Jordan Morris

Summary and Questions on "The Place of the Republic in Plato's Political Thought" by Christopher Rowe

 Throughout Book two of the Republic, Plato describes the arguments of Glaucon and Adeimantus concerning justice. After delving into the two separate theories, Plato uses Socrates to explain justice in terms of the city and to develop his argument of who is best to rule in a city. While the Socrates of Book two emerges as a powerful philosophical figure, one who is a champion of wisdom, it becomes obvious that there is a distinct difference between book 1 and book 2 of Plato’s Republic. What is this cause of this change?

Christopher Rowe offers a key theory in understanding the difference between Book 1 and Book 2 of the Republic, as well as the difference between the Republic and all other Platonic dialogues. Rowe does so by first dividing his efforts into two sections. He first pays attention to other Platonic dialogues while evaluating the role of the statesman and city in politics. He continues to show the stark differences in each dialogue, as well as the role of the Socratic character and his feelings toward the politics throughout Plato’s works. He then turns his attention to the Republic, he and evaluates the influences the Republic and Socrates has had on each and every one of Plato’s works.

At the very beginning of his article, Rowe claims his mission is two fold in proving that, “Socratic conception of philosophy are fundamental to Plato’s political thinking,” and, “the precise relationship between Socrates, the main speaker throughout the Republic, and the philosopher-rulers of the second city he is made by the author to construct” (27). Overall, Rowe’s evaluation proves in fact that Platonic political philosophy has deep centered roots within the Republic that can be traced in all the other Platonic dialogues.

Rowe begins his analysis on Platonic political thought by constructing his first section on the differences between Plato’s other dialogues and the Republic. He points out that perspective is the main difference in each of the other dialogues (29). Rowe claims that the Socratic character is repeatedly emphasized as the only man worthy of ruling over citizens saying, “Socrates is the only one who has, or is as close as anyone comes to having, the kind of expertise that is needed for ruling…he alone has the true interests of his fellow-citizens at heart, and goes about helping them to secure those interests” (29). Socrates is deemed as the true statesman because he is the philosopher.

Rowe points out that these dialogues are meant to examine and explain the political/ruling authorities saying, “all of these dialogues are strongly critical of existing politicians, and have nothing positive to say about their ‘achievements’” (31). Rowe conveys that Plato wanted to offer a model for the type of justice and ruler that was needed, and he concerns himself with explaining the nature of the ideal statesman, which should be knowledgeable, wise, and one that is applicable to the general situations and not specific to each individual. Rowe states that the statesman “cannot be everywhere at once, prescribing individually for everyone…he must do it by setting down general prescriptions” (32).

With this idea of statesmanship in hand, Rowe continues to explain that it is law that helps fulfill the political and statesmanship role in society. Rowe states that the law keeps people acting just and wise even though they are not just and wise themselves (33-34). Rowe continues to show that the subject of the political is extremely important, and that the dialogues represent various aspects of the nature of the political that is deemed necessary. Rowe focuses on the “Socratic dialect” as well as the emphasis of good, which is present in the dialogues in order to serve as a base foundation for the argument of the Republic. To Rowe, the Republic is the union of the pieces present in the dialogues. Rowe finishes his first section of his article by pointing out the differences between the Republic and dialogues will lie within the conclusions instead of the processes (39).

 Rowe begins his second section by evaluating the Republic and its role in Plato’s political discourses. Rowe remarks on the change of the Socratic character and how there is a substantial difference in the dialogues and the Republic. Rowe believes that before the dialogue, the Socratic idea of human good is, “radical and provocative…and all desire is for the good—not for what merely appears or is thought good, but for the real good” (40). He advocates wisdom as the dominant force that will ultimately leads to happiness. Rowe then explains that with this theory, he is able to understand the character and method of Socrates in Plato’s works (40).

There are two particular aspects that he notes that add to the complexity of the Socratic character, one being his focus on “different aspects of the same set of ideas in different dialogues,” and, “that he typically starts from other points of view, other people’s assumptions” (40). Therefore, Rowe points out that these aspects add to confusion as to the conventional method of reasoning of Socrates, or how Socrates illustrates his points in his arguments. Next, Rowe pays attention to the natural difference between book 1 from the rest of the Republic. Rowe states that, “book 2 makes a new start, with Glaucon and Adeimantus restating the case for injustice, and Socrates embarking on a new and apparently more successful search for the nature of justice” (41). While Rowe notes the difference, he believes that Book 1 is still very necessary in understanding Plato’s political thought, and that it resembles the other Platonic dialogues that have been mentioned previously. Rowe believes that there is a newness in present in the Republic after Book 1 saying, “Books 2-10 announce the arrival of a new Plato, writing and thinking in a new way. Book 1, from this perspective, represents a kind of farewell appearance for the od Socrates before he gives way t the new, ambitious constructions that are the mark of the mature (or middle) Plato” (42).

 With this change in mind, Rowe delves deeper into the differences in the Republic, pointing out that the main argument begins from, “the need to convince others of something of which Socrates is himself already convinced and that he himself thinks he has already said enough to show” (43). He then takes us through the illustration of the city in order to find justice and goodness and how philosophers, especially Socrates, are the fitting rulers in a city. After the illustration of the good city, Rowe remarks on another difference between book 1 and the rest of the book. Rowe states that Socrates identifies virtues in book 1, “with wisdom, whereas in Republic 4 wisdom is said to be one thing, and justice, courage, and self-control are said to be other things” (47). This split of virtues, according to Rowe, is a way of elaborating his idea of justice, and finding true personal goodness, while still trying to maintain goodness in those separate virtues Rowe continues to explain the new idea of justice present in the Republic. He speculates that there is a certain system in Plato’s writings that asserted his characters to follow a certain method of reasoning, and therefore, end up with a specific conclusion. Rowe state that now, there is a, “connections between the Platonic idea of justice in the soul and the ‘vulgar’ idea of it” (49).

He continues t examine the differences saying that in book one, “the soul and in everything, it is goodness rather than its badness that enables it to perform its functions well; the function of the soul is ‘taking care and ruling and deliberating and all such things…the goodness of the soul is justice; so the just soul will live well” (51) He explains that this argument is changed by book 4 by explaining, “why the person with a just soul will live better: namely, because the just soul is one in which the reasoning part rules, and the non reasoning parts are rules” (51). With this now explained, Rowe points out that the argument is fulfilled to Glaucon, and he was the one that posed the question back in book 1. Rowe concludes his article by explaining that the ultimate goal in every Platonic dialogue is, “to make people as good as possible” (53), and it is with the argument of justice in the republic that, “will allow him, the position of the Socrates of the pre-Republic dialogues” (53). Therefore, Rowe believes that this argument is key in understanding and the basis for all political thought concerning Plato.

Overall, Rowe believes that Plato makes a substantive change in his writing with the Republic, yet, “retains the basic Socratic view that, as rational beings, it is the real good that we desire, and the real good that it is in all our interests to discover; or else-so Plato adds—to enact, to the highest degree of which we are capable, even if that is divorced from understanding” (53-54).

 1) What does it mean when Rowe refers to the Socratic conception of Philosophy? Is that in line with Plato’s idea of philosophy?

 2) Why is it necessary to understand the other Platonic works? Can the Republic stand on its own feet, or do readers need other support in order to understand Plato’s idea of justice?

3) Why is law viewed so negatively in Platonic dialogues?

4) Is it really necessary for wisdom to be split into different virtues as pointed out on page 47?

 5) Does Rowe make a convincing argument for the need of pre-Republic Dialogues to understand the arguments present in books 1-4 of the Republic?