The Republic: Book X

Socrates reverts to the discussion which had first taken place in Books II & III of poetry’s place in this ideal community. Socrates argues that he was right in banishing (bad) mimetic poetry, and explains to Glaucon his reasons for doing so. The harmful effects of poetry on the human mind, in so far as it draws one away from the ultimate reality, are illustrated by means of the art of painting. Socrates says that there is only one essential or ideal bed, the form of which is behind the carpenter’s material bed, and it is this material bed that the painter represents in his painting. The painter’s bed is twice-removed from reality. Similarly, poetic representation is also twice-removed from the real world of forms.

Next, Socrates points out that Homer, the greatest of poets, was not of much use to his country. While Italy and Sicily remember Charondas as their reformer and Athenians name Solon in this respect, no community or country can refer to Homer as a good advice-giver or governor. Unlike Pythagoras, Homer had not even been applauded for being a good teacher. The only skills that Homer possessed were representational skills. With this example of Homer, Plato launches his attack on poetry.

The poet is described as ignorant, without any real knowledge of what he is representing. He is not even armed to differentiate between the good and bad of what is being represented. Moreover, he will continue to represent the bad aspect of things just because his audience demands it. Painting or poetry is not only twice-removed from the truth; its appeal is also to that part of the human mind which is not reasonable.

In difficult situations, a human being is expected to not give into his emotions and to deal with problems bravely. While one part of his mind gets emotional or scared, the other reasonable part of his mind wants to overcome the problems. The poet, however, is only concerned with that part of the human mind which is petulant because it is there that he has any appeal for his audience.

The worst aspect of mimetic poetry is that it corrupts even a good human being. When Homer shows his hero breaking down in the face of disaster, the audience does derive a kind of pleasure, but the same audience would not want to break down in case of disaster in their lives but rather face it bravely. But in the process of enjoying mimetic poetry, the audience may give in to that part of his mind which is emotional – he will loosen his guard over rationality.

Socrates concludes this discussion on poetry by saying that a human being will be best rewarded if he detaches himself from poetry, power and wealth, which detract from the truth, and applies himself to morality.

Before ending the discussion on morality, Socrates claims that the human mind is immortal. Glaucon is surprised by this statement, and Socrates puts forward his explanation. He argues that the body can be damaged by disease or illness, and any given object can be destroyed because of its specific illness or what is harmful for it. But vice, the peculiar evil of the mind, cannot ensure the literal perishing of the mind. Since the mind is not destroyed by its own affliction, and as it can’t be destroyed by the body’s affliction or any other affliction, it is immortal.

Socrates further asserts that immoral people might win the race of life towards the beginning but towards the end they are jeered because of their shortcomings and vices. But a moral person is a winner all throughout his life and is appreciated by the community at large.

Finally, the Republic concludes by recounting the myth of Er who, apparently slain in battle, entered the afterlife. Er saw how the moral are rewarded and the immoral are punished severely in life-after-death. Judges sitting at the opening of two gates, one of heaven and the other of the dark underworld, decide which man is fit to take which path. After several days of journey Er and the other souls reach the spindle of Necessity where apart from Er, each soul is given a token according to which he or she can choose his next life on earth. Wise men like Orpheus choose the life of a swan while the bitter Agamemnon prefers to be an eagle. Finally the souls become oblivious after drinking water from the River of Neglect and then return to earth to be reborn. Er comes back to life just as his funeral is about to take place, and recounts this vision of death.

Socrates tells Glaucon that it is important to regard the soul as immortal and to always follow the path of morality. This is the best way to please the Gods and have a rewarding life.

- Shreya Sarkar (PG II)

The Republic: Book IX

In this book, Socrates concentrates on the tyrannical individual, figure of the political tyrant and the tyrannical state. Before discussing the origin and features of a tyrant, Socrates talks about the lawless desires in man. A man ruled by both social laws and reasoning never indulges in unlawful activities like incest, parricide or the eating of forbidden food. Such wild and beastly desires may only find vent in dreams. Nonetheless, this beastly quality is latent in human beings.

By making this point, Socrates then brings to attention two political figures associated with the tyrant.

A) The Democratic man: The tyrant is raised by his democratic father. The democratic man, in turn, has been raised by miserly parent who discouraged all unnecessary activities dealing with pleasure. As a result, he rebelled by leading a lawless life. But the better sense in him prevailed and he only moderately indulged in pleasures.

B) The Oligarch: This democratic man is raised by an oligarch. He is an absolute miser who pushes his son into a more anarchic life style till his proper reasoning makes him follow the more moderate democratic path.

The tyrant, like his democratic father, is also seduced into the life pleasures which his father also pursues but in moderation. The tyrant does not have the restraints and check of the democrat’s and is pushed further into lawlessness. All his principles and sense of rationale diminishes. He is like an eternally drunk man who is driven into an unlimited frenzy where he believes he can rule over the gods. His soul is driven by love for the lustful and the unlawful. The more he indulges the shorter his revenues become till he is left with no more. He soon looks for other ways to fund his desires. He sells of his property and when that is no more a feasible option, he  plunders and loot his own parents till they are forced to sell all their assets; he also steals from wayfarers, other homes and temples. His beastly desires are no longer latent.

The tyrant either becomes a mercenary soldier sent off to war or he remains in the State and becomes the perpetrator of many evils. He soon starts gaining power and followers who flatter him, those who refute him are brutally punished and the rest have no choice but to follow. His young retainers serve under him and become rulers and masters over the state. The tyrant never experiences true friendship nor does he ever allow complete freedom. Socrates observes that just like the democratic man reflects the nature of a democratic state, the tyrant reflects the nature of a tyrannical state. Judging from the characteristics of the tyrant figure, the government led by him is most wretched and despondent like the tyrant himself.

The tyrant enslaves all the good qualities in him and in turn enslaves the State. The political tyrant is the most miserable figure. The reason for his misery is the absence of loyalty in his retainers and the constant loom of threat against his position. Socrates elaborates by placing the tyrant in two different situations. Firstly, if the tyrant and his family with all their servants were to be moved into the wilderness, there would always be in fear of rebellion. So the tyrant, against his will, would have to cajole his servants to keep them happy and save himself. Secondly, if the tyrant was located amongst neighbors who detest any form of slavery, he would be in constant fear of being overthrown and banished. The more power he gains the more wretched he becomes. The state, hence, also suffers.

Socrates, then, examines three classes of man in order to find out who is the happiest. The lover of wisdom, the lover of honour and the lover of gain all indulge in pleasure. It is the lover of wisdom, the philosopher, who has access to all three and is the most content. He also has the power of reasoning that neither the lovers of honour or gain possess. True pleasures lies in the cessation of pain and only a philosopher achieves this. Socrates calculates that out of the three political figures- the democrat, oligarch, and the tyrant- the tyrant is 729 times removed from the pursuit of true pleasure. The tyrant is only aware of bodily pleasures and this is the reason for his extreme desolation. Lastly, Socrates questions whether the figure of the tyrant was perceived to possess the ideal soul. The tyrant lets the beast in him rule and hence possesses the dual nature of an animal under the garb of normalcy. He may enjoy a sense of power for a short period of time but it is only the just and good ruler, who by adjusting according to the State and its needs, maintains a peaceful rule.

Amrita Kar
Pg-I

The Republic: Book VIII

Book VIII begins with Socrates reiterating the concept of community and citizenship in a perfect state where education,leisure and warlike activities should be held in common.He also touches upon the notion of common property.Glaucon reminds him that as he has already described the just city Socrates now defines and elaborates upon four unjust constitutions of the city and their human correspondence. He also maintains that society is formed of individuals, if there are five kinds of society then there should be five distinct human correspondences in their response. First of these constitutions is called timocracy. This arises out of aristocracy which is the “just and good” and much admired Cretan or Spartan type of governance in a perfect state. Timocracy is its slightly degraded form as it is the response to Spartan form by a contentious and ambitious man. Ideal society turns into timocracy when the ruling class becomes disunited and social strife begins. The origin of this change in the traditional order lies in the dispute over private ownership (“land and houses”) and private profit (“gold and silver”). Human attributes of a timocratic character is ambition,self will, competitive spirit and imperfect education which leads to an improper class relation skills and a false sense of superiority. A timocratic soul is vulnerable to uncertainty and inner conflict. Timocracy lies between ideal state and Oligarchy. In Oligarchy wealth is the only qualification of merit and governance. Timocracy turns into Oligarchy through the accumulation of capital into private ownership resulting in extravaganza, perversion and dishonoring of the law. Overvaluation of wealth creates undervaluation of goodness. Oligarchy divides the society into two factions : a rich ruling class which is few in numbers and a vast poor section. The number of malcontents rises in the society through a new “drone” class of wrongdoers. A timocratic character turns Oligarchic by the fear of sufferings and losing property. Ambition quickly turns into avarice. An Oligarchic man is laborious, business minded, economical but not morally virtuous, suppresses his inner desires not by reasons rather only because of the compulsion of fear.

Neglect of the poorer section extravagance of wealth and disobedience of the law creates a huge disfranchised section. Criminals and beggars multiply in numbers. Then either by external stimulus or may be even without provocation the poor revolts against the rich. Democracy arises when they defeat the rich, kill, banish or exile the losers and establish a rule of equal civil and legal rights. It can happen through an armed revolt or by a bloodless coup. According to Socrates Democracy is the “most attractive” of all societies because there is diversity,liberty and individual freedom of speech. There is no compulsion of exercising authority (even if one is capable of it) or submitting to it. Although he strictly maintains that it is a rather short sighted constitution,a diverse yet “agreeable anarchy” which treats all its citizen equally regardless of whether they hold the moral and civil qualifications to be treated equally.A democratic character has variety yet lacks moral principles. He is refined but presumptuous, indulges himself in cultivating necessary and unnecessary desires.

As Oligarchy falls due to the excessive desire for wealth, Democracy likewise becomes Tyranny due to the excessive desire for liberty and freedom, at the expense of other merits of Democracy. This eventually undermines the democratic constitution. Liberty falls under the influence of servile and contemptible leadership. Principle of liberty permeates the private sphere. The mind of the citizen becomes sensitive to this changes, citizens start disregarding the law. This is the root of Tyranny. Because supposedly every democratic society falls into three groups. The first one is energetic,freedom loving. They are considered contemptible in Oligarchy,they cannot assume governance. But in Democracy almost all the leaders of the ruling class are drawn from this group. The second group emerges from the mass but are steady enough to consistently make money and climb up the social ladder. The third group is the largest class. They seldom take interest in politics but assembled together (not without the promise of the fulfilment of their individual desires) can form a supreme force. Leaders of this faction rob the wealth of the rich, keep most of that for themselves, distribute the rest to the poor and become popular champions of the mass. A popular leader becomes a tyrant when the temptation for power and violence gets too strong. The mob will do anything he tells them to. He overthrows not only the ruling class but all forms of opposition and dissent and grasps the power of the state. He raises his own private militia. Citizens find out the nature of the “beast” they have bred when he uses violence against his own men who nurtured him. So the tyrant commits parricide.

The Republic: Book VII

Book VII of Plato’s Republic begins with the allegory of the cave. Socrates describes a situation in which men reside from their childhood in an underground cave-dwelling, their legs and necks bound in chains which prevent them from turning their heads around, enabling them to only look in front of them. At a distance, a little higher up, a fire burns, and between the fire and the prisoners, is a slightly elevated road with a wall built along it, something like a screen used by puppeteers. Men carry along this road, all kinds of articles. The prisoners in the cave can see nothing but each other, and the shadows of these various objects thrown by the fire, on the wall that they are facing. All their lives, they take these shadows to be the real things.

Then one of them is released, and forced to ascend out of the cave and into the sunlight. He is too dazed at first to see anything, and also perplexed when he is told that all these objects before him are the real objects and the shadows that he had seen in the cave were mere phantoms of the real things. Soon his eyes are able to adapt to the light, and he is able to perceive things as they really are. If, in such a situation, this person was once again compelled to return to the darkness of the cave, would he not have considerable trouble distinguishing between the dark shadows thrown on the wall, asks Socrates.

Socrates compares this upward ascent into the light as the upward journey of the soul into the world of knowledge, where the Form of the good, the beautiful, and the true can be seen. Education is therefore, the manner in which the soul is taught to turn around from the darkness to the light, from ‘that which is becoming’ to the ‘brightest blaze of being’, which Socrates declares as being the ‘true philosophy’. Thus the ideal governors of the city must be those who are willing to make the upward journey and perceive the truth; and having done so, descend again to the prisoners to share their knowledge with them. Having received a better and more thorough education, these philosophers must descend to dwell with the inhabitants of the city, and must be accustomed to see and distinguish between the objects of darkness because they have seen ‘the truth of what is beautiful and just and good’.

Socrates goes on to say that the guardians of the city must be ‘athletes of war’, and therefore the education that they receive must not be without use to warriors. In addition to gymnastics and harmonics, he suggests that the guardians be educated in Arithmetic and Calculation, Geometry (both plane and solid) and Astronomy. These subjects provide the ‘prelude to the real melody which is to be studied’, played by Dialectic. Dialectics enable the philosopher to explain the essence of things, and to define the Form of the good with intelligible reason.

These studies, according to Socrates, must be assigned to only ‘the steadiest, the bravest and, as far as possible, the best looking.’ Not only should such men have sturdy morals but they must also be suited to this scheme of education. Such a man should also have ‘a good memory, an unchangeable purpose, and an unflagging love of work.’ These preliminary studies must be introduced to the guardians when they are boys, as compulsory subjects of study, but only after they have completed the first two or three years of necessary training in Gymnastics.

It is sufficient if the student perseveres in constant study for twice the amount of time he spends in physical training, amounting to approximately five years. During this period the students will be observed and their proficiency in various fields assessed, and in their twentieth year, those who have been selected, will receive the privilege of bringing together all that they have studied, in order to achieve an understanding of their relationship with one another and with the nature of Being. And when they are past thirty, the best among them will be selected and they will be forced to take command in war and other such offices pertaining to the young, in order to acquire practical experience. After fifteen more years, at the age of about fifty, the ones who have come safely through, must devote their time towards philosophy, but when the time comes, they must also undertake the responsibility of directing politics and being rulers for the sake of their city. Socrates goes on to add that all that he has said applies no more to men than to women, ‘so long as we have women of adequate natural gifts.’

He concludes the chapter by saying that children above ten years should be taken out of their home environment and trained in the customs and laws enumerated by him. 

The Republic: Book VI

In Book 6 of the Republic, Plato embarks upon a discussion of philosophers being the ideal guardians of his state. This, as he reasons through Socrates, is due to their understanding of the immutable and unchanging realm of Forms, and their consequent disdain for all things earthly, mutable and ephemeral. This is analogous to the distinction we make between men who can see and those who cannot, and the confidence we rest on the former [misplaced or otherwise] is the trust Socrates places on the ability of philosophers to guide his republic. The “unphilosophical” nature is blindly caught in the myriad manifestations of the constant Forms. Thus the philosopher gains an edge over his unenlightened brethren, provided, of course, that he possesses all the other requisite skills necessary for his role as the guardian of the republic.

Socrates proceeds to describe the qualities that set the philosopher apart. A deep longing for knowledge, an acceptance of truth [being inseparable from the desire for true knowledge], a quick mind and strong memory, and an aversion to falsehood, mean mindedness and covetousness characterize the mind of the philosopher. Socrates’ swift reasoning is challenged by Adeimantus who politely accuses him of forcing conclusions and insinuates that he beguiles dissenters with dazzling rhetoric. He expresses his skepticism about philosophers being capable of shouldering any kind of responsibility, let alone helming the state. Socrates takes up two of Adeimantus’ major accusations against his tribe. 

• He uses the illustration of a ship whose captain is beset by ignorant contentious rebels refusing to accede to his power for their own interests as an analogy to that of the philosopher maligned by a blinded world. It is a matter of perspective and while the point of view of the majority is heeded, philosophers will continue to be considered useless.
• He answers the contention that apart from the “useless” philosophers, the profession is also plagued by a “depraved” majority. This is attributed to the same traits which mark out a man as being suited to the noble pursuits of philosophy. The qualities of temperance, fortitude, loftiness of spirit and the like, when subject to the wrong kind of training, will subvert the nature that bears these qualities.  The education given by public bodies is scathingly referred to by Socrates. Some other pernicious influences include the entry of untrained men into the profession and the misguidance of young unsure men by the fickle mob, which has resulted in the subject being misapprehended by most. In a bid to establish firmly that only men of superior traits and a noble bent of mind can either subscribe to the fruits of this rigorous discipline, or perish in the attempt, Socrates describes the effect of flattery on aspiring philosophers which inevitably result in them being led astray from the path of philosophy.

Having answered Adeimantus’s accusations satisfactorily, Socrates goes on to assert that none of the contemporary modes of governance are suited to philosophers, and that particular care should be taken to frame one that can not only accommodate philosophers, but also invest them with power. He suggests that instead of the fashionable dalliance with the subject that young learners indulge in and then desert as more tangible duties occupy them, philosophy should be taught in a way that when the scholar approaches old age and is free from worldly responsibilities, his mind can access the most complex dialectics of the subject. He also acknowledges his previously discussed notion of the ideal state being analogical to the ideal man. This can be achieved if the present philosophers are entrusted with responsibility of the state, or if present rulers cultivate an understanding of philosophy. The true philosopher, by emulating what is “orderly” and “godlike” can reflect those virtues in his own person. In an extended metaphor, he compares these men to painters who can only work on a clean slate, by an amalgamation of the ideal forms of justice, beauty etc. and their manifestations among human beings. He refers to the question of women and children as well as the proper education of the magistrates [their endurance through pleasure and pain and the testing of their dedication to the cause of the republic] before going on to highlight the scarcity of true philosophers due to the reasons mentioned above. Thus, Socrates establishes continuity between Book 6 and the previous books of the Republic by asserting that if a ruler with a genuinely philosophic bent of mind follows the legislations outlined in earlier sections, the ideal state will no longer be an impossible ideal. 

The Republic: Book V

While discussing about the four evil forms of true city and individual soul, Socrates is interrupted by Polemarchus and Adeimantus in the beginning of Book V of Republic. Being requested, he changes his course of discussion to social concerns and talks about the concept of ideal state. His arguments are mainly sub-divided into three parts. He speaks, firstly about the ideal community, where both the sexes will be treated equally. The initial part of his discussion includes the role of women and children in the life of the guardians. He hypothetically assumes the social strata where the female will be receiving same education and enjoying same political rights, irrespective of the difference in nature. His subdues the prevailing doubts by concluding, “Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian; they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness.”
Socrates proceeds to the next wave of his idea of attaining social equality and unity by mentioning the utility of having common wife and children in the society. His justification for this view is that unity will reign over discord and distraction. The state will be organized and ordered as everybody will share individual and common concern for welfare. Festivals will be arranged for common marriage, followed by seasonal mating to produce healthy progeny. The common events will act as a measure for population control and ensure healthy citizen at the same time. The range of age of bearing children will be twenty to forty in women and twenty to fifty five in men as those years are the prime of physical and intellectual vigour. The question of incest is avoided by ensuring that marriages will occur among different communities of cities, which in a way will lead to social harmony. This will also reduce the war possibility though the option of foreign conquest remains open. He then talks about the honour to be given to the heroes of war and strictly distinguishes between war and discord.
In the third section, he deviates his discussion from the social concern to political sphere. He declares, “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils,—nor the human race, as I believe,—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.” He defines the true philosophers as lovers of the vision of truth. He explains the theory with the imagery of beauty. Lastly he concludes that knowledge is a faculty, and the mightiest of all faculties. The person who possesses the above quality can be called lover of wisdom and is worthy of becoming the ruler. The notion of justice and ideal prospect of state lie at the centre of the whole discussion and continues in the following sections as well.
ARATRIKA, PG-I.

The Republic: Book IV

In book 4 of the Republic , Plato discusses the ideal way of life that every Ruler and Auxiliary should assume in order to ensure happiness for the whole community. The ideal way of life for the Rulers refers to a life of austere simplicity whereby they have the right education that ensures that they can behave humanely not just with each other but also with their subjects. As Socrates discusses the system of their housing , he lays down two vital conditions. Firstly, he states that a guardian should not hold any private property beside the ‘’barest essentials’’ that he requires. Secondly, none of them shall be allowed to own a store-house or dwelling-house where all of them cannot enter. Besides they should live together in a discipline manner like soldiers in an assigned camp. In no way should they covet the gold and silver that ordinary citizens might possess.

All these conditions bring Adeimantus to question if these provisions will ever ensure the Guardians’ happiness as he compares the Guardians to ‘’hired mercenaries’’. To this Socrates confirms that their purpose is not to ensure the happiness of a minor single class but to make sure that the whole state is happy. He further exemplifies his statement with the illustration of painting a statue where the painter cannot afford to lend the eyes the purple colour just because purple looks best in the eyes. Instead he has to colour the eyes in a way that it make the whole statue look beautiful. Socrates also states that if every single class is allowed to be content and happy then the potters and farmers will not fulfill the duty expected of them. Hence to make the whole community happy the guardian class has to live a life of restrictions.

While Socrates debars the Guardian class from possessing any private property, he also expects them to see that there is no inequality in the distribution of wealth in the Third class which is allowed to hold private properties. He strictly believes that the two main things that can corrupt workers or ruin them are wealth and poverty. While poverty might deprive a person of the basic training and tools, excess of the wealth on the other hand might promote idleness among the third class. Besides these they need to pay heed to what Socrates touts as the‘’big thing’’, that is ,the system of education and upbringing that can develop children into future citizens of sound character. Therefore the Guardians ‘’should build their main defences’’ in education.

Socrates suggests that the growth of a state should be completely in adherence to the unity of the state. It should not be so large that there are several distinct groups in them which cannot withhold the unity for a long time. While the idea of unity is essential , Socrates also discusses why a state like an individual should be just thus finally explaining what Justice means and answering the question he raised in the previous chapters. The ideal state that he strives to make of Athens should possess the various virtues of wisdom, courage , justice and discipline. Since the state has to be the best state so it should have the capability to be its own master through self-discipline. To Socrates, Justice refers to minding one’s own business and doing the thing one is most naturally suited for. It includes keeping what’s one’s own and not interfering in anyway into other people’s business. The idea of a state is related to the idea of an individual with the various parts of his mind comprising reason, desires and other faculties like ambition ,indignation and pugnacity. Justice can be promoted when all these three elements are in harmony with each other in an individual quite analogous to the state and its elements. If one element trespasses another or interferes with another, then there is bound to be what Socrates concludes as injustice. In an individual this happens when the different elements of mind are displaced or confused. A conclusion is drawn with the discussion moving towards how justice pays better than injustice in different circumstances.

The Republic: Book III

In the second book of The Republic, Plato speaks of the Guardians. The Guardians, Plato explains, will be trained to protect the Republic. Having established this, he turns his attention to how the Guardians should be trained and what should be a part of their training. This discussion forms a major part of Book III.

Literature:

First, he speaks of literature concerning gods and heroes. In Book II, Socrates had concluded that most existing literature on the topic was unsuitable because their portrayal of gods and heroes might encourage certain forms of moral weakness. He now moves on to the subject of the cultivation of bravery. In order to do so, certain things cannot be written about: 

• The horrors of afterlife, which are, in his opinion, false.
• The fear of death.
• Laments by famous men and gods because a good man is not shaken by loss.
• Gods or heroes indulging in violent laughter, because such laughter invites violent reactions.
• Names that arouse fear. ‘Rivers of Wailing and Gloom’, for instance.
• Depictions of over indulgence in the pleasures of eating, drinking and sex. Because this goes against the rule of self control.
• Characters being mercenary.
• Gods and heroes being evil. Such accounts, Socrates asserts, are false and citizens or the Guardians in training should not be exposed to such lies.

In Book II, Socrates had already mentioned that falsehood does not exist in the realm of the divine. In Book III he says that falsehood will not be tolerated in the republic. If anyone has take recourse to falsehood, it will be the Guardians, that too, only for the well-being of the community. Any other person found guilty of lying will be severely punished.
Having concluded this discussion, Socrates now turns his attention to literature concerning human beings. But here arises a problem. The rules that he lays down about the literature on gods and heroes cannot be applied to literature on men. This is because, unless justice is defined (The Republic begins with a discussion on justice), it is not possible to say what should not be said about human life. This discussion, therefore, has to be put aside. Socrates now concerns himself with the formal requirements.
It is in this discussion that Plato uses, the term 'mimesis', translated as 'representation' or 'imitation'. Poetry, says Socrates, narrates the past, the present and the future. It does so by using three methods: 

• Narration: When the poet speaks in his own voice. An example of this would be lyric poetry.
• Representation: When the poet speaks in the voice of another. Drama would fall under this category.
• Narration and Representation: Epic is an example.

When the poet speaks in the voice of another, he is 'representing' that character. But one man cannot possibly assimilate in himself, the characteristics of another person. Also, one man must be trained in one skill. The Guardians, for instance, should be trained only as the protectors of the community and the city. Therefore, poets should not represent men at work, nor should they represent men or women who are insane or of bad character. Neither is the portrayal of women in love or of women during labour permissible. A good man should express himself using the first method mentioned. As the discussion draws to a close, Plato says that the poet who can transform himself into different characters and can represent all kinds of things will be treated with respect, but the it will be said to him "that he and his kind have no place in our city, their presence being forbidden by our code, and send him elsewhere, after anointing him with myrrh and crowning him with fillets of wool." The state will employ its own poets who will follow the instructions set down for them.

Music:
From literature, Plato turns his attention to music. Songs consists of three elements: words, rhythm and mode. A song should be composed following the instruction set down for what kind of words poetry might include. Relaxing modes, like the Ionian, should be discarded because idleness cannot be encouraged in Guardians. The chosen rhythm should fit a life of courage and discipline. Most of this section is spoken by Glaucon, but he fails to name the suitable rhythms. For this, Socrates must seek the assistance of the fifth century musician Damon.

Socrates says that good art depends on good character. The object of education is to teach us to love what is beautiful.

Physical Education:

Socrates says that bodily excellence does not improve the soul, but excellence of the soul improves the body. Guardians, unlike athletes, must be wakeful and have a strong constitution, suitable for harsh conditions. Obsession with one’s health is criticized by Socrates. He also criticizes law and medicine on the grounds that they are required only when there is a malady in the body or in action. If his prescribed training is undertaken by the young, law and medicine will no longer be necessary. He also points out that exclusive cultivation of the body makes one harsh, while exclusive cultivation of music makes on too soft. The two elements must be present in perfect harmony in the Guardian

To conclude, a Guardian must always remember that his loyalty lies with the community and should stick to this view, even under the influence of pain or under the influence of pleasure. The Guardian must undergo severe trial from his early years and triumph in order to gain his position. Socrates then goes on to say that he will try and convince the Guardians first, and then the citizens that the education imparted to them was in a dream. They are the children of the earth, and it is their duty to protect their mother. He also makes a distinction between the rulers, the auxiliaries and the rest of the citizens.

The Republic: Book II

Having been introduced to the question(s) of justice (δικαιοσύνη), and provided summary arguments by Socrates, Glaucon remains unconvinced. He makes an extreme argument in favour of injustice which he hopes Socrates will denounce and in its place exalt justice.

Glaucon asserts that justice originates ‘as a compromise...for lack of power to do wrong’, and that ‘men do right only under compulsion’. He protests that men behave justly only because of the reputation and respectability it brings. If a man could go about ‘with the powers of a god’, never being caught for wrongdoing, he would always choose to do wrong; moreover, granted complete unaccountable licence, a man would be thought a fool if he chose to do otherwise.

Taking the argument to a logical extreme, Glaucon says that ‘the highest pitch of injustice is to seem [δοκειν] just when you are not’. The completely unjust man who seems just and has the reputation of being just is invested with all the benefits of society; whereas the truly just man must strip himself of all offices not knowing whether his justness or his reputation brings him these rewards. There is a reversal in the positions of the truly just man and the completely unjust man: it is the unjust man who merits public office and the favour of heaven, and so the unjust life is better than the just life.  

Adiemantus seconds Glaucon and pitches even higher saying that heaven itself allots a hard life to the good man and gives prosperity to the wicked. Moreover, he says, the unjust man can absolve wrongdoing by means of sacrifice. Thus, while there is nothing to be gained but trouble from absolute right-doing, with absolute wrongdoing ‘our desires our fulfilled in this life and in the next’.

Socrates is challenged to explain how ‘justice is intrinsically superior to injustice whether gods or men see it or not’.

Socrates posits that the community (πολις) is analogous to the individual (ανδρος) and proposes to examine the community for understanding what justice is. Arguing that a community naturally comes into existence for no individual is self-sufficing, Socrates asserts that it is best if each individual masters one skill and exchanges its products with others, benefiting the community as a whole. Beginning with a farmer, a builder, a tailor, and a cobbler, the minimal basic city grows to include shepherds, cowherds, craftsmen, agents of foreign exchange and so on.

Glaucon objects to this ‘community of pigs’ which is without ordinary comforts (such as the sofa), and the polis transforms into a luxurious one with appropriate attendants. But now the enlarged community must have access to greater resources, and will have to expand physically. Moreover, Socrates points out, it will attract the attention of other communities which are jealous of its luxury. This is the point where Guardians become important. Keeping in mind the early premise of mastering one skill only, guardians must be trained solely to be guardians. The task of guardianship cannot be performed well, if at all, by other citizens. Additionally, the guardian’s work being most important, (s)he requires the greatest skill and practice in, and a natural ability for, guardianship: the guardian must be swift, strong, spirited and philosophic (loving true understanding), and the guardian’s education must accordingly cultivate mind & body.

As education begins with stories (μύθος), Socrates argues for the censorship, in this proposed community, of all poetry appertaining to religion and to heroes or other admirable, therefore imitable, figures. The Gods must be represented as the cause of only good, as doing only good, and being only good; heroes must never be shown crying or complaining; and there should no misstatements about human life such as ‘wrongdoers are happy’. In other words, poetry must (re)present human life in only the best way.

The Republic: Book I

Plato discusses the notion of ‘justice’ and its worthiness through Socrates in Book I of The Republic that opens with a festive scene where the Greeks celebrate in honour of the Goddess Bendis that is to be followed by an equestrian torch-race in the evening. The whole work (The Republic) is narrated by Socrates after the day of the festival to a small party comprising Critias, Timaeus and Hermocrates.

The previous day Socrates had involved in a discussion on the definition of ‘justice’ which was articulated by one of his aged companions, Cephalus as ‘speaking the truth and paying one’s debts’. But this was counteracted by Socrates who presented them with a problematic situation and enquired if a weapon should be returned to a mad person because it rightfully belonged to him despite being conscious of its dangers at the wrong hands? If giving a person his rightful “due” is considered ‘justice’ then it can be surmised that friends deserve “good” while we owe “evil” to our enemies. But Plato reasons through Socrates that men mostly err in judging “evil” from “good” which often results in harming friends and helping enemies. It, thus, brings out the incoherence of the former statement about ‘justice’.

Thrasymachus, the Sophist rushes into the conversation to savagely contradict Socrates’ reasoning faculty and claims ‘justice’ to be nothing more than the interest of the stronger where the rulers are actuated by the love of offices. Does it pay to be just then? Socrates refuses to delegitimize justice by claiming men’s fallibility in taking the right decisions that often harms their self-interest. Therefore, the government of a nation (tyrannical, autocratic or democratic) cannot incessantly work for its own good without considering the felicity of its subjects just as a shepherd’s sole concern is for the well-being of its flock of sheep “since the perfection of art is actually ensured whenever all the requirements of it are satisfied”.

Is injustice then more “gainful” than ‘justice’ and does it have more “strength”? While Thrasymachus classifies ‘justice’ with “sublime simplicity” (for the honest man does not try to gain advantage over the just) and ‘injustice’ with “discretion” (for the unjust man’s undetected astute moves are advantageous and profitable for him), Socrates once again employs the analogy of art to annul this statement. A skilled doctor or a musician does not try to gain more than a skilled man of the same profession. He rather aims at outshining the unskilled man for he considers that a “just” action. But the unskilled man makes random efforts at excess. Thus, the skilled falls on the virtuous side (as “knowing is wise” and “wise is good”) and the unskilled on the side of the evil because it is contrary to wisdom which is considered as a virtue. Also Socrates proves wrong “that injustice had strength” by citing the example of a band of bandits where every member has to have some remnant of ‘justice’ in them for harmonious co-existence (as injustice creates division within the self and with others). Therefore, absolute injustice cannot account for absolute strength.

Every art has an end and a virtue or “excellence” to attain the end and the proper end of the soul is “life” that is attained through “justice”. Book I of The Republic does not end with an exact definition of ‘justice’ but moves away from the conventional definition of it thereby proving it to be virtuous and desirable.

Individual and Community in Greek Thought IV

Ευδαιμονια

1. Plato

Both war and religion are important themes in the Greek drama, and here the configurations of the individual and the communal have evidently have significant bearing on egoism and altruism. I would, however, like to defer the discussion of the drama till we have looked at a few examples from philosophical writing. It is necessary to limit our discussion severely here, for there is the real danger of being swamped by the material available. It may be argued that the respective realms of το ιδιον and το κοινον, the individual and the common, are most efficiently disposed in Greek philosophy, with the quest for happiness, ευδαιμονια [eudaimonia], being posited as the end of both personal and communal living. The idea needs, however, further elucidation, and I would like to discuss two sets of examples from Plato and Aristotle respectively. In the Republic (344 e) Socrates links the idea of justice, the foundation of social existence, with living happily. In response to Thrasymachus' blustering attempt to prove that forceful injustice is `stronger, freer and more masterful' than justice, Socrates says that the question needs to be understood in more general way: `Do you think it a small matter that you are attempting to determine and not the entire conduct of life that for each of us would make living most worthwhile?' Socrates' defence of justice begins with the attempt to constitute the state `from the beginning'. As justice is a personal attribute, it is that of the state too: but as the state is larger than the individual, the scope of justice is larger in the state than in the individual. The origin of the city is in the fact that individuals lack many things: dwelling together as mutual helpers and associates, through an interchange of giving and taking (369 e). The discovery of the origin of the city in this kind of necessity allows us to strike a perfect mean between self interest and communal interest.

Though the parallel between the just individual and the just state is continually reiterated, it seems correct to say that the Republic promotes specificity without individuality. The absolute needs of justice, understood as a hard division of acquired skills and natural propensities, does not leave any room for the emergence of individual identity. The process is viewed more as a fusing of individual capacities in the interests of the community: the guardians, the military elite, are imposed certain restraints like a ban on private belongings and wealth, frugality of life, restrictions on movement and communal residences. When this lack of a `private' dimension to their lives is commented upon - the appurtenances of fine living, sacrifices to the gods, convivial hospitality - Socrates argues that the happiness of the state rather than of any individual class is what matters here. It is not just that political life is seen as being as valuable for the philosopher as the contemplative life. If in both cases the sources of instability and disharmony - in the soul as much as in the state - need to be identified and eliminated, one line of approach is by radically altering the boundaries of self and other. In Book Five of the Republic, identifies family and private property as the principal causes for social conflict and proceeds to get rid of these problems by communalizing sexual relationships and child-rearing: instead of doing away with the notion of property, it is spread among all the members of the community. Martha Nussbaum observes this requires a transformation of life from the very beginning: `farmed out to interchangeable wet-nurses, prevented from forming special or intimate bonds with particular parental figures, and later with particular sex-partners, these citizens will treat all citizens as ... interchangeable exemplars of the same values' (FG 159). The best-ordered city is that, says Socrates, in which `the greatest number use the words `mine' and `not mine' of the same things in the same way'. The argument is repeated in the Laws: the first and best society is one with the best constitution and the best code of law, and in which all means have been taken to eliminate everything we mean by ownership from life; .... all possible means have been taken to make even what nature has made our own in some sense common property (739 c).

Because the realm of το ιδιον has thus been forcibly uprooted from the process of living, all actions one might say, are automatically altruistic: not because there is a definite ethical predisposition of this kind, but because of the way in which the orders of the private and the public have been reconstituted.  

Yet a certain uneasiness remains in the argument, and we may well feel that we have grasped the wrong end of the stick. Much as Plato admired the Spartan model, and drew upon features of the Spartan αγωγη in his own ideal of παιδεια [paideia], or education, the radical effort at social engineering that he outlines in Republic seems to have its roots in certain basic philosophical concerns which are repeatedly expressed in his discussions of wisdom and pleasure. The need for stability and the attempt to view the object of philosophical contemplation in its purest form lead to a notion of absolute value. The superiority of the philosopher's life is because the constituents of this life are the most stable and valuable: a truly rational standpoint would necessarily and in every case lead to the identification of the same objects of pleasure. At the same time because we are necessarily committed to modes of social life, the pursuit of philosophical goods, ευδαιμονια, is complicated and restrained by the instability of social life and the variability of the interests of the members of the community. The answer therefore is to imagine plurality in the form of unity, and postulate as much of the pleasures of philosophical contemplation to the community as possible. The comparison of the individual and the community in the Republic appears in this view not as an attempt to get rid of the private but to make the community operate as far as possible as an individual:

"That is the kind of state then, I presume, that, when anyone of the citizens suffers aught of good or evil, will be most likely to speak of the part that suffers as its own and will share the pleasure or pain as a whole." (462 d-e)