Synopsis for Plato’s Republic Books 1-3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Synopsis for Plato’s Republic Books 1-3. Prof. DePlato...

Description

Synopsis for Plato’s Republic Books 1-3 BOOK I: the conversation begins as the men ask Socrates to define justice. This obviously takes numerous books to do so because of Socrates question and method answer. Cephalus begins by discussing how as he gets older his desires change and he no longer wants younger pleasures but enjoys talking. So we still maintain selfish desires but the venue changes. Cephalus also says that our juvenile desires are an “insane master” implying that we are slaves to our human nature. He also discusses the love of money which boils down to love of pleasure since money=pleasure. He also says that old people cherish a just life more say than the young because they will die soon, so if they lived a just life this gives them hope. He says that wealth can lead a man to justice since they can treat the gods and others fairly if they have money (interestingly he mentions repaying the gods a debt is just in old age, and this is Socrates last words). The first mention to defining justice is that justice is not speaking the truth and repaying what one has borrowed (77). Than the conversation about justice gets started concerning who deserves just treatment: friends, bad people, etc? So are friends only just to their friends, or is giving each that which is appropriate for them justice? Than justice is described as a safekeeping device, but that would make it otherwise useless, not excellent and so not truly justice. Later justice is described as a craft that helps friends and harms enemies. Later it is used to say to treat friends who are good justly and enemies who are bad unjustly. Than it is said that good people cannot use their goodness to make people bad, perhaps implying that you can not punish a criminal if you yourself are good because our goodness wont effect them. It is than stated that it is never just to harm someone, so you definitely cant punish criminals. The next position presented is justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. So justice is now dependent to the parties involved, whoever is stronger makes the more just decision. However not all stronger parties (rulers, judges) make good laws so their subjects should not have to obey unjust laws despite the creators stronger status. They try to say that it is what the stronger believes is advantageous for himself to justify this discrepancy, however now justice is dependent on what one believes about oneself or another. Eventually they come to the conclusion that a ruler cannot justly make laws than only benefit himself. So could we say that the rulers act justly out of selfishness to keep the people happy/obedient and so the rulers maintain the power/wealth? There is also the discussion concerning how a just man always gets less than an unjust man, which seems unjust in itself. Than the matter of justly earning money is addressed, such as it is just for each person to pursue an individual craft for the benefit of all and themselves. People work to benefit their craft for money. So a person will only work justly if they are paid to do so. Is that justice? Getting what you deserve for acting? It is than said that people only pursue leadership positions without pay because they fear any other alternative ruler. Than it is debated which it is batter to be: just or unjust? Is justice noble naïveté and injustice being prudent as Thrasymachus says? Than they debate which is better. The just try t be better than the unjust, the unjust try to be better than the just and unjust. In the end Socrates says that a just person is good and wise and unjust person ignorant and bad. Also, injustice is ignorance and justice is wisdom (91). Also, injustice cause s fractions so even the unjust must be a little just for cooperation’s sake. Since injustice causes strife, is the opposite of strife justice? In this

case, injustice makes you not act and your own enemy, so your not really a threat to society than are you? But everybody is partially unjust and nobody is completely unjust (92). Later they approach justice through the function of the soul. The souls vice or the souls virtue determines the justice. Finally, anyone who lives well is just, which reinforces the wealth= justice idea. Our actions would than determine our happiness and our happiness determines our justness? At the end of book one Justice still has not been defined. A big point is that some compulsion or punishment forces people to rule, they desire a wage for it. That’s why it is a shame to want to rule without the need arising first. Anybody who wants to rule is power hungry and tyrannical. So you should look for the folks who never seek to rule, but than how do you make them rule? The best ruler is the one who never sought it. (88) BOOK II: Glaucon presents the idea that justice is decided by people who don’t want to be just and that’s because unjust people succeed. Justice is moderation between being unjust without a penalty and suffering injustice without revenge. However, justice honors equality through law, so justice is a result of law. Human nature is no different than the next, all persons would choose to pursue injustice. The best way to be unjust is to be believed to be just while actually really being unjust. So the motive for justice is also a factor to be removed before defining justice. However, this idea that the reputation matters more than real justice or injustice implies that the majority opinion matters more so than the truth. But the gods can see through reputation and as such judge fairly. However, good things fall to bad people and bad things to good people, so maybe the gods get confused? Society defines our view on justice since injustice is easy to live out except for its reputation in society (97). The ultimate goal remains pleasure. However the easiest way to get this is by appearing just, but do you actually have to be just? Not really. The just looking unjust man considers justice to be stupid. And even though we may want to be unjust we cant because of our fear of society and the majority opinion concerning injustice. If we actually believed or had proof that injustice is the greatest evil and justice the greatest good than we would be just. However, we are still unjust so there is no common proof for that. So justice and injustice must be judged independently of their reputation. The question than becomes what is the virtue of justice independent of the human nature? Next Socrates decided to establish what justice is by looking at a city. However this makes no sense since the city is made of people each with individual justices and that is what makes up the justice of the city. So a city is built for our pleasure and is based on human nature. An interesting side not, Socrates thinks that human nature is not the same for all (101). A city is built because we needed each other, and goods from each other, and but the needs created new needs, and it made the city grow big to fulfill new needs. Justice and injustice are not inherent in the city but are somewhere amongst the people of the city (perhaps between their needs from one another). The city based on need than becomes a city based on pleasure, and our desire for more pleasure leads to war. So now there needs to be guards in the city. The guards must have a unique nature, like a dog, both gentle to their friends and vicious to their enemies. These guards must be raised specifically for this specific craft of “guardian.” Firstly, raise them as kids in the music and physical training. For music they must be told good fairytales that do not portray

the god poorly. It is established that gods are good and good=good results and bad=harmful results, so gods are not the cause for everything since they cant bring the bad. So where does the evil come from in that case? Since it’s not the fickle gods? Socrates was really interested in defending the god’s reputation; he even pulls most of the crap about them out of the allowed education in his hypothetical city. So why did he care so much? Interesting side not, Socrates says that a god wouldn’t change himself to be worse than what he currently was…just want to throw Jesus out there. Than Socrates discusses what a true lie is, a lie without words to ourselves, and says that the gods and people (book 3 112) can’t lie. So why did Socrates want to change the image of the gods to make they seem better than they really were? It may be a nice thought, but he is crucially changing cultural norms by wiping out the evilness of the gods. In the end, Socrates says that the guardians must be god-like (or at least his definition of “god”). There is still no definition of justice or injustice (since now both are to be defined). BOOK III: this book mostly talks about how the guardians are to be raised so that they will be perfect for their craft. For starters they can’t fear death, but they should fear being seen as cowardly. It seems they are to be ignorant since most literature and current culture is to be hidden from them in order to brainwash them into this perfect god-like state. No one can tell lies, or they will be punished (is that not a form of justice? 112). They brainwash the guardians to not be passionate, especially about worldly pleasures. They also want them to respect their commanders and persevere. They encourage these things by only revealing some of the stories about the gods and throwing out the rest. The mindset that the unjust are happy and profitable and the just are unhappy and suffer losses is not allowed. Not only does the story matter, but the style matters too, be it imitation or narration. The guards should be imitators but of only a specific set, so the imitation stories must be limited to only what will further their god-likeness. They must imitate that which is courageous and important to their craft and nothing else since people can only adequately imitate one thing. Only imitation of a good man would be proper to read, not of a women, madmen, servants, or people of other crafts (116). The perfect guardian will be unwilling to imitate these lesser figures. Then there are the different styles, like multifarious or pure sound. We must imitate the pure sound although the multifarious is liked by the masses. The multifarious man can’t be trusted since you can only imitate one thing well. Basically the guardians have no freedom of speech. Why is so much effort being put into brainwashing the guards but justice still can’t be defined? Is it even just to brainwash them like this? Even music must be only that which is pre-approved to promote qualities Socrates deems appropriate for the guardians. The instruments of course can not be multi-stringed, but only one pure craft. However now that we’ve pulled so much from this city’s guardians the city has become less one of pleasure an more one of indoctrination. Music creates food character since good rhythm=fine speech and fine speech leads to harmony which is good. In the end the print and art must be censored. In fact everything is censored in order to influence people to be good. They are creating an environment that will produce good people. Since a musical person loves a harmonious person (due to their fine habits) than they must watch their passionate loves. So pleasure and passion must be moderated. Someone of extreme passion is

untrained and lacking appreciation. It is a sing of disharmony. Next we come to physical training of the guardians. They must be trained like with the music: only that which will encourage wisdom, obedience, dog-like, god-like qualities. Even their food is specific. Than we wonder into how it is shameful for one to have to practice their craft for purposes not originally intended (123). Also, how the poor craftsman can’t afford to be sick but a rich man can. So a rich man stays alive in illness longer than the poor man even though it would be better if he would die. Than the story of Asclepius comes in and how he played god, deciding who could or couldn’t live based on whether the illness was terminal or not. It is established that to heal the body one must heal the soul, which is not a doctors job. Also, the idea that the unjust do win by tricking the just who can’t understand injustice since they’ve never been unjust. As such only old people can be judges. Than we step into ideas of eugenics and who should get to live and who gets to be the judge of that (125). To get back to the guardians, both musical and physical training is needed for the sake of the soul. Both are needed to create harmony for the guardians to achieve the character Socrates wants for them. Next is the question of who should rule the city. The best choice is the best of the guardians (a military ruler). They must love the city and find pleasure in its advancement. They cant discard their belief for what is best for the city through involuntary methods (like argument, persuasion, time). There must be competitions to see what they are made of. They must be capable of guarding against external enemies so that they don’t get power and internal friends so that they don’t do any evil. Next Socrates describes a lie that the guardians come from the earth and have gold and silver in them that determines their status. So humans have an inherent nature that tells them what they will be socio-economically in life. The only way this story could successfully spread is through tradition. The last thing addressed is where the guardians will live. They must live separately from the other citizens because they are above the other citizens. If they use their warrior training to live like normal they become tyrannical. They must be allies to citizens, not masters of citizens. At this point I’m thoroughly confused to how this will be brought back to defining justice and injustice. PROMPT: The prompt was what was Plato’s motivation and inspiration for this definition of justice? Why does he value justice so much? Probably because Socrates valued justice so much. It is an inherent part to people, cities, human nature, life, and religion. As such a good definition for it needs to be defined. Plato was probably motivated to write this because he wanted Socrates teaching’s to live on. A lot of Socrates teachings focused on ideas of justice. So this ultimate writing concerning every facet of how justice is defined is crucial for understanding Socrates philosophy, not just of justice but his entire philosophy in general. This writing addresses more than just a definition of justice and injustice (obviously seen by its length) but also what justice isn’t, what could be seen as just, what role the gods have in this, and more but I haven’t read it all yet. Perhaps Plato wrote this so there could be one, well-argued definition of justice for all to agree upon. IN CLASS: Socrates tries to tell how to create a society that breeds happiness all the time. In Socrates mind justice is happiness. Perhaps this was a eulogy to Socrates, showing why

the Athenians were wrong to destroy this kind of man. Socrates proves the value and the possibility of the just perfect city. Enjoying old age relies on living moderately and controlling pleasure in youth, because giving into desires of pleasures is like being a slave. Its like having an addiction. Getting the pleasure is harder to do the older you get, so you must control it in your youth. Moderation leads to happiness and frees us from insane masters. In the end Socrates says that a man will be just for the benefit of their soul. CEPHALUS: pay debts and be honest, but Socrates brings in the madman and you must not think only the individual sense but the collective action (public and private). I can’t be condemned for not knowing everything but because the outcome was so bad (like someone’s death) you are know liable. POLEMARCHUS: be positive to your friends and negative to your enemies. This is more like retribution, action and benefit for the sake of yourself. We don’t really know if a person is good or bad, so we can’t really treat our friends and our enemies as good or bad. That’s because human’s have bad judgment. But nobody takes responsibilities for these actions, so we continue to live in madness and chaos of random destructive acts. Using knowledge and prudence is not fun but if all decisions were made this way than their would be no enemies. Your actions should make a positive effect (being wellthough out) not a negative effect (being reckless). THRASYMACHUS: what is advantageous for the stronger. Survival of the fittest. Justice is a relevant term, its just the manifestation of the strongest man’s will. Than they validate the laws by calling them “just.” So the rulers are just oppressive forces. In Plato’s mind we should know whether the rulers are ruling in the interest of the people or themselves. Sincerity comes from the words sine cera (without wax). Having to do with painting and art. The emotional power of justice guilt’s you into agreeing with what the rulers say, but he says to wake up and listen logically. Like with a doctor, it is in their benefit to make you happy. So for the law it is in their benefit to make you happy in order to maintain their good reputation. It is a rulers purpose to give justice, and everybody wants to continue to have the opportunity to do their purpose. Rulers will tell you sincerely that every law they make is to make you happy and is just. But despite all their sincerity you can’t really trust them because you don’t know what their interest are. An unjust ruler is killed. GLAUCON: no one is just just for the sake of being just. When there is no consequence for your action we are very muchly unjust. What motivates your action? your reputation or the value and virtue of the action? Have a reputation of justice because it will get you praise and rewards. He argues tat our motives are al about protecting ourselves not because we value justice. Socrates refutes this by saying that parents don’t teach their kids to lie, cheat and steal. The idea of teaching a child to be a criminal is illogical. We believe the virtue brings with it positive things, so we raise children with virtue to better our family name. Next they discuss the spreading of information and how ideas are past in stories. Some authors may present these as lies and corrupt the people. The arts are the best way to share these lies, why? Because it

has power, why? Because the arts are a pleasantry which is a vice of the soul, in order to improve out souls we must control this vice. Arts control our emotions which control us and as such it has power. Socrates says that the goal of society is to move people into order and good away from evil and chaos. The way that society moves us is through law and education, because than we have a greater appreciation for the good and the order. THEORY OF SPECIALIZATUION Craft. Man must pursue the craft that is innate in them. Each of us only has one craft. If your in the wrong craft you produce crappy products. It is rational to pursue the thing your good at and than do it all the time. In reality we have a bunch of hobby chasers, not people pursuing their crafts. Socrates says you will inherently know your craft, while others will imitate your craft. The one who really is in their nature to do their craft will produce it well, but the imitators will produce a lesser product. In the modern day we think truth is relative and all is conditional. Socrates would say that is incorrect but you must be able to refute and understand ideas and knowledge results from critical thinking. Education must be rigorous because you can only be taught in structure. So always search for the truth but at some point you have to trust the teachers because if you don’t you’ll have a seed of doubt concerning all knowledge. At the end of book 3, the myth of the metals. The rulers get the gold, the warriors get silver and the producers get bronze. People can not move around their classes. But this myth is really about ???? not value but…..their scarcity of resource in society. There is less gold in society and their craft is rarer, however there is plenty of bronze and also plenty of crafts for producers. This is conjunctive/ parallel to the soul. The guardians are rational, the warriors are spiritual and the producers and appetitive. He sees that everybody’s role and purpose in ...