"Beginning the 'Longer Way'" By Mitchell Miller

In Mitchell Miller’s article “Beginning the ‘Longer Way’,” Miller explores the “longer and fuller way” that Socrates mentions in order to best view the “soul and its virtures” (310). Specifically, Miller examines how Socrates plays with the notion of having a “longer way”, however, there is no explanation of it. The reason being, Miller explains, that Glaucon and Adeimantus lack the mathematical studies needed to understand the meaning. This seems to show that Plato is letting his readers think critically and try to “recognize the limits that Glaucon and Adeimantus” display (311).

Therefore, there is a need for the readers to try to decipher the meaning of the “longer way”. He explains the “presentation of the ‘longer way’ as a pointed provocation to us, aimed at moving us to speak up… it will be up to us… to discover this deeper Socratic position for ourselves” (311). In order for us to discover this, Miller separates his essay into four parts. The first part explains the “longer way” as a philosophical climax and anticlimax in The Republic, the second part looks into the five mathematical studies and how it has the power to lead the soul out of the darkness of the cave, the third part explains how we may ascend past mathematics in order to distinguish Forms and how it relates to the Good, and the last section ties together his essay by revealing more questions than conclusions.

In the first section, Miller describes the “longer way” as “the educational process that will perfect the guardian of the city, raising him to the status of a philosopher-king” (311). This is divided into different sections of learning, mathematics, dialectic, and practical-political experience. Miller explains that the “longer way” is both a philosophical climax and anticlimax of The Republic. The climax being that the “longer way” is a promise to complete the construction of the just city, bringing justice in the soul to view (312). Socrates explains, at the end of Book 4, the parts of the soul and begins to introduce the “longer way”. He describes the philosophical education as a goal to understand the Good itself and uses three metaphors to describe the spiritual transformation for this understanding: the philosopher-to-be, who seeks to understand the thing itself, rather than an example of that thing; the philosopher-to-be that ascends from the cave in order to reach the light and having the ability to recognize the thing itself; and one that understands the true nature of the thing, which is understanding the Good (313).

However, Miller also shows that Socrates says less than what he would need to. To understand the “Form of the Good” is the goal of becoming the philosopher-king-to-be, however, Miller argues that Socrates holds back information and instead, gives similes of the sun that causes us to have more questions about “being” and what is knowable. Socrates also does this in regards to dialectic, the study of Forms, which Miller says is “the highest stage of intellectual work short of the understanding of the Good” (315). Socrates explains the dialectic in the divided line but as short explanations for Forms. Then he stops and refuses to tell Glaucon more of the dialectic. After Socrates explains “the knowable” and “the opinable”, Miller argues that Socrates is doing Glaucon and Adeimantus a disservice. It causes them to rely on the familiar things and will complicate the reception of the analogies that he had made of the sun, divided line, and the cave. Lastly, Socrates explains the reluctance to become a king is for the good of the city, however, Socrates is also the one who willingly descended in order to lead Glaucon and Adeimantus out of the cave, causing a conflict in what he says.  

In section two, Miller talks about mathematics having the “power to lead the soul out of the cave”. However, it is mentioned that with mathematics alone, the individual that escapes is “still unable to look at animals and plants and the light of the sun” (319). Socrates explains that objects of mathematics are not things themselves, but appearances. Miller argues that the five disciplines, calculation, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and harmonic theory, “contributes to the ascent from the sensible” (320). First he starts with the ascent to Forms. Miller explains that calculation and arithmetic used as the true intentional objects, geometry is the study of pure figure, and astronomy is the general study of solids in motion, which “is transitional between plane and solid geometry, on the one hand, and harmonic, theory, on the other” (320-321). Once he gives them form, he makes it sensible by moving it from two-dimensional to three, to three-dimensional to motion. Lastly, Miller moves sensible to being by stating that we must maintain the sensible while gaining the intellect.

In the third section, Miller asks how we may ascend beyond mathematics to the actual object itself (323).  He starts off by describing the function of perfection. The example he uses is a triangle and states, “a perfect triangle can be recognized as a perfect triangle only insofar as it exemplifies the form triangularity and this exemplarity guides the recognition” (325). Miller then explains perfect as sensible particulars by comparing it to Forms saying, “perfection, accordingly, is like the Forms in having the character of a function” (326). It is able to be compared because perfection has many different ways of determining it. By comparing perfection and Form, we are able to realize that Form is a way to determine perfection. This leads to understanding the Good, which is also the source of “the truth” (327). This provides a way to see Socrates’ point of view in saying that The Good is responsible for “the to-be and the being” (328). Miller explains that the Good is responsible for Forms, mathematicals, and the “knowables” (328).

He then talks about harmonic theory and how it relates from figures to the ratios. However, the ratios that come into view are the three means of Archytas’ theory of proportions: “the Form of pitch and the subordinate Forms it implies and, on the other hand, the sensible sounds of actual music” (338). These Forms relates to “what is to be ‘beautiful and good’” (332). The study of harmonic theory brings a unity that creates a wholeness and harmony. Socrates also describes this unity for both the city and the soul, “the decisive criterion of goodness is the proper distinction and harmonious fit of their parts” (333). This Good helps the individual find the “longer way” into the best possible view into the soul. He ends this section with assimilating oneself to the Good. Miller brings up the philosopher’s reluctance to rule and says that Socrates wants to be able to inform his fellow Athenians of the order of the soul (334).

Miller ends with section four by bringing together everything that was mentioned and saying that what we have considered does not offer completeness or conclusions, but more leaves more questions. He ends with a series of questions to keep the reader thinking.

Question one: What do you think Plato meant by causing Socrates to make a contradiction on philosophers being reluctant rulers but still trying to teach people justice in the soul?

Question two: Why does Socrates teach the people of Athens? Why should he go back down into the cave to help the others out? 

Question three: How does perfection play a role in our perception of an object?   

Question four: Can you relate the five mathematical disciplines to the parts of the city? How and what are they?

Question five: Is Socrates wrong for trying to teach his fellow Athenians after stating that it is better that the philosophers should not rule?