Seminar paper Book X

Kyle McAlpin

Dr. Thomas

PHI 360

25 April 2016

            Plato’s use of the 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 we 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 chose well are the ones that analyzes their past lives and injustices, and chose a slot that will provide them a more virtuous life of justice. The philosopher king however, would chose 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.

            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.

            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.

Adeimantus and the Rhetoric of Interruptoin

Adeimantus and the Rhetoric of Interruption

We have spent the entire semester talking about the Republic. The western philosophical tradition has spent over two thousand years talking about the Republic, which is to say that the Republic is perhaps the most talked about book in philosophy. One result of this, is that there is an immense inherited idea of what the Republic says and is about. It is difficult to ever look at the text with unbiased eyes, but we need to. I attempt to do so by focusing my attention on one individual, in this case the interlocutor Adeimantus. The philosophical discourse of the Republic is not the product of Socrates alone; he is motivated and assisted by interlocutors, his conversation partners. Up until about fifty years ago the interlocutors and the literary aspects of Plato’s dialogues were mostly disregarded as accessory, but we now know that they shape the meaning of the dialogue. While recent Platonic scholarship has become increasingly interested Socrates’ interlocutors, the interlocutors in the Republic have not received comprehensive study individually. Specifically, there are two main interlocutors in the Republic: Glaucon and Adeimantus who are Plato’s two older brothers. I have previously conducted an extensive research project on Glaucon, and I am now examining Adeimantus. I argue that the interlocutors are meaningful, individual contributors to the philosophy of the dialogues, and that they require further examination. Without a serious consideration of the interlocutors, the philosophy embodied and spoken by Socrates cannot be fully understood.

My exploration of Adeimantus in the Republic operates on two levels. How is Adeimantus important to the philosophy of the Republic, and, inversely, how is the philosophy of the Republic important to Adeimantus? These questions capture what I think is truly at stake when we read Plato. By writing dialogues rather than treatises or essays, Plato depicts philosophy as it actively interacts with and influences individuals. If we are to know what philosophy means to ourselves—and I want to know—then it behooves us to investigate what it means to individuals much like ourselves.

To begin  answer these questions, I identified the sections in which Adeimantus is the active interlocutor and read them in isolation. Almost immediately, a very particular pattern emerged: Adeimantus only speaks in interruptions. Plato intentionally specifies or dramatizes his speech as interruption. For example, Socrates says “I had something in mind to say in response to [what Glaucon had said], but his brother Adeimantus said” or “And I was going to describe unjust regimes in order, but…” (362d, 449a-b). I point to these moments because it does not just say that he interposes; Plato narrates the moment and has Socrates comment that he was about to say something else. In other words, Plato is calling our attention to the fact that Adeimantus’ interruptions cause the dialogue to digress. If Adeimantus did not interrupt, a different dialogue, different philosophical discourse, would have taken place. In this way, Adeimantus’ importance cannot be overlooked.

While Plato intentionally places emphasis on Adeimantus as interrupting, this particularity of the Republic has gone overlooked. There is no scholarly study that focuses on Adeimantus’ role of interrupting and redirecting the dialogue. His interruption at the beginning of Book V, where he insists Socrates speak about women and children in more detail, has received mass attention, but it has not been connected to a larger pattern of the character. More frustrating, interruption is a known rhetorical device in ancient Greek literature, yet the definitive book addressing the meaning of interruption, The Rhetoric of Interruption: Speech Making, Turn Taking, and Rule Breaking by Daniel Smith, makes no mention of the Platonic dialogues at all.

And so the question of interruption is the question I’ve decided to focus on today. Where does Adeimantus interrupt, what about, what role is he taking when he interrupts, and what is the result of his interruptions? The question of interruption is the question of what Adeimantus is saying, and what Plato in representing through him. Almost always the attention is given to what Socrates says, but that is incomplete. In a sense, by emphasizing the importance of the interlocutors what I am proposing is new way of reading looking at the dialogue. With that in mind, I have attempted to visually represent how looking to the interlocutors changes the way we see the whole of the Republic. This here is a diagram I created to show which interlocutor speaks when, and for how long. Blue is Adeimantus, red is Glaucon. The numbers are the number Stephanus Pages they speak for.

The first thing that I want to point out is that Glaucon is the interlocutor twice as often as Adeimantus. This could imply that Glaucon is Socrates’ main concern. This combined with the dramatic emphasis Plato puts on Adeimantus as an interruption and diverter of that conversation suggests that Glaucon and Socrates’ conversation is primary, and that Adeimantus is more of an observer who interrupts when he deems it necessary. When Adeimantus does speak, it is considerable, and he does not let Socrates and Glaucon speak uninterrupted for too long. The longest place where Glaucon and Socrates speak without interruption is the final section. For some reason, Adeimantus leaves the dialogue quite early. At a certain point, whatever it was that motivated him to interrupt ceases.

With the shape examined, I want to now turn to the content of Adeimantus’ interruptions. Here I have put in contrast the rhetoric of Adeimantus’ interruptions with examples that are characteristic of Glaucon.

Glaucon trusts Socrates’ word as truth, and he desires to be convinced. He even explicitly asks for a persuasive speech. Adeimantus, in contrast, is critical of Socrates. He is not convinced, nor does he express a desire to be convinced as Glaucon does. The question that motivates the dialogue, whether a just life is the happiest life, is Glaucon’s question, not Adeimantus’. Adeimantus questions are about the value and validity of Socrates’ arguments. What becomes evident is that Glaucon and Adeimantus are interacting with the philosophical discourse in fundamentally different ways. For Glaucon, the discourse is an object of experience, and, for Adeimantus, it is an object of examination. Glaucon is the student of philosophy who is actively undergoing the process. Adeimantus is outside the experience and observing. This places Adeimantus in the position of critic or judge.

Here again I want to linger on the underlying shape this positioning creates. On the left is the traditional understanding of the interaction of the three characters.

In the former, Socrates is the largest figure and Glaucon and Adeimantus have the same relationship to him. Some scholars give more or less emphasis to Glaucon or Adeimantus, but they are often considered mostly similar. On the right is what I am proposing. Because he is explicitly described as interrupting, unlike Glaucon, and because his interruptions are critiques, Adeimantus on the outside of the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates. This positioning shows what I mean about the brothers engaging in two different ways. Glaucon is inside the circle. In a sense, these are the two ways that we as readers engage with it. On a first read, we are experiencing the dialogue and may suspend our questions to see what happens, with rereading it we must interrogate it more.

These are typically engagements with philosophy that occur separately, but in the Republic the two interlocutors allow both of the engagements to occur at the same time. We are able to see philosophy judged as it is actively happening before us. Moreover, the questions that Adeimantus asks are the precise questions that Glaucon, someone inside the experience cannot ask. Adeimantus asks what the best education of the youth is. He asks whether philosophy is valuable or just useless and vicious. He critiques the gods. He asks whether Socrates is making the people he speaks of happy. Glaucon is currently being educated,, experiencing philosophy, and, hopefully, being led toward a happy life. To ask Adeimantus’ questions, he would have to step outside of the education he is inside of. The questions Adeimantus asks are important in another way. They are in many ways reflective of the questions that got Socrates killed, the misleading of the youth and heresy towards the gods. In that sense they are the questions about the philosophical education most in need of answers. Adeimantus, of course, does not know these are the questions that will be asked in Socrates’ trial. From his current perspective they are all important because they are about the fate of his brother.

This brings me to Adeimantus’ final interruption. I want to look more closely at this one because it is the most revealing. If we can understand why Socrates and Adeimantus finish their conversation early after this exchange, we can understand what was at the root of Adeimantus’ interruptions. Glaucon and Socrates were discussing the decay of regimes, in cities and in souls. Socrates’ has just asked Glaucon what he thinks the timocratic man, a man ruled by the love of honor, would be like, when Adeimantus interrupts. Adeimantus says, “I imagine,” said Adeimantus, “for his love of victory at least, he’d come pretty close to this fellow right here, Glaucon” (548d). Socrates responds by defending Glaucon. “Maybe in that respect,” Socrates says, “but it seems to me he’d have a nature unlike his in these ways” (548e). We can derive two things from Adeimantus’ final interruption. Firstly, in his final conversation with Socrates, the topic is Glaucon’s soul. The questions Adeimantus asked earlier were heavily concerned with education and philosophy, which can be interpreted as questions about how those things will affect Glaucon. In his final interruption, Adeimantus brings up the topic of his brother directly, and his fear that his brother may be ruled by a love of honor. Socrates says that, in comparison to Glaucon, the timocratic man is less educated, less musical, more “obedient to rulers,” and would “judge himself worthy, not for his speaking but for warlike deeds.” (548e-549a). Remarks that seem consistent with a soul less philosophic. With the question of Glaucon satisfied, Adeimantus is satisfied. In some sense, the main question of Adeimantus all along was Glaucon.

There is one last development worth mentioning that may contribute to Adeimantus silence. Shortly after their discussion, there is a change in Glaucon. Here Socrates reinstates the question and answer style of discussion. Earlier Glaucon had requested Socrates give a persuasive speech. Socrates disallows Glaucon from merely following Socrates’ discourse and tells him that he must “look” and “examine” for himself the lives they are discussing. He also criticizes lazy thinking. "It isn't enough," Socrates tells Glaucon, to "just to assume these things... one needs to investigate carefully... for the investigation concerns the most important thing, namely, the good life and the bad one" (578c). This is all to show that Glaucon is now being forced to assume a more critical stance and to be an examiner. With this shift, Adeimantus does not need to fulfill that role or worry that his uncritical brother may be lead astray. The opening image of the Republic is of Socrates walking with Glaucon up to Athens. For Adeimantus, then, the evening begins with seeing his brother being led along with Socrates. Perhaps now he may think Glaucon more capable to walk by himself.

When considered, it is evident that all of the philosophical discourse in the Republic is the result of an interruption. As Socrates and Glaucon walk up to Athens, they are interrupted by Adeimantus and Polemarchus. And everything that follows, the entirety of the Republic, is the result of that first interruption. What becomes evident is that interruption occupies a central place in Platonic and Socratic philosophy. Plato intentionally writes dialogues and Socrates engaged in them, and a structural feature of conversation is the possibility of interruption. We see this throughout the dialogues: Meno, Protagoras, Symposium to name a few. In all cases, these Interruptions can and do dictate the course of the conversation. The philosophy of Plato is always live and living in this sense. Interruption affirms the nature of philosophy, dialogue, and the Socratic method as contingent upon and particular to the individuals taking part. It is contingent upon the impossible to predict shape that the conversation will take and the detours and digressions that appear from interlocutors. It is particular because the content is shaped by the ideas, concerns, and abilities of the participants. If Adeimantus was not there, the Republic would not be the same, and the same can be said of all interlocutors.

If we think of the Republic acting on us, perhaps the whole of it should be blue since the Republic interrupts us. It begins fairly abruptly, and the conversation begins quickly and escalates. We’re dropped unexpectedly into the text and have to figure it out. It, like any work of literature, takes us out of our own lives, and forces us to reconsider them.

In the dialogue Theaetetus, Socrates converses with briefly with an unnamed man who does not want to participate in a dialogue. He would rather lecture, and if he must converse, he wants a passive interlocutor who will not interrupt him. Socrates, pointedly, does not commend him for being a great philosopher. Plato here again emphasizes the necessary place of interruption in the Socratic method. Socrates is portrayed as radically different from the others in the Theaetetus; he contends with many voices, and he risks and even welcomes the unexpected twists and challenges. In a sense, the Socratic style then is more reflective of the search for truth in our own lives. Like the dialogues, our lives are contingent and particular. As in the Republic, the search for truth is a rough steep path with many obstacles, and we almost never get the retirement and silence we would like to do philosophy. And it is within those circumstances that we must philosophize. As with Glaucon and Adeimantus, we are necessarily inside the experience, yet we must learn to act as critic.

As embodied by Adeimantus, to interrupt is to examine. To put ideas on trial. In some sense, interruption is what it means to do philosophy: to always ask questions and to always keep the dialogue changing and developing. I return to what I said at the beginning: to study the interlocutors is to ask the question of the interaction between philosophy and the individual. From Adeimantus we see that philosophy is interruption. We interrupt dialogue and change the course of philosophy, and philosophy interrupts us and changes our course as well.

Book 8 seminar paper

Lidia Debesay

Dr. Thomas

Book 8 seminar paper

April 14, 2016

The shepherd who got away

The Rrepublic by Plato is a thick book full of imagery, wisdom, and knowledge. One can read the book and interpret it as a book about the structure or formation of the government. Another person can read it and view the book as a guide to nurturing the soul of an individual being. Some may even find it completely different from these two options. Great books like this one tend to speak to different people on different levels. Though the book can be read and interpreted in many ways, this paper will focus on injustice as individual and the ruler of the city. Moreover, it shows how a man can commit unjust action by hiding from his punishments and how a city is affected by having the unjust rulers.

In book two of the republic, Glaucon argues that it is better “… doing injustice without paying the penalty…” (359a). He discusses the ring of Gyges to strengthen his argument about the nature of a man. It is the nature of a man to appear just in public while being unjust on the inside. He also says that if a man does not have to be penalized for his unjust actions, he would choose to be unjust being. The story of the Shepard who went down to the underground only to discover the corpse of a giant and the gold ring in his hand. The Shepard quickly runs off with the ring back out the underground to return to his daily business. The shepherd only takes the ring because no one was looking and Glaucon makes his point to say that it is our nature to act unjustly in private if we cannot be held accountable. The next scene is when the shepherd discovers the power of the ring during the monthly meeting. When he turned the collet of the ring to himself “… he became invisible to those sitting by him, and they discussed him as though he were away” (360a). Interestingly enough, when he turned the collet of the ring outwardly, he became visible. Upon discovering this power, he immediately starts thinking all the stuff he can do and get away with.

Moreover, for that reason alone he became the messenger to the king only to seduce the king’s wife and kill the king and take over the kingdom. This is an action of injustice came from not being hold accountable for such action. One cannot be held accountable if his bad deeds are done in the dark and appear perfectly just in the light. Glaucon continues to make this interesting. Suppose that there were two rings: one that was given to the unjust and one to the just being. Glaucon boldly states that “… one would act no differently from the other, but both would go do the same way” (360c). For instance, when a man does something bad, he is going to start to look for ways to get out of it. Better yet, he will do his bad deeds when no one else is around, so he would not taint his reputation.

I want to draw your attention to the idea of going down that is seen both in book two about the story of the ring of Gyges, and the cave allegory in book six. In book two, the Shepard did not commit any unjust action until he went down the underground. Similarly, in the allegory of the cave, the unjust individuals/rulers seem to be found in the cave. On the contrary, the outside of the cave is where the good is at. This is where things come to light and people are just and are reaching towards knowledge, wisdom, and justice. Inside the cave, you will find injustice, corrupted education taught by the rulers to control the slaves, and this is where all the degenerated rules are found.

    Moreover, in book eight of the republic, Socrates extensively explains the different depraved government system.  He explains how it starts with Aristocratic gives birth to Timocracy, and Timocracy births Oligarchy, where Oligarchy leads to Democracy, and finally the worst of them all Tyranny.  Aristocratic, the spirit led son. He who grows up with the love of money and end up becoming the honor- loving the man. Though he is the son of a spirited man, his mother, bad mother, has a lot of influence on him and that leads him to who he is now. Next, Timocracy is the honor-driven man. This is where the love for wealth, honor and honor takes over the ruling. So, Socrates is not only drawing the degeneration of the government system, but he also emphasizes that the cities are ruled by unfit people. He says “… when wealth and the wealthy are honored in a city, virtue and the good men are less honorable” (551a).  This is where he divides the city into two parts: one part is for the rich and the other part for the poor people.  So, they can never be one city because they are both against each other. They cannot fight a war because they are unable to unite as one. For that reason, there is no specialization; the city lacks harmony. People in these two cities do not have roles because they welcome anybody. For instance, this is the city “… where you see beggars, somewhere in the neighborhood thieves, cutpurses, temple robbers, and craftsmen of all such evils are hidden” (552d).

Moreover, Oligarchy is the appetite-driven man. He is the son of Timocracy which is the combination of spirit and appetite. Sadly, he lets his appetite rule. He becomes a slave to the love and making of money.  He is very careful about his wealth and he is much more concerned about building his wealth empire than his spirit. After that is Democracy, unnecessary desires (mixed). As the rulers degenerate, the love for money has been growing rapidly. By the time it gets to democracy, the ruler starts to lend his money in high-interest rate in order to grow his money rapidly. Sadly, he does this at the cost of the poor people. While most of the people are poor, only a few people thrive in the city. Because of that reason, the people want freedom and decide to vote someone to office in favor of the mass vote.  As a result, “too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery, both for the private man and city” (564a). Though the city is free and citizen can live their life as they please, there seems to lead to disharmony.  The last yet worst ruling is Tyranny which is the unlawful desires. The tyrant kills the good people so they don’t “infect” the rest. By infect meaning bring awareness to how distraught the government is.  For instance, when Hitler gained power and burned the books and kills the educated people simply because he understands that knowledge (education) is the most powerful weapon. He was scared of them so he killed them all and this is what Socrates effectively explains. Also, the government does not want the citizen to know that he is doing so he constantly makes wars in order to throw distraction.  He enslaves everyone, so he can easily control them. For instance, “you speak of the tyrant as a parricide and a harsh nurse of old age... the people in fleeing the smoke of enslavement to free men would have fallen into the fire of being under the mastery of slaves; in the place of that great and unreasonable freedom they have put on the dress of the harshest and bitterest enslavement to slaves” (569b- 569c).

As a conclusion, I find it interesting how the story of Gyges shows the soul of the unjust man who appears just in public. Whereas, the in the allegory of the cave, it shows the unjust cities rules by unjust men. Also, the idea of going down seems to be associated with injustice, whereas the outside is justice. Interestingly enough, the imagery of darkness is associated with inside the cave or in the underground (in book two) and based on that we can conclude that is where people commit their bad deeds and where the unjust rulers like to keep as slaves. On the contrary, outside of the cave and out of the underground there seems to be the normal life, perhaps justice. We all know the truth always comes to light.

Seminar Paper Book VI

Jordan Morris

PHI 360

Dr. Thomas

11 April 2016

The Ship and Philosophers

Throughout history, philosophers, academics, politicians, and regular students have turned to Plato for inspiration and understanding. It is within his famous work, The Republic, that so many find the elusive answers to life, knowledge, and politics. It is with the Republic that not only the basis for political thought is found, but the foundation for many philosophical theories and ideas. As a noted philosopher, Plato’s ideas and theories have stood the test of time and are resonant in many contemporary philosophical and academic works. One of the most notable and renowned illustrations in Plato’s Republic is that of the ship of state, which presents itself at the beginning of Book VI.

 Essentially, the ship of state is an analogy to that of the city, and can even be likened to the soul. Plato’s Socrates explores the meaning of each individual aspect of the ship, including the sailors, the ship owner, and the stargazer. It is through this well known illustration that Plato is able to explain how the collective success of the ship, as well as the city, is tied to the successes of all its parts and the proper leadership.  Plato explains that on the ship, and in the city, there is a clear need for a leader, but that the leader, but in order for success, it must be the leader that is best fit to rule. This paper will seek to explore the nature of the true philosopher, as well as decipher the best form of philosopher fit to rule the city. It will also examine the nature of the inferior philosophers and how they are likened to the ship of state analogy.

            Book VI of the Republic begins with Socrates explaining how it is the philosophers who are the enlightened individuals, and they are the only ones that are capable with guarding a city since, “philosophers are those who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects, while those who are not able to do so but wander among what is many and varies in all ways are not philosophers” (163). These philosophers must have distinct characteristics that make them capable of ruling a city, and Socrates continues to explain why philosophers have the nature that allows them to be leaders. Socrates states, “ they are always in love with that learning which discloses to them something of the being that is always and does not wander about, driven by generation and decay…they love all of it and don’t willingly let any part go, whether smaller or bigger, more honorable or more contemptible” (164). Socrates believes that these philosophers are consistent and that they are always able to recognize and love what is good and valuable. He continues to describe the inherent nature of the philosophers saying they have, “no taste for falsehood; that is, they are completely unwilling to admit what’s false but hate it, while cherishing the truth” (164). Socrates fervently believes it is necessary for the philosophers to pursue truth amongst all means. He states, “the man who is really a lover of learning must from youth on strive as intensely as possible for every king of truth” (165). It is with this statement that Socrates then explains how these philosophers, by loving learning and truth, are ruled by the rational part of the soul. They are no longer governed by their desires nor spirit. They have departed completely from any irrationality, illiberality, monetary wants, and are a true philosophers, who are the best fit to rule over a city (165-166).  

After Socrates describes the true nature of these philosophers and how they should be taught, Adeimantus rejects his argument saying that no philosopher he has encountered of the day could be like the great philosopher that Socrates describes. Ademaintus explains that the current philosophers are backward saying, “those who start out on philosophy…become quite queer, not completely vicious; while the ones who seem perfectly decent, do nevertheless suffer at least one consequence of the practice you are praising.—they become useless to cities” (167). These current philosophers, vicious and worthless, do not represent the real philosopher that Socrates believes should rule the city.  Nonetheless, Socrates still deems the true philosophers they best to rule the city, and in order to better illustrate his point, he begins to lay his foundation for the necessity of the leadership by the true philosopher in the city, by using imagery of a ship and its necessary parts.

Socrates explains that on a ship there are three parts, the ship owner, sailors, and the true pilot, or stargazer. He describes their inherent natures stating that, “though the ship owner surpasses everyone on board in height and strength, he is rather deaf and likewise somewhat shortsighted, and his knowledge of seamanship is pretty much on the same level…the sailors are quarreling with one another about the piloting, each supposing he out to pilot, although he has never learned the art…the true pilot it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and everything that’s proper to the art…the true pilot will really be called a stargazer” (168). With a ship, like a city, each of these parts has their distinctive duties. Socrates explains that if the sailors or ship-owners are left to run the ship, the stargazer will be useless, just as philosophers are deemed useless. The only way for a ship to run successfully is to have the stargazer as the true pilot, and analogously, in order for a city to utilize philosophers, they must be the rulers. The ship, and the city, will only succeed if the right and proper leader is in control.  To better understand the rest of the argument, one needs to keep in mind the city and ship analogy. Socrates states, “ I don’t suppose you need to scrutinize the image to see that it resembles the cities in their disposition toward the true philosophers” (168). The sailors can be likened to the vicious philosophers, the ship-owner to the worthless philosopher, and the stargazer to the true philosopher. It is the true philosopher that Socrates deems appropriate to rule, but he acknowledges that there are others who are trying to rule at the same time, just as the sailors and ship-owner quarrel and seek to pilot the ship.  It is important to recognize these other types of philosophers and to guard against them coming into leadership and ruling over the city, because any city that is ruled by any other than a true philosopher king will not succeed.

Socrates continues his argument by explaining the necessity and promoting the usefulness of philosophers in the city. While many say that philosophers have no place and do nothing in the city, Socrates points out that the philosophers are present and ready to be utilized by the city. He continues using his ship analogy to support his argument saying, “teach the image to that man who wonders at the philosophers’ not being honored in the cities, and try to persuade him that it would be far more to be wondered at if the were honored” (168). He continues to explain that it is actually the city that is wrong in not using the philosophers. He explains that it is not the fault of the philosopher for not being looked toward and used for their knowledge and wisdom, but it is actually the city that is at fault for forsaking the. Socrates again uses his ship analogy saying, “for it’s not natural that a pilot beg sailors to be ruled by him nor that the wise go to the doors of the rich…you’ll make no mistake in imagining the statesmen now ruling to be the sailors we were just now speaking of, and those who are said by them to be useless and gossipers about what’s above to be the true pilots [true philosopher kings]” (169). To Socrates, in order for a city to be successful and thrive it must look to a philosopher king to rule and not wait for a philosopher king to ask if he can rule. The city must naturally look to the best-equipped individual, just as the sailors must look to the best navigator of the ship in order to sail successfully.

He continues saying that with these circumstances, it is hard for philosophers to actually be true philosophers. They are subject to skepticism and doubt, as well as tainted reputation from the actions of the other, lesser philosophers. Socrates states, “it’s not easy for the best pursuit to enjoy a good reputation with those who practice the opposite. But by far the greatest and most powerful slander comes to philosophy from those who claim to practice such things” (169). Socrates continues to warn against the viciousness of these philosophers who tarnish the goodness of philosophy and will mislead the city if left to rule, just as the ship owner would ruin the ship. He explains that men that have the deposition to be philosophers are subject to many temptations by their own natures. He states, “each one of the elements we praised in that nature has a part in destroying the souls that has them and tearing it away from philosophy. I mean courage, moderation, and everything we went through” (171). Socrates explains that they are corrupted by their own nature as well as from the means of society, and this deems them vicious rulers and the name of philosophy is slandered as a whole. This can again be likened to the ship metaphor. The ship that is run by the ship owner, who naturally has a disposition to be the strongest, best individual on the ship, he will be corrupted by his own confidence and vanity and will lead the ship to ruin and cause great slander to be cast amongst his ship and crew.

With these other philosophers damaging the good reputation of the true philosophers, the city will refrain from seeking the philosophers, and eventually fail completely. Just as the ship, which does not seek the help of the stargazer, with fail because it does not have the true pilot to chart the course of the ship. Socrates explains that in order for men to guard against these other philosophers, and to become the true philosophers it is necessary that they have the proper education and training. These rulers must be cultivated and educated in order to keep them from being corrupted. Socrates states, “if the nature we set down for the philosopher chances on a suitable course of learning, it will necessarily grow and come to every kind of virtue; but if it isn’t sown, planted, and nourished in what’s suitable, it will come to all the opposite, unless one of the gods chances to assist it” (171). According to Socrates, philosophers must educated and trained in order to be the true philosophers and encourage the betterment and success of the city. Going back to the ship example, it is the stargazer, who has been trained in the knowledge of charts, courses, the elements, and stars that is the most equipped to pilot the ship. He has more education and is better prepared to successfully lead a ship in the right direction.

According to Socrates, a city must have the right type of leader in order to be a just and successful city. Similarly, a ship must have the correct pilot in order to complete a successful voyage. While both the ship and the city have a multitude of men wanting to rule, these men are either vicious, such as the ship owner, or useless, such as sailors. These inferior forms of philosophers/pilots cause ruin and slander to the name of philosophy and the ship. The only individual that is capable of truly leading the city and ship are the true philosophers, or stargazers. It is only with the proper training and cultivation that true philosopher and stargazer will emerge and be able to lead. While Socrates laments that no city is in a state of philosophy today, he explains that if lead by the philosopher, a city will thrive in justice. He states, “but if it ever takes hold in the best regime, just as it is itself best, then it will make plain that it really is divine as we agreed it is” (177).  The city needs the philosopher, and the ship needs the stargazer, without both, neither can succeed.

Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1991.