Derek Holmes
Sum And Q
The City Soul Analogy by Norbert Blossner
In the essay entitled, The City Soul Analogy by Norbert Blossner,
Socrates’ famous analogy is discussed in immense detail. Blosnner asserts that
the City Soul analogy is a complex illustration, and to think that it is
straight forward is detrimental to the goal of the analogy, the understanding
of the reader, and to the author. According to the Blossners’ essay, Socrates
goal is ultimately to show that Justice is better than injustice because the
just man has happiness and the unjust does not. Blossner discusses how Plato conceptions
about happiness (Eudaimonia), justice, morality, excellence, and the good are
related to the City Soul analogy. Norbert Blossner depicts the City Soul
analogy as an animated motion picture and examines the complexity and detail of
Socrates’ analogy.
Blossner examines the
city soul analogy in 8 parts. Initially, he discusses the introduction of the
analogy and the development of it. Socrates hypothesizes that by finding
justice in a city we can find justice in a soul. Socrates begins by setting the
framework for his analogy and is not done until Book 4. In the construction of
the city, Socrates asserts that the soul has three parts and also makes the three
parts of the city. By the end of book 4 Socrates has established the framework
of the analogy. Blossner notes that the analogy becomes ubiquitous in chapters
8 and 9 and one can began to examine the similarities between the city and the
soul.
Blossner
proceeds to explain the analogy at work and the rhetoric of the analogy. Socrates creates the framework for the city
soul analogy in books 2-4 but does not fully use the analogy until book 8. Socrates
gives four virtues for the city and soul. Justice, wisdom, courage, and
self-control. We know that the Guardians, Auxiliaries, and workers of the city
are associates with these virtues. Blossner notes that there are four cities
and four men that coincide with these cities. They are the timocracy, the
oligarchy, the democracy and the tyrant. These regime break down into a more
inferior regime. The monarchy and the tyrant are the two extremes. The monarchy
is just and the Tyrant is injustice. It is important that Blossner reminds the
reader to bring together the 4 virtues from book four and the four cities from
book eight. It is then possible to see is Socrates’ analogy is at all valid.
Blossner notes that Socrates’ analogy is effective because the parts of the
soul are still but the city is in motion and changeable which creates a certain
rhetoric.
Moreover,
the conception of the soul and city is discussed in detail. Blossner examines
the aspirations of each type of city and soul. He says that Socrates purpose in
selecting distinct types of constitutions is to demonstrate how egoistic
desires develop if left unchecked , and what the consequences are for city and
for soul”(371). He goes on to explain
how Socrates’ offers description of the timocractic who is led by the desire for
prestige , oligarchy is led by desire for wealth, the democratic is led by the
desire to be free, and the tyrannical is led by desire for unlimited power
. It is important to note that,
Socrates’ descriptions of different cities associate not political systems but
varieties of injustice. Blossner confirms that the city soul analogy is an analogy
because Socrates is talking more about the justice and injustice of a soul
rather that politics of a city. Blossner states that, “to bring the individual
into analogy with the city, Socrates, as we have seen, sketches a political
conception of the soul – a conception according to which forces within the soul
work with or against each other in the same way as social groups do within the
city” (366). He also makes a great observation that these city is changing and
in motiuon but the parts of the city are constant.
Next,
Blossner discusses the formation of city by soul and the influence of city on
soul. Blossner notes that, “it is the individual in the city who forms the
city, and it is the individual analogous to the city whose character is argued
on the basis of attributes” (373). Blossner explains that Socrates “finesses”
by lining the city and the soul in a straightforward manner. Three parts for
the city and three parts of the soul. This serves as assort of training wheels
to guide the reader along until Socrates can full develop and explain the analogy
in its entirety. Blossner asserts that the three parts of the soul stay the
same and the city is used to describe the soul. Socrates manipulates the city
into several forms making it more complex as he goes along. The city becomes
animated and feverish and does not directly relate to the three parts of the
soul but it stills serves the purpose of increasing understanding of the soul.
The city also influences the soul but in a smaller manner. Blosnner states that,
it builds the structure of their souls and their goals in life; and it either
creates the conditions for reaching these goals of impedes their development” (375).
This is worded nicely and explains how Socrates shows how characteristics of
the cities corrupt the individuals.
In conclusion,
Nathan Blossner does careful analysis of the city soul analogy that enhances
the readers understanding of the ideas that Socrates conveys. His article effectively
organizes the city soul analogy. Blossner discusses how Plato conceptions about
happiness (Eudaimonia), justice, morality, excellence, and the good are related
to the City Soul analogy.
- Is the city soul analogy effective in analyzing a soul?
- Is the city soul analogy useful in analyzing politics?
- Does Socrates need to be precise about the parts of a city or soul to have an effective analogy?
- Why does Socrates wait until books eight and nine to complete the analogy?
Question 4: I think Socrates had no choice but to wait until books eight and nine to finish his analogy. If he wanted to keep the interest and trust of his audience, he needed to address their questions first. Socrates also makes it clear that if he had his way, he would not want to address their questions because it takes them off the path he had originally set. Therefore, Socrates waits until he has everyone's attention before continuing his analogy.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Heidi says here. I think this goes to show the nature of Socrates too, that although he is trying to prove a point - that the just life is better than the unjust life - he does it in an organic way. He makes a city, and the interlocutors listen and play along, but when they have a concern he addresses and assess such a concern. It reinforces the idea that Socrates is more focused on finding the truth (dialectic) than he is in solely arguing to be right (eristic).
DeleteWhile I agree that by waiting until the end he was able to make sure he had all their attention, I think there was more to it. Remember that was not a real dialogue, it was the work of Plato, so clearly he wanted to have all of those random questions brought up in his discussion of this topic. Plato wanted to address every little detail about all of these topics, and not simply skip to the end and give an answer.
DeleteQuestion 1: I think that the city-soul analogy is a good model for the perfect soul. I feel that it is better for an individual to strive for, but not something that is realistic. Individuals would not be able to continuously make the best decisions for themselves or the city. So rather than a model for the soul, I feel that it should be model for what the soul should be.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: I do believe that the city soul analogy is useful in analyzing political theories. I say theories because it helps on paper but in reality things begin to get muddled and harder to effectively have any analogy work. The city soul comparisons really sets up the discussion and criticism of political regimes seen in Book VIII and Book IX to help illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the regimes. The city soul analogy I believe is good at building the platform from which we are able to discuss and criticize political regimes but it doesn't offer real practical use in politics.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:I think that the city soul analogy is helpful in understanding what justice in the soul looks like. By attributing wisdom, courage, and self control to different types of people in the city, Plato is able to formulate his argument in a way that you can understand internal justice by examining an external justice in a city. It is far easier to think externally about a city, especially when analyzing injustice, than it is to think about a individual soul
ReplyDelete(1) I think the city-soul analogy is analogy is a perfect model for analyzing one's internal self. I find it important to look and analyze ourselves to see what type of people we are. The more we are aware of our nature, the easier it is for us to accept it and change it. Like Aristotle would say, happiness is a being actively working at the soul.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: I do think the city/soul analogy is useful in analyzing politics, but not as a direct comparison. I think the city/soul analogy is perfect for analyzing the individual, in order to determine the level of moderation they have. Then, once it is clear which individuals have moderation and are ruled by the calculating parts of their soul, then it can be used from an individual's basis to analyze the people within a political regime. Or, if there is a political regime that isn't just, doesn't operate at its best, or anything of the sort, the city/soul analogy could be used to analyze which parts of the regime are unjust due to the unjust, non-moderate people holding the positions.
ReplyDelete