Halliwell Sum&Q

 “The Life-and-Death Journey of the Soul: Interpreting the Myth of Er” by Stephen Halliwell

In Stephen Halliwell’s article, Halliwell begins by addressing the questions that arise from the Myth of Er. According to Halliwell Plato “brings the Republic to a close in a visionary mode whose complexity tests the limits of understanding” (445). His main concerns are that the myth attempts to accomplish tasks that are too ambitious. Although he introduces his three concerns regarding the myth, his focus is on exploring the “character of the passage as an elaborative piece of philosophical writing” (445). Therefore, Halliwell’s end goal is to examine the Myth of Er from a philosophical perspective instead of accepting it because of its authority.

Initially, the myth seems to be an image that supports the idea that the just man will receive his just rewards. Er’s soul is able to observe the procedures that occur after death. He is able to see things like the judgment of souls and the souls choosing their next life (446). In essence, the myth is supposed to enhance the idea that justice prevails and that it is a virtue that should be sought after. Even though the story of the myth supports the just man, there are some issues that arise from the structure of the myth. These structural issues are what Halliwell is concerned about when dealing with the interpretation of the myth.

The first structural issue is the ambiguity of the myth. There are parts of the myth that resemble traditional Greek myths, but other parts are completely different. Halliwell deems the Myth of Er to be a reinvented myth so that Plato could use this style of myth “for his own philosophical purposes” (447). Basically, Plato invents a new format of myth to better suit his needs, which does lead to confusion in the interpretation of it. For instance, the myth can be read as a “philosophically transfigured Odyssey” (447) or as an “antipoetic slant” (448). The myth resembles the Odyssey in that in each there is a quest, an end-goal, and many dangers. Eventually the hero of the myth will reach his end goal like Odysseus reaching his home and the soul’s quest for eternal happiness (449). The myth could also be considered antipoetic because it reads more like a history than poetry. The style of the myth seems more historical than poetic. Also, Halliwell makes the point that poetry would usually describe the main character, but Er is not given much description, making it seem less poetic. Therefore, when looking at the word choice or structure of the myth, it reveals that this myth is original in its structure and format.

Although Halliwell has deemed the myth to be antipoetic, he does say there is one part of the myth that is poetic. “The myth of Er…places human life against a background of cosmic order and eternal justice” (450). According to the criteria already set in the Republic, the myth offers an antitragic vision of the world. It does so through the character that chooses to be a tyrant. He chooses to be a tyrant, which condemns him to a life of misery. Therefore, it seems like there is a sense of poetic justice enacted upon the man for attempting to be selfish. We learn that this soul was somewhat virtuous in his first life but was “without philosophy” (451). If this is so, what does this suggest to readers about philosophy? Is it now possible for souls to be put into the category of “incurable” (452) and be forever unredeemable?  Bringing attention to these questions, Halliwell is able to promote that the myth can be read as a philosophical writing.

Now that Halliwell has established that the myth is philosophical, it makes more sense that there are “multiple levels of significance” that can accommodate many different elements. In order to interpret the myth, one has to acknowledge the “shifting layers of meaning”, which include “both literal and nonliteral” (256). Having these realizations, Halliwell tackles the difficulty of philosophizing on “the myth’s controlling themes of soul immortality, eschatological judgment, and reincarnation” (458). The main issue is that the myth promotes that the soul will survive even if there is bodily death. However, in the myth, Plato depicts the souls as “embodied” (459). There is a disconnect between the soul surviving, but also being part of the body. For example, “Er’s soul continues to behave entirely like an incarnate person” (461) although his physical body is not present. In essence this contradiction brings up the question of what the myth is actually suggesting about an afterlife. Is the myth making claims about a literal afterlife or is it an allegory of embodied life (463)?

Halliwell also adds to this confusion by pointing out the concept of choice in the myth. In the myth, souls have the choice to choose their next life, which also suggests that people could potentially be “paying the price” (464) of a former soul. However, Socrates promotes that everything a person does is a result of his own choice. This of course is where the confusion surfaces because the myth seems to suggest otherwise. Halliwell resolves this conflict through an explanation of a “this-worldly” reading of the myth and through philosophy. The myth is philosophical promoting that “the soul’s salvation…is to be found nowhere else than inside its capacity to determine its own ethical self by choosing between good and evil” (469-470). Therefore, in this world, the soul has the ability to make every choice with the knowledge that its choice will impact its outcome in the future.

Halliwell ends his article by bringing to attention that Socrates’ final remark is how the myth “could save us, if we are persuaded by it” (470). Even though there seems to be contradictions in the myth, the purpose of it is to persuade us that the just man gets his just rewards in the afterlife. Therefore, if readers are able to be persuaded into believing this, Plato has accomplished his goal. Regardless of how readers come to believe it, Halliwell is trying to understand and be persuaded from a philosophical sense rather than blindly believing.

1) Does the Myth of Er leave readers satisfied as an ending? Is it acceptable that readers are left with more questions rather than answers?

2) Is the Myth of Er similar to the other myths in the text?

3) Does the soul that chose to be a tyrant have a realistic chance of breaking the cycle?

4) If souls are immortal, why should we try to be just?

5) How convincing is the Myth of Er in swaying readers to be persuaded by it?

Derek Holmes Seminar Paper 2/29/2016

Derek Holmes

Seminar Paper

2/29/16

 

Soul Food

In The Republic, Plato covers a diverse range of topics, but Socrates’ teaching is only concerned with the soul. Justice is at the center of the discussion in book one of The Republic, but Socrates only uses this topic to teach principles about the soul that recur throughout the Republic. Socrates world revolves around the soul. His teaching is derived from the paradigm that the soul is eternal so the highest goal is to cultivate a virtuous soul. Socrates believes that this thread of knowledge is essential because if one truly believes, it inevitably leads to a happy life.

In book one of the Republic, there is a discussion to find what justice is and rather it is better to be just or unjust. It is taken for granted that amidst the discussion of justice, Socrates somehow finds a way to talk about the soul. No one else in the dialogue comes close to relating justice to the soul. The first definition of justice is to speak truth and pay off your debts. The second is to be good to friends and evil to enemies.  The third definition is to be good to the just and do harm to the unjust. Finally, Thrasymachus defines justice as nothing more than the interest of the stronger. Other characters in the dialogue seem to see justice in terms of circumstances. Their definitions sound more like laws and codes. In book one, Socrates eventually determines that, “justice is virtue of soul, and injustice vice” (33). Socrates proves that, “the just man is happy and the unjust man wretched” (33). Socrates makes a strong case against injustice because he is grounded in his belief that the justice is virtue and wisdom while injustice is vice and lack of learning. This is the foundation of his argument from the start. Socrates then goes even further by saying that justice is the excellence of the soul and that injustice is the defect of the soul.

Moreover, Socrates discussion about justice becomes a means to an end. Initially, Socrates inquires what justice is and then that justice is more profitable than injustice. In an attempt to find what justice is, Socrates only discovers that it is a virtue of the soul. Socrates admits to proving that justice is wisdom and learning and that it is more profitable than injustice, but he says he still has not figured exactly what justice is.  At the end of book one Socrates says, 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” (34). Socrates uses an example of the functioning of the eye to illustrate his point that justice is truly a virtue of the soul. The work of an eye is sight and if an eye were deprived of its virtue it will not be able to see. He means that the work of eyes, “will be done well with their proper virtue, and badly with vice” (33). The work of the soul is living. Can a soul live well without justice? If a soul needs justice to live well then justice is a virtue of the soul. This was Socrates’ interest from the beginning, to see if justice is a virtue of the soul; to see if justice is good for the soul. For the rest of the Republic, Socrates shows what a soul looks like when deprived of justice and with justice. Socrates initial conversation with Cephalus foreshadows this thinking. In old age one can more clearly see what is good for him and what vanity is. Many people find old age daunting but Cephalus says that he finds it peaceful because he no longer has to struggle with the “mad masters” of life. When asked if life is hard easy or smooth Cephalus says that it truly depends on, “the character of the human beings. If they are orderly and content with themselves, even old age is only moderately troublesome; if not then both age and youth alike turn out to be hard in that sort”(2). Cephalus alludes that  unhappiness, discomfort and wretchedness are not due to poverty or old age but is really a result of injustice or vie and ignorance. Later in the Republic Socrates affirms that the just man is blessed and happy.

In book one of the Republic, Socrates goal is also to examine the unjust soul. The topic of injustice opens the door for Plato to explore many ideas, but to examine injustice of the soul is Socrates main goal. Socrates finds that justice is virtue of soul, and that justice is what helps the soul function properly. He asserts that, “the just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one” (33). Thrasymachus says to Socrates that, “you are so far off about justice, and the unjust and injustice, that you are unaware that justice and the just are really someone else’s good, the advantage of the man who is stronger rules, and a personal harm to the man who obeys and serves. Injustice is the opposite, and it rules the simple and just; and those who are ruled do what is advantageous for him who is stronger, and they make him whom they serve happy but for themselves not at all” (21). Thrasymachus makes an intriguing argument. There must be some validity to Thrasymachus’ argument because Socrates and the other characters seriously inquire rather the unjust life is good. Socrates later finds that the unjust is one who is, “unable to act, because he is at faction and is not of one mind with himself, and, second an enemy both to himself and to just men” (31). Socrates eventually shows that injustice is merely ignorance and lack of knowledge. It seems that to Socrates injustice comes as a result of people being misinformed, and he insinuates that injustice would be eliminated if society’s priority was the state of the individual’s soul. In The Apology, Socrates says, “are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul” (5).   Socrates sees injustice a symptom that comes from jaded thinking and beliefs. He believes that individuals would cease from unjust actions if they valued their souls more than the rewards that they perceive to come from unjust actions.

            Essentially, the position that Socrates takes in book one is based on the consistent gospel that he teaches throughout the rest of the Republic and in his other works. The gospel is that the soul is eternal and one should cultivate the soul. Through the topic of justice and injustice, Socrates subtly asks what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul. However, Socrates adds to this by asserting that the just life is more profitable and happier. Socrates argues that you do not have to wait to get your reward in heaven, but that, “the just man is happy and the unjust man wretched” (33). Socrates describes justice as an active condition. He does not distinguish justice from a just soul. By the end of book one these two are one in the same. In his article about justice and virtue, Aryeh Kosman asks a great question about justice as an active condition. What sorts of actions create an active condition of justice? I believe that Socrates would answer that a man’s actions do not make him just. The just man is just because he believes that the soul is more precious than to anything and this belief guides his actions. This belief is what gave Socrates happiness even in the face of death and is his foundation when defending justice in Book one of the Republic. From the perspective of a man who truly values his eternal soul over everything, justice is clearly better than injustice.

            In conclusion, one may feel cheated out of a straightforward answer to the question asked in book one of the Republic. Socrates says that justice is virtue of soul so justice is what helps the soul function properly. The function of the soul is to live. Justice is what helps a man live a good life. Justice is what makes a ship sail smoothly.  Justice is what makes a city function as a good city. Justice is what is good for the soul.

 

Seminar Paper 03/02 Taylor Carter

Taylor Carter

Seminar Paper

2/24/16

The Beginning of the Philosopher King

            Book I has been discussed as the starting point in the Republic from where the major themes of the Republic come to be anticipated from Plato’s work in Book I. This can be seen clearly through Book I’s relation to Plato’s political philosophy from Plato. Plato discusses forms of government and justice being portrayed as superior to injustice. Book I offers the foreshadowing that readers see as they read the rest of the Republic. Plato’s major themes seem to have a foreshadowing or reference found in Book I through Plato’s Socrates initial conversations in Book I with the interlocutors surrounding justice and injustice. This foreshadowing can best be demonstrated through the Philosopher king of Plato’s book V of the Republic. Book I begins Plato’s construction of the Philosopher king from the allusions and foreshadowing which Plato never explicitly discusses the philosopher king until Book V. This is evident in the fact that majority or even possible all major themes of the Republic are already being alluded to or foreshadowed by the dialogues in Book I.

One of the central ideas in the political philosophy of Plato’s Socrates comes in Book V in the third wave of political reform that develops why philosophers should rule. This seemed to be a ground breaking claim for Plato’s Socrates, yet there is evidence in the dialogues of Book I. Book I offers several pieces of evidence in which Plato’s Socrates alludes to his position on political philosophy early on that philosophers or the just/best man should rule. He remains constant throughout the Republic on his position that philosophers should rule as it first becomes evident in Book I then through Book X. Book I alludes to or explicitly makes claims toward a good majority of the political philosophic claims of Plato’s throughout the Republic that is used later by Plato to strengthen his claims of why Philosopher kings would be the best rulers. The supplemental positions that help build the Philosopher king can be seen alluded to or mentioned in Book I as the forms of government, who the philosopher king is, the willingness of individuals to rule, and the importance of justice over injustice. These points are all alluded to in Book I that shows the construction and path on which Plato will take later in the Republic for the Philosopher King.

The forms of government are first mentioned in book one around line 338 d. This line already alludes to Book VII and Book IX of Plato’s political theories of the Republic that discusses the forms of government. The state of justice in the forms of government is discussed as, “This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body,” (339 a). This can be seen as an inversion of the discussion of the different forms of government in which the decaying process discussed in Book VII begins as the best man becomes less and less just. This inversion can be seen as building toward what would be the true just government or the form that allows for a ruler. Plato creates the path in Book I to portray that the Philosopher king would be the better ruler for everyone rather than the non-philosophic leader,

Wasn’t it agreed that the rulers, when they command the ruled to do something, sometimes completely mistake what is best for themselves, while it is just for the ruled to do whatever the rulers command? (339 d)

Plato begins with the forms of government that everyone knows in Book I and shows how they are flawed or lead to injustice for those who follow them. The purpose of doing this is to give presence to his political theories or a suggestion toward the best form of government that comes with a Philosophy king.

The Philosopher king makes its famous splash in the Republic in Book V during the third wave of political philosophy in which Plato claims that Philosopher kings would prove to be the best rulers. Book I hints at this in several different ways from the parallels of the true pilot seen later in Book VI to getting the philosopher king to rule it can all be seen first in Book I. Plato uses the forms of government in Book I to show that a change in political reality needs to occur to allow for justice and the best rule to exist. The true pilot or stargazer of book six of the Republic that alludes to Book VI’s story can be seen in Book I from Plato’s Socrates conversations with Thrasymachus, “For it isn’t because of sailing that he is called a pilot but because of his art and his rule over sailors,” (341 c). The true pilot in Book VI is seen as a story to resemble the Philosopher king in two ways. The first way being his journey to rule and secondly he states the reasons why the Philosopher king should rule. In Book I Plato’s Socrates gives that very answer, stating that it is his ‘art and rule over sailors’ that makes him the true pilot even Plato’s Socrates adds later in the conversation, “then such a pilot and ruler will consider or command the benefit not of the pilot, but of the man who is a sailor and is ruled,” (342 e). The Philosopher king posses a form of art and command over the citizens that make him stand out as the ruler for his completeness of knowledge of the position and world surrounding him as he thinks of others not himself is what Plato hints at and later proves to be true. This allusion in Book I shows Plato began constructing the philosopher king with the story of the true pilot and hints toward characteristics to why the philosopher king should rule.

Plato makes way for the form of government in which a Philosopher king would rule. Plato also establishes why a Philosopher king would be the best ruler over non-philosophers, yet their willingness to rule is left as a question posed in Book I that Plato’s Socrates answers. Socrates poses the question to Thrasymachus, “Don’t you notice that no one whishes to rule voluntarily, but they demand wages as though the benefit from ruling were not from them but for those who ruled?” (346 a). This poses a very important question from which he works through in Book I that Plato reiterates later in the Republic, why should the Philosopher kings be willing to rule? Socrates first proves to Thrasymachus that, “it is plain by now that no art of kind of rule provides for its own benefit,” so there must be something more or different to convince the philosopher kings to rule (346 e). The compulsion or threat of penalty is all that compels philosopher kings to rule. Socrates, in Book I, refers to the philosopher kings as the best man or the good for he says, “the good aren’t willing to rule for the sake of money or honor…Hence, necessity and a penalty must be there in addition for them, if they are going to be willing to rule,” (347 c). This directly foreshadows what is to come in the Republic especially concerning the willingness of Philosopher kings to rule as book one states first that, “the greatest of penalties is being ruled by a worse man if one is not willing to rule oneself,” (347 c). This directly foreshadows the conversations that come later surrounding the willingness of the Philosopher kings to rule. If they do not rule, they will be subjected to an inferior’s rule this threat or compulsion makes the philosopher king willing to rule.

After establishing the form of government that would allow for a Philosopher king as the superior form of government and showing why the philosopher king would be the best ruler for everyone, Plato’s Socrates sets out to prove why the just soul is superior to the unjust soul. Proving that justice is superior to injustice is the ultimate goal of Plato’s Socrates throughout the Republic. In Book I he proves this to be the case. This serves the Philosopher king in the manner of establishing why the just soul leads to the best man. The Philosopher king exemplifies the just soul maintaining balance between the different parts and ruling for others instead of the unjust soul seen as a vice. The unjust man, according to Plato’s Socrates would, “first it will make him unable to act, because he is at faction and is not of one mind with himself, and, second, an enemy both to himself and to just men,”(352 a). Vice or injustice causes faction among the different parts of the soul which leads to unbalance and the individual leading or ruling for themselves. Socrates furthers this point in relation to rulers by stating, “Then the just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one,” (353 e). The just soul is the soul of a good leader one such as the philosopher king as Plato later establishes the Philosopher king would be an extremely just individual. Socrates places an importance on the way we should live our lives in Book I reminding the reader that, “for the argument is not about just any question, but about the way we should live our lives,” (352 d). By reminding the audience of this in Book I, Socrates makes sure this remains a foundation from which the matter of justice should be remembered. In building the Philosopher king, Plato built the ideal individual that maintains balance between all parts of the soul ruled for others rather than themselves and loves the pursuit of wisdom above all else. The Philosopher king seems to be the model of the perfect individual’s life in terms of what the just soul can provide over the unjust soul.

Book I of the Republic foreshadows the entire journey of the Philosopher king that is illustrated from Books V- VII and even hints toward Book VII and Book IX of the Republic. Plato even shows in Book I the foreshadowing of the problem that might come with the Philosopher kings as stating,

For it is likely that if a city of good men came to be, there would be a fight over not ruling, just as there is now over ruling; and there it would become manifest that a true ruler really does not naturally consider his own advantage but rather that of the one who is ruled. (347 d)

The Philosopher kings would fight over not ruling in the just city that Plato is to create through Books II-IV for they would want to pursue knowledge and intellectual aims. A system would have to be created to solve for this problem but that these men where the men truly built to be the best leaders for they thought of others before themselves when making rules.

            Book I gives the short and vague messages across between Socrates, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon surrounding justice and political philosophy. In many ways, Book I serves as an outline or an introduction upon the ideas that will serve as the detailed points that Plato gets across for the rest of his work. The entirety of the Philosopher king’s story from books five through seven can first be found vaguely discussed in Book I. Book I prepares the reader for the ideas that are to come without explicitly stating them. The construction of the Philosopher king really begins in Book I as it makes explicit foreshadowing of what is to come in the later construction of the Philosopher king through Books V-VII. The ultimate goal of proving that justice is superior to injustice is accomplished in Book I which supplements the evidence that Book I is the basis for the Republic from which the rest of the books are alluded to and become more detailed stories or dialogues to convey the themes made in Book I.

Importance of Thrasymachus

Farah Rafi

Short Essay 1

The main purpose of the Republic of Plato is to discuss the argument of why justice is better than injustice. It is interesting that the first book of the Republic of Plato can be considered a stand-alone known as the Thrasymachus. Book One offers several different possible definitions to the concept of justice, such as giving back what one is owed (331d) and doing good to friends and harm to enemies (332d). But it is the definition that Thrasymachus gives that haunts the rest of the dialogue, the one that Plato seems eager to answer and also the most personal. Why is it that Plato chose the arrogant, hot-headed Thrasymachus to lay to foundation for Glaucon and Adeimantus to challenge Socrates in the following book? In my opinion, Thrasymachus is one of the main targets of the argument that Socrates/Plato makes because he manifests the iniquities of those who are unwilling to rectify their own ignorance, particularly in the realm of politics, which is one of the reasons why a philosopher was found guilty of injustice.

            When Thrasymachus presents his argument of justice, his definition remains purely in the realm of politics. One of Plato’s main reasons for writing the Republic was to determine at what point democracy becomes so corrupt that a philosopher can be found guilty of injustice. Thrasymachus is the only one who does not back down from Socrates, instead choosing to fire with the blank gun that is ignorance rather than admitting defeat and learning from his mistakes. According to Thrasymachus, justice is the advantage of the stronger (338c). It can be assumed then that injustice is the disadvantage of the stronger. This definition identifies a relationship between the ruler (the stronger) and the citizens by saying that whatever the ruler wills advantageous, the citizens will be just by following them, essentially in the form of laws. As Socrates cleverly points out, Thrasymachus failed to take into account the potentially fallibility of the rulers, stating that according to this definition, the existence of justice in a citizen depends solely on the ruler’s ability to discern what is advantageous to him or her (339c-d). Thrasymachus basically presented two separate forms of justice in this single definition; one that pertains to the citizens who can be seen as just by following the laws (the will of the ruler) and another that concerns the ruler who must know what is in his or her best interests otherwise the citizens cannot be just. But while Socrates is the one who foiled Thrasymachus’ boldness, it was Socrates himself that actually succeeded in presenting and defending this very claim in one of Plato’s earlier dialogues.

            The trial and execution of Socrates no doubt had a big impact on Plato and evidence can be seen all throughout the Republic. And in rare cases, Plato can be caught taking from some of his previous dialogues. The Crito was a dialogue that presented the question of injustice and whether or not injustice can be used against itself. In this dialogue, Socrates challenges his friend Crito, who has come to convince him to escape his execution, to present an argument as to why his escape from prison would be unjust even though his detainment could be seen as unjust as well. One of the most remarkable aspects of the dialogue was the personification of the Laws of Athens, which Socrates uses to make his argument. He presents what he believes the Laws would say about his potential escape, stating that it was the Laws that educated and nurtured him from a young age and that he was free to leave Athens at any time before his arrest (51d). Ultimately, the Laws ask the question of whether or not it would be just to disobey the laws even if the laws themselves are unjust (51e). The Laws never once claimed to be just in themselves, however, disobeying the laws results in the act of injustice even if the laws are unjust. Doesn’t this argument sound familiar? This is the flaw that Socrates points out in Thrasymachus’ definition with the justice of the citizen. Thrasymachus let his pride get in the way and as a result he lost to Socrates when he pointed out that a citizen could be unjust even by obeying a law if it is not in the advantage of the ruler (339d). Had he taken up the voice of the Laws and questioned whether the act of disobeying a law, even if the law was unjust, would be seen as injustice, he could have saved his point. Instead he chose to stand by his argument, claiming that a ruler is only ruler if he or she makes no mistakes (341a). At least the Laws were not above admitting their faults.

            Unlike the Laws that Socrates personifies in the Crito, Thrasymachus is not so easily willing to admit that he is mistaken. One of the main points that Plato emphasizes much in the dialogue is the importance of education and understanding of philosophy (376b). For him, it is important that a philosopher be the ruler of the just city as the philosopher is more inclined to seek truth for itself rather than for the sake of winning an argument, in other words for selfish reasons. Glaucon and Adeimantus were willing to listen to Socrates, setting up the challenge to learn from him and to see what he had to say. This idea of understanding is very important for Plato. For him, the art of ruling a city justly lies in the heart of philosophy, a ruler with a love of wisdom. Wisdom, as one of his virtues, is simply the knowledge of what is beneficial to the city and what is good for the soul(428d). Socrates essentially took Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, flipped it around and presented it as the definition of wisdom, with Thrasymachus’ perfect rulers in the most “precise sense” being translated into the philosopher kings. Instead of it being the advantage of the stronger, it is the knowledge of what is advantageous to the city. The potential lack of knowledge in the ruler of Thrasymachus’ argument in not knowing what is advantageous to him or her is the hole that Socrates pokes in the argument and it seems that two books later, he has taken it upon himself to fix what Thrasymachus was too conceited to acknowledge. This may have been Socrates’ clever attempt to inform Thrasymachus that he clearly lacks the wisdom and understanding of what justice is, or wisdom for that matter.

            Thrasymachus plays a very important role in setting up the rest of the Republic of Plato. Unlike the other definitions of justice presented in Book 1, Thrasymachus declared the definition of justice as seen in the realm of politics, one that claimed that justice is whatever is advantageous to the ruler. It is clear that he lacks the knowledge of what justice is but more so, rejects the opportunity to understand what the real justice is. He presents a relationship between ruler and citizens similar to the Laws in the Crito, where the justness of a citizen seems to be dependent on obedience to the will of the ruler/the law of the land. But instead of admitting fault, Thrasymachus attempts to clarify that his “rulers” are rulers in the most “precise sense”, who lack fallibility because they are perfect at what they do. Although his dialogue ends in Book 1, Plato/Socrates does not waste the chance to educate Thrasymachus by presenting the virtue of wisdom as an inverted version of Thrasymachus’ definition, adding that it is the knowledge of what is advantageous. It is Thrasymachus’ definition that Glaucon resurrects and uses to challenge Socrates and it is Thrasymachus who lacks the will to understand and be educated on justice. It is those who are like Thrasymachus that are vital targets of Plato’s argument on the importance of understanding and justice.   

Short Essay 1

Kyle McAlpin

Dr. Thomas

Ancient Greek

16 February 2016

Chaining of the Children

            Book three of The Republic of Plato discusses the types of information that should be presented to the children of the city that are future guardians. Plato argues that the content of the stories and poems about the Gods or historical figures, music, and myths told to these children must be regulated. He says that the children must only be exposed to information and art that guides them to be guardians, and that anything that would hold them back from their job should not be shared with them. Plato, by controlling the information presented to the children, is, in a sense, chaining them down into a cave; a cave where he is casting the shadows on the wall.

            Plato starts off this book by arguing that the underworld should not be presented as a dreadful place to make the children courageous. Guardians are tasked with protecting the city, and, because of this, they must not be afraid to die: “And what if they are to be courageous? Mustn’t they also be told things that will make them fear death least? Or do you believe that anyone who has this terror in him would ever become courageous” (Book III 386a). The guardians, if they are to perform their job perfectly, have to be courageous. Tales of Hades and the terror of the underworld will cause the children who hear these tales to be fearful in their future battles. Rather than fearing death, Plato wants the guardians to accept and praise death: “ask them not simply to disparage Hades’ domain in this way but rather to praise it, because what they say is neither true nor beneficial for men who are to be fighters” (Book III 386c). He disagrees with the popular Greek understanding of the underworld and afterlife, and by changing the stories about the underworld he is limiting the information presented to future guardians. This limitation of information is the first way Plato is chaining down the guardians into a new cave.

            Plato not only disagrees with the Greek mythological view of the underworld, but also with the human characteristics of the Greek gods. The Greek gods are not only portrayed as having a human physique, but also as exhibiting human emotions. To keep the guardians courageous, Plato says that they must not experience extreme grief or sorrow. Tales of the gods or historical figures exhibiting these emotions could sway the guardians to believe that these emotions are acceptable: “And yet far more than this, we’ll ask them under no condition to make gods who lament and say, ‘Ah me, wretched me, ah me unhappy mother of the best man’” (Book III 388 b-c).  Even though Geek oral tales depict the attribute of the gods, Plato does not want the guardians to adhere to these forms of the gods: “For, as we were saying before, these things are neither holy nor true. For, surely, we showed that it’s impossible for evil to be produced by gods” (Book III 391 d).  Not wanting the guardians to believe in the traditional gods is another limitation of information and knowledge, and so it is another way in which Plato is chaining the guardians down.

Plato also wants the future guardians to not except the Greek stories about great historical figures and warriors that exhibit human emotions that he considers unjust or defects. Many of the tales of the Greek heroes, such as Achilles, portrays them as arrogant or unjust:           

Achilles who was reared… so full of confusion as to contain within himself two diseases that are opposite to one another- illiberality accompanying love of money, on the one hand, and arrogant distain for gods and human beings on the other. (Book III 391c)

The guardian must protect and fight with the the skill of heroes such as Achilles, but Plato does not want them to share the moral faults of some of these heroes. They must not fall victim to desires of the working class. The guardian class are supposed to perform their job in the city, not for money or rewards, but justly and for the advantage of the city. Just as with the stories of the gods, if the children admire and follow the example of these characters, they will be unable to become guardians and perform their job in the city.

            The last way Plato chains down the readers of The Republic in book three is through his myth of metals. After discussing all the information and art that should be banned from the children of the city, he presents a myth that makes this ban applicable to all of the children in the city. The myth of metals states that the guardian, auxiliary, and worker classes are not decided by the child’s social status, but by “the god” at birth: “the god, in fashioning those of you who are competent to rule, mixed gold in at their birth; this is why they are most honored; in auxiliaries, silver; and iron and bronze in the farmers and other craftsmen” (Book III 415a). According to this myth any child has the possibility to become a guardian, and that the guardians will be decided through testing of intelligence and physical strength. This myth allows for Plato’s restrictions on stories presented to children to be applied to all the children of the city.

            Book three is the first book that Plato starts to metaphorically enchain his audience into a cave of his making. By controlling and regulating the Greek stories, poems, artwork, and myths, he is creating the shadows on the wall of this cave. This control of knowledge allows for him to strengthen his arguments in The Republic, and chain down all of the city. The guardian class are supposed to become the philosophy kings, but Plato is controlling what they hear from a young age. He is making it to where they will forever be chained down in his cage, and will only master the knowledge of his shadows.

Work Cited

Plato, and Allan Bloom. The Republic of Plato. New York: Basic, 1991. Print