven is the fear being in hell for a
thousand years: “For all the unjust deeds they had done anyone and all the men
to whom they had done injustice, they had paid the penalty for every one in
turn, ten times for each” (Book X 615a). There will always be those in a
society that completely neglect justice, but Plato puts this form of a bad
afterlife to try and stray anyone away from falling into injustice without
hesitation or fear of punishment.
The last part of the Myth of Er tells of what happens to the
soul once it has served its thousand years in heaven with the just or in hell
with the unjust souls. Once the sentence was fulfilled all the souls were
brought together and given lots at random to choose their next life:
This is the beginning of another death
bringing cycle for the mortal race. A demon will not select you, but you will
choose a demon. Let him who gets the first lot make the first choice of a life
to which he will be bound by necessity. Virtue is without master; as he honors
or dishonors her, each will have more or less of her. The blame belongs to him
who chooses; god is blameless. (Book X 617d-e)
When
choosing its next life every soul will choose a new life based on what it had
experienced and learned in its previous life or incarnation. Often times, the
souls that were rewarded with heaven chose hastily, without fully considering
the lot choice. They chose the slots that seemed virtuous on the surface, but
that really lead to tyranny. The laborers, on the other hand, since they had
experienced suffering on earth, were more likely to carefully choose a truly
virtuous lot. The incarnation cycle of the soul leads to a “exchange of evils
and goods for most souls” (Book X 619d).
Souls would then theoretically choose the
life that they think will provide them with the most happiness, except for the
philosophers, who would choose a new life that allows for the continuation of
the pursuit of wisdom or a just life. Human nature is to give into desire and
it is abnormal for a human to completely bypass desire for wisdom. Even if a
soul was warned that it was making the wrong choice, it would still make the
choice based on the desires it had in its previous life. Some souls, such as
Odysseus’, do make good slot choices, but these are different from the slot
choice a philosopher king would make. Odysseus’ soul chose “from memory of its
former labors it had recovered from love of honor; it went around for a long
time looking for the life of a private man who minds his own business” (Book X
620c). The souls who choose well are the ones that analyze their past lives and
injustices, and choose a slot that will provide them a more virtuous life of
justice. The philosopher king however, would choose the slot that would lead to
the greatest justice, the continuation of wisdom. They would have to keep to
the “upper road” and forever philosophize in order to stay just. Plato says
that God is blameless because even if a soul regretted its decision, there is
no one to blame but itself. A complete
harmonization of the soul to where one would become a philosopher king is
highly unlikely, humans are flawed and will always give into temptation.
Ronald R Johnson in his article “Does
Plato’s ‘Myth of Er’ Contribute to the Argument of the “Republic’? argues that
the Myth of Er’s purpose is to support Plato’s claim that justice is preferable
to injustice and that the just will be rewarded in the afterlife. Johnson defines
the claim that there is an additional reward for justice and punishment for
injustice as the Addenduum: “The opening scene of the Myth of Er confirms the
reader’s initial impression that the purpose of this story is to support the Addendum”
(Johnson 7). The discussion of the good and bad afterlives presents an other worldly
reward and punishment for following justice. Johnson argues that this
additional reward for justice comes second the the reward of rationality,
harmonization of the soul. He believes that the Myth of Er sets up the
afterlife to follow rationality just as the harmonized soul does: “It is not in
heaven, not in hell, but here, amid the inner workings of the cosmos…it is
here, rather than in the extreme pleasures or pains of heaven or hell that one
finds displayed the order and rationality behind all things” (Johnson 8). Johnson
argues that the Myth of Er provides evidence that the entire universe follows
rationality and that this alone should be motivation to follow justice; that
reason will lead to justice in the soul and justice in the city. Although it is
true that reason alone should be the motivating factor to search for justice,
not everyone can completely harmonize their soul and follow reason. This is why
Plato discuses an otherworldly reward for justice; the promise of an enjoyable
afterlife motivates those unable to truly follow reason to at least attempt at
it.
The Myth of Er teaches, through the
soul’s lot choice, that most humans follow whatever they believe will provide
them with the greatest amount of happiness. They will believe that the gods
favor the just, if it means that they will experience happiness in the
afterlife. Human beings exhibit the characteristics of those imprisoned in the
“Allegory of the Cave” and it is next to impossible that one will truly ever
escape and become a philosopher. Humans typically choose the path in life that
is easiest or produces the most pleasure: “And if they were somehow able to get
their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn’t
they kill him?” (Book VII 517a). Plato acknowledges that human nature is to
resist the philosophical awakening even if that meant living in a world of
shadows, content playing the game of acquiring false knowledge. If ever freed,
the prisoner from the cave will be exposed to truth and wisdom, but he never
explains how the first man is released or breaks free from the chains.
Prisoners in the cave would choose to stay there forever if it was not for an
accidental freeing. The last part of chapter X was included in The Republic because Plato wants society
to try and search for justice but he also realizes how unlikely that is, and
how they need another reason, besides wisdom, to even consider justice.
By telling the Myth of Er and creating an
afterlife in which the gods judge men based on how just they were, Plato is
casting a shadow on his audience just as the ones behind the fire do in the
cave. In the cave there are people who are creating the shadows for those
imprisoned: “Then also see along this wall human beings carrying all sorts of
artifacts, which project above the wall” (Book VII 514b). Plato, by giving this
ulterior motive for justice, is appealing to the masses because he wants
society to at least try to be just but understands that only a few will every
truly harmonize their soul and become a philosopher. Trying to harmonize the
three aspects of the soul will make an individual better even if they never
attain the level of harmonization of a philosopher king, and if everyone is
attempting justice then the city will be stronger. However, by appealing to the
masses Plato is, in a sense, imprisoning them into a new cave where he is the
one creating false images. If someone blindly tries to follow justice because
of the reward it will give them, then they are being imprisoned into a cave of
justice. The only way to escape this new cave is if a true just philosopher
frees them. However, just as in the first cave, the average man will refuse to
be enlightened and will hold onto the idea that if they try to be just they
will get the favor of the gods.
The imagery and symbolism in the allegory of the cave can be converted
over to explain how it correlates with a new cave of justice. Plato’s use of
the gods and an afterlife makes him the caster of shadows: “As we know that the
natural symbolism illustrates the Platonic education” (Ferguson 15). The original
cave is caused by human contempt with false wisdom and injustice, with the shadows
representing a visual understanding. The un-harmonized nature of the average
soul is the reason most are content being chained down. However, through
examination of the soul as it relates to justice, an individual may be able to
achieve true wisdom or the “sights… those outside in the sun [that] are divine”
(Ferguson 16). The light of the sun is
the key component of the allegory as it represents the ultimate goal of true wisdom;
wisdom that only the philosopher king can attain. Since the justice cave is
still a cave, its is highly unlikely that those imprisoned will ever reach this
true wisdom. Plato realizes this but still imprisons society with the promise
of a good afterlife: “The bonds that hold the prisoners fast and the shadows
that enchain their interest, so that fetters become unnoticed, are devised by
men” (Ferguson 16). Even though Plato is
imprisoning his audience, the cave of justice is still better than the original
cave. Plato understands the difficulty associated with the pursuit of a just life,
and how it goes against human nature to break free of the chains, realize true
wisdom, and go back for the other prisoners. In this cave of justice everyone
is attempting the harmonization of the soul; therefore, this cave is more
preferable, for Plato, than the original one.
Another approach to this is that in The Republic, Socrates’ is trying to
teach Glaucon that it is very possible for humans to harmonize their souls.
That it is possible through questioning, just as Socrates did, to get
individuals to fully look inward and become a philosopher king. Although only
the guardians can become philosopher kings in Plato’s argument, if Glaucon can
move past desires and do it, so can all the interlocutors: “Unless… the
philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and
adequately philosophize” (Book V 473d). The only was a just city could exist is
if the rulers philosophize and follow wisdom. Humans although flawed, once
freed from the cave will grow to love wisdom and go back and free the
others.
Book X of The Republic of Plato
presents an ulterior motive as to why a human should be just. In stating that
the soul is immortal and that the gods are judgmental, Plato is appealing to
the average human by giving the incentive of a heaven. To get the masses to
even consider justice and try to harmonize their soul, he needed an
otherworldly reward. He must do so because philosophy completely goes against
human nature, which is to give into desire. In writing the Myth of Er, Plato
creates a new cave of justice, in which he is the one creating the shadows, and
his prisoners are exposed to more philosophical truth than they were before.
The
philosopher king lives his life for the search of true wisdom and bases his
understanding of the world on intellection. Those chained down in the cave,
most of society, form their understanding from the visible. However, if society
has an ulterior motive for the pursuit of justice and they attempt to harmonize
their soul, relying on reason, they will crossover from the visible, trust and
imagination, to the intelligible, thought and intellection. Plato’s justice
cave allows for those chained down in his cave to be exposed to more wisdom,
through the search for justice, than they would have in the previous one. Nicholas
Denyer’s article, Sun and Line: The Role
of the Good, looks at Plato’s theory of forms through teleological
considerations. He argues that thought might be more important than
intellection for the average person seeking the intelligible.
Denyer starts
off his argument by examining the good, as it relates to the form of artifacts:
“the Good has the privileged position of being what accounts for the existence
and intelligibility of Forms” (Denyer 284). He claims that the good is what
causes the ideal artifacts existence and intelligibility. To determine what
aspects of an artifact are pertinent to the Good, we must use thought: “When,
in the light of the Good, we come to understand a form, we must, claims the
analogy with the sun, use our minds, not our senses’ (Denyer 285).
Engaging
in mathematical thought about images deepens the understanding of the object of
thought and brings the physical object into an “intelligible reality” (Denyer
296). Using the less clear physical objects as a representation of reality
makes thought superior to trust, while making thought inferior to intellect. As
intellect has no use for images but is much harder for the average person to
understand. The use of images and hypotheses is able to increase thought but it
fails to bring ones understanding to the level of intellect, where the
philosopher resides. Hypotheses, proofs, and theorems all rely on mathematical
assumptions not grounded in in intellect; mathematical thought has some truth
but it is not as clear as the forms that exist in the intellect. Those in the
new cave searching for justice of the soul would find it easier to use
mathematical forms to understand the world rather than intellection because
they are not philosophers.
The
last part of the essay addresses the reason why thought leads to a greater intelligible
understanding of the world for the average person. Denyer quotes Plato saying,
“intellect reasons dialectically, and proficiency in dialect requires a
maturity, and prior education, that even under best of circumstances few will
have” (536d-540b). Intellect is the highest form of knowledge but it is near
impossible to reach compared to thought. Mathematical forms rely on unhypothetical
starting points, which Denyer attributes to the Good: “having a teleological
explanation of something means seeing what is good about it; and it will be for
this reason that the Good is the unhypothetical starting point for all that is
teleologically explicable” (Denyer 307). Denyer reasons that intellect might
not actually be better when it comes to teleological understanding because mathematical
forms are still found in the light of the Good. Mathematical forms can exist
because of a natural order or beauty in the world. Mathematical forms are the way
the prisoners in Plato’s cave would gain a greater intelligible understanding
of the world, since these forms are easier for the average person seeking
reason to understand.
Work Cited
Ferguson, A. S.. 1922. “Plato's Simile of Light. Part II. The
Allegory of the Cave (continued)”. The
Classical Quarterly 16 (1). [Classical Association, Cambridge University
Press]: 15– 28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/636164.
Ferrari. The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic.
N.p.: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.
Plato, and Allan Bloom. The Republic of Plato. New York: Basic,
1991. Print
Johnson, Ronald R.. “Does Plato's 'myth of Er' Contribute to the
Argument of the "republic'?”. Philosophy & Rhetoric 32.1
(1999): 1–13. Web...
