FREE ESSAY ON PLATO'S REPUBLIC

PLATO'S REPUBLIC

Plato was a philosopher in the time of the distinguished Greek philosophers. He wrote a
book entitled The Republic in which he explains some of his philosophy on subjects
ranging from education to government. The Republic discusses the nature of justice and
the institutions of society. In some ways it is idealistic in that it describes Plato's
ideal society. But it also deals with human knowledge, the purpose and composition of
education, and the nature of science. The principle of justice is the main theme of The
Republic. Plato makes a connection between the principle of justice and his Theory of
Forms in The Republic. When talking about the Ideal State, Plato is saying that one
should never act without knowledge. So, if one wished to build a just city, they should
only do so after they have understood the meaning of justice. But they cannot achieve an
understanding of true justice until they have grasped the Form of Justice itself. Plato
refers to his Theory of Forms throughout the dialogue, as it plays a major role in
understanding his views of an Ideal State. Socrates is the main character and Plato uses
Socrates as to voice his own opinions about his Ideal State. Through a series of
questions, Socrates attempts to help his companions discover their own ignorance, since
the starting point of philosophy is the realization that you do not have knowledge.
Socrates is always at the center of the discussion and is often contemptuous and
ironical, but he never strays from the importance of the subject being discussed.
Socrates first states that justice is a good character. He then seeks agreement that no
excellence is achieved through destructive means. The function of justice is to improve
human nature, which is inherently constructive. Therefore, at a minimum, justice is a
form of goodness that cannot be involved in injuring someone's character. Justice, in
short, is a virtue, a human excellence. His next point is that acting in accordance with
excellence brings happiness. Then he ties excellence to one's function. His examples are
those of the senses -- each sensory organ is excellent if it performs its function, as
the eye sees, the ear hears. Therefore, the just person is a happy person is a person who
performs his function. Since these are tied together, injustice can never exceed these
virtues and so justice is stronger and is the good.
However, Socrates does not stop there. He goes on to examine the question of the nature
of justice and the just life. He identifies the four of the Athenian virtues: wisdom,
courage, moderation, and justice. For the bulk of the book, he looks at each virtue
separately in terms of the perfect city state, but our focus is on justice. But he makes
the point that justice, of the virtues, resides in man's relations to other men, not just
in man as an individual. Thus, it is an excellence in social organization and in the
organization of the human soul. So justice is a virtue, which must be connected to the
function of efficient and healthful cooperation. Justice is in one sense the greatest
virtue for it is key to making the other virtues work together for the common good. If
all the parts are to work together as a whole, each must have on function to excel at.
Like the organs of the body, all contribute to the whole, but the eyes only see, the ears
only hear. They do not share functions. Using this analogy, justice would be something
like the moral mind which guides the body in its activities. Justice, then is the head,
at the top of the hierarchy in social terms. When the other three virtues work together
in orderly fashion within the state, justice is produced. But for justice to be produced,
it must come from everyone doing his assigned function under the excellent guidance of
the ruling class.
Plato attempts to demonstrate through the character and discourse of Socrates that
justice is better than injustice and that justice is the good which men must strive for,
regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use
dialectic, the asking and answering of questions which led the hearer from one point to
another, supposedly with irrefutable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before
going on to the next, and so building an argument.
Early on, his two young listeners pose the question of whether justice is stronger than
injustice, what each does to a man, and what makes the first good and the second bad. In
answering this question, Socrates deals directly with the philosophy of the individual's
goodness and virtue, but also ties it to his concept of the perfect state, which is a
republic of three classes of people with a rigid social structure and little in the way
of amusement. Although Socrates returns time and again to the concept of justice in his
discourse on the perfect city-state, much of it seems off the original subject. One of
his main points, however, is that goodness is doing what is best for the common, greater
good rather than for individual happiness. There is a real sense in which his philosophy
turns on the concepts of virtue, and his belief that ultimately virtue is its own
reward.
Despite his emphasis of justice as a function of the perfect state, Socrates also deals
with justice as a personal virtue. He finds that there is a parallel between the
organization of the state and the organization of the individual. Just as there are three
virtues other than justice, Socrates finds three parts in the individual soul --
sensation, emotion, and intelligence. The just person then must have balance between
these aspects. Each must function in moderation to contribute to the health of the whole.
Appetite and sensation are matters of desire. Desire must be subordinate to reason, or
else they will throw the individual out of balance and lead him into injustice and
unhappiness. Emotion (spirit and will) also can master desire. The alliance of emotion
and reason is similar, Socrates says, to the rulers and the guardians in the state. Thus,
the individual is a miniature state, and justice in the soul is like justice in the
state.
In the opposite case, the situation of the unjust, whether state or individual, desires
hold a tyranny. Because there is a lack of internal control, outside things move the
unjust around at will. Thus the unjust lives a life of fear and anxiety, the fruit of
being out of control. Socrates asserts that only the man of reason has pure pleasures.
All others have varying degrees of unhappiness. By equating the philosopher with the man
of pure reason, he sets up a situation where proof is not so much necessary for any of
his points as it is to say that the philosopher, the only one who sees clearly, says so.
Interestingly, Socrates couches a form of despotism in terms which are intended to seem
benevolent. Since happiness is the sign of justice, and pleasure is one sign of
happiness, then the just person is the happy person. Interestingly, he equates true
pleasure with knowledge, the province of reason and the philosopher. Socrates and had
virtually the same beliefs about man's relation to the State, although Plato's political
theory of the State was more rational than Socrates. Socrates and Plato believed that man
was not self-sufficient, they believed man would be most happy living in a State.
They also believed that all men wanted to live the truly good life where they could be in
tune with the truth and achieve their ultimate goals. Plato's view is more rational than
Socrates' in the sense that he created an ideal State. These philosophers that were from
ancient Greece believed that no man was self-sufficient enough to live on his own. Plato
believed A State comes into existence because no individual is self-sufficing. This
indicate the importance of a State to an individual according to Plato. These two
philosophers believed that man would be much happier if he was part of a State rather
than on his own. Socrates once stated, We are all more productive if we specialize in one
thing rather than try to excel at many things. As Socrates stated above within the State
you would specialize in one thing only, while a different individual would specialize in
something else and this would allow the quality and the quantity of the product to
increase. 
Plato, who concerned himself with the truly good life for man, it was imperative to
determine the true function of the State. He believed that the State was crucial in order
for man to live a good life. Plato wrote that a proper government would lead to a
peaceful, ordered society in which all humans needs are met. Meeting the needs of the
people was very important within the State, and to help meet the needs of the people
Plato thought that the relationship between the individual and the State would be similar
to the relationship between parents and their children. This meant that the government
would have power over the people but the people would be considered in the decision
making. Socrates also believed in man's true happiness, which is what is in man's best
interest, not just something that will make him temporarily happy, such as alcohol. He
believed that in the 'Just State' was where man would be truly happy.
Plato's political theory is developed in close connection with his ethics. He believed
strongly in the wants of man, The State does not exist simply in order to further the
economic need of men, for man is not simply 'Economic Man,' but for happiness, to develop
them in the good life. In Plato's Republic we wanted poets, but he also objected to the
way they speak about the gods, and the way that they portrayed immoral characters.
Therefore if he was going to have poets in his State they would have to produce examples
of good moral character, and Lyric poetry would only be allowed under strict supervision
of the State authorities. Socrates also says that Women are to be trained as men: in the
ideal State they will not simply stay at home and mind the baby, but will be trained in
music and gymnastics and military discipline! just like men. These regulations and
theories were part of Plato's Ideal State. By creating an ideal State Plato was
expressing the only way the State would be run and remain successful according to his
point of view.
Plato thought long and hard about what would be the perfect system of government. He
thought that everyone should be educated from birth to the highest level possible for
their abilities and interest. This would then result in three classes of people. The
first being the minority ruling class who were able to reach the highest level of
education by the virtue of wisdom. This class would in turn be supported by the military
class who were able to boast courage as their virtue. In turn, they would be supported by
the merchant class whose unique virtue was temperance. The military class and merchant
class would be the less educated people who were destined to this role by the mere fact
of who they descended from. The same can be said of the ruling class, whose families were
educated as well. The three virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance were accompanied by
a fourth, justice. Justice characterized the people as a whole. 
Plato also thought that philosophers should be kings. 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. Plato regards a philosopher
as some one who loves wisdom. The philosopher has passion for knowledge and wants to keep
expanding his brain. A true philosopher is characterized by his love for the truth. Plato
defends his theory of a philosopher making the best king by writing, a good ruler must
have a good character as well as a good mind; he must always be truthful, high-minded and
disciplined, and never mean, petty, or cowardly. A philosopher will satisfy these
requirements. For example since the philosopher loves truth he will always be honest.
Money or possessions will not matter to him. Thus he will rule for the good of the state
and try to better the society.
Plato talkes about the Theory of Form at book V. It is here that he compares knowledge
and belief. Socrates points out that to know is to know some thing; thus, knowledge must
have objects. Likewise, to believe is to believe something; therefore, belief also must
have objects. But knowledge is different from belief in that knowledge is infallible.
Knowledge also involves the fact that the thing known exists. The objects of knowledge
are also unchanging and eternal. Belief, on the other hand, may be true or false and the
objects of beliefs may or may not exist. The distinction between actual objects and ideal
objects are also discussed in Book V. Actual objects are the objects of opinion and
sensation and the ideal objects are the objects of knowledge and intellect. This
distinction is crucial to Plato's Theory of Forms. There are forms of things and forms of
thought, and it is the forms of thought that the philosopher is concerned with. An
example of a form of thought is beauty. The man who sees beauty itself has knowledge and
the man who sees only beautiful things has mere belief. A person who sees a rose may
believe that the rose is beautiful, but they do not really understand the nature of
beauty itself, they are only basing their opinion on the image of the rose. However,
philosophers realize that the ordinary things of life, such as the rose, are nothing but
fleeting and changeable images of what is truly real (the forms). Therefore, only
philosophers can be said to have knowledge. Images, such as the rose, can be beautiful
one day, but, over time, may become less beautiful or not beautiful at all, such as
shriveled, dying roses. But the idea of beauty never decays and is eternal. Plato says
that the reason that the Forms are truly real is because only something that never
changes is real in the fullest sense. The ordinary objects around us a real only in a
secondary sense and these are images or imperfect copies of the Forms.
Socrates's Allegory of the Cave describes how most people are trapped in their own little
world, oblivious to what is really going on around them. The story is basically made up
of five parts, the shadow, the fire, the common man, the ascending man, and the
descending man. The shadow represents what is perhaps Plato's most difficult philosophy
to understand. The idea of forms was an original idea of Plato that has held up under the
scrutiny of many until even the present day. According to Plato, things you can see,
feel, or touch for example, a chair, are not a genuine article, but merely a shadow of
the real thing. He believed that these forms existed in parallel somewhere, and had was
the essence of the real thing. For example, the form of a chair exists somewhere, and
embodies everything that all chairs have in common. It doesn't mean that we can describe
it, because not all chairs have four legs, or any legs for that matter. Not all chairs
are meant to be sat in, or have arms. What does every chair have in common? No one can
fully answer that question. When stated like this it can easily be understood, but when
someone asks what all chairs have in common, or what all windows have in common, the idea
of this form becomes cloudy because these questions can not be answered. The same can
said about a truly just decision, or an action . He believed the same about ideas, such
as truth and justice. For example when I perform a just act, it is just because it
conforms to the ideal form of justice. The idea of forms is carried on to earth by the
fact that all things such as ideas, and objects have a tangible existence. We act out
these ideas, and make chairs, therefore they are tangible. 
The second idea in the Allegory of the Cave is the common man. According to Plato, they
represent all people before they are fully educated. The common man sees nothing but the
shadows on the wall of the cave. These shadows represent everything that we have ever
seen, and since they are the only things we have ever seen, they constitute all that is
real to us. Being fully educated involves the ability to see everything, including all
that is outside the cave. The third part, the fire, is merely there to shed light on the
forms, casting a shadow into the cave. Thus creating the only reality that the common man
sees.The fourth part is the ascending man. This is the one man who manages to emerge from
the cave that shelters the common man. Once he comes out, he finally understands the
forms, and becomes fully educated. He sees that the shadows only hinted at the truth of
reality. The fire can give you a vague idea of what the reality of things are, but until
you surface, then you only see the shadow of reality. The final part is the descending
man. He's the person who came out of the cave and became enlightened. He's on his way
back to tell the others what he's learned, and try to get them to understand that there
really is more to life than the shadows that everyone sees. 
The story that basically tells us of Socrates trial by his peers because of what he saw
that they could not. The man in the cave tried to return to the cave after being
released, so that they might experience some of the beauty that he was allowed to view.
He was murdered for his attempts to persuade. Truly in our times we have many freedoms
including that of free speech. But our taking advantage of those freedoms, not using them
for positive thought, puts us in that cave. The only way to release ourselves from the
malaise or bonds of everyday lives, is to attempt to see every situation or thought as
valuable in some way. We owe it to philosophers to at least give their beliefs an honest
evaluation without condemning them. We all know what exists outside the cave. The people
in the cave however, truly believe that the man allowed to leave was psychotic when he
told them of what he had seen. ...all the customary rules of religion and moral conduct
imposed on the individual by social sanctions have their origin in human intelligence and
will and always rest on tacit consent. They are neither laws of nature nor divine
enactments, but conventions which man who made them can alter, as laws are changed or
repealed by legislative bodies. It is assumed that, if all these artificial restraints
were removed, the natural man would be left only with purely egotistic instincts and
desires, which he would indulge in all that Thrasymachus commended as injustice. 
Plato continues his discussion of Forms later on. Socrates is trying to convince his
companions why a philosopher would make the best king. On reason is that being a
philosopher, the king will have knowledge of the Forms, and therefore have true
knowledge. It is very important to Plato for a ruler to have knowledge of Justice and
Goodness, so that he may administer justice and act for the good of his people. The Form
of Goodness is the highest and most important of all the Forms, it is not on a level with
the other forms, for the other Forms derive their truth and reality from Goodness.
Socrates goes on to use an analogy of the sun to explain the highest for of knowledge,
Goodness. Light is what makes things visible and the best source of light is the sun. The
sun is not the same as visible things, but it is what makes vision itself possible.
Similarly, the good is not the same as the objects of knowledge, but it is the source of
knowledge. To see requires sun, to know requires reason. The analogy can be stated as,
the idea of good is to reasoning as the sun is to seeing. Also in this book, Pluto
expands on his distinction between knowledge and belief. He divides them into four kinds
of objects. There are two degrees of knowledge and two degrees of belief. The highest
degree of knowledge is Goodness, followed by the other Forms. The first degree of belief
are physical objects, as the second degree of belief are shadows and images of the
physical objects. 
In the last book, Plato criticizes poetry and the fine arts. Plato feels that art is
merely the imitation of the imitation of reality, and that poetry corrupts the soul.
Socrates says that artists merely create things. As an example, if a painter draws a
couch on his canvas, he is creating a couch. But the couch he creates is not the real
couch, it is nothing but a copy of an ordinary, physical couch which was created by a
craftsman. But the ordinary, physical couch is nothing more than an imperfect copy, or
image of the Form of Couch. So, the couch on the canvas is nothing but a copy of a copy
of the real couch and is therefore three times removed from reality. Socrates then goes
on to explain that an artist's knowledge is also third-rate. If an artist is painting a
picture of a table, for example, he is copying a table that has been manufactured by a
furniture-maker, and this furniture-maker has more knowledge of the table than the
painter does. But there is someone who has ever more knowledge about the table, the
person who wants to have the table made. He is the one who gives the furniture-maker
instructions to follow when making the table, according to its purpose for the buyer. So,
the buyer of the table knows more about the table than the furniture-maker, and the
furniture-maker knows more about the table than the painter. Socrates believes that only
philosophers have the first-hand knowledge of things, since they believe in The Forms.
Socrates also denounces Homer. Socrates feels that in his writing, Homer has pretended to
be people he is not, such as a politician, general, businessman, teacher, and
philosopher. Socrates feels this is wrong because Homer is claiming to be able to perform
these functions that he has written about, but never really performed himself. He feels
that Homer is abandoning reality. Plato feels that poetry has no place in his Ideal
State, and should be banished until it can show itself to be a friend of philosophy. 
Socrates also mentions about the existence of an immortal soul. With this concession, he
makes the point that good is that which preserves and benefits. Justice is good, so it
therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though
a man may wish to behave badly when no one is looking, as with the myth of the ring of
Gyges, in fact, behaving justly will have the most rewards.
The Republic was Plato's ways of expressing his Theory of Forms and Justice. The main
idea perhaps is to make people understand that there can be no justice within a society
whose people are not just within themselves. There needs to be an internal justice,
within the people, and within each person, in order to bring peace to the society. From
reading the Republic, I realized that some issues he mentions are very clear, and some
are not clear since I live in a different society and time. Plato does not describe his
ideal society in great detail since he is considered with the ideal idea itself, and it
is hard for me as a materialist to understand without seeing. One thing that is clear is
that Plato tries to defend his theory all along and lets us, the unknowledged, experience
a glimpse of the good. Plato's belief seemed that life was to involve a movement upward
toward the good, as this was a movement of the Soul. 
Bibliography
Plato. Republic Penguin Books, NY 1987