This book review was written by Eugene Kernes
“”Doesn’t doing just things also
produce justice and unjust ones injustice”
| “Necessarily” | “To
produce health is to establish the parts of the body in a relation of masting,
and being mastered by, one another that is according to nature, while to
produce sickness is to establish a relation of ruling, and being ruled by, one
another that is contrary to nature.”
| “It is.” | “Then, in its turn,” I said, “isn’t to produce justice to
establish the parts of the soul in a relation of masting, and being masted by,
one another that is according to nature, while to produce injustice is to
establish a relation of ruling, and being ruled by, one another that is
contrary to nature?” | “Entirely so,” he said. |
“Virtue, then, as it seems, would be a certain health, beauty and good
condition of a soul, and vice a sickness, ugliness and weakness.”” – Plato,
Book II, Page 158
“”What else but what’s next?” I said. “Since philosophers are those who are able to
grasp what is always the same in all respects, while those who are not able to
do so but wander among what is many and varies in all ways are not
philosophers, which should be the leaders of a city?” | “How
should we put it so as to speak sensibly” he said. |
“Those who look as if they’re capable of guarding the laws and practices
of cities should be established as guardians.”
| “Right,” he said. | “But
is it plain,” I said, “whether it’s a blind guardian or a sharp-sighted one who
ought to keep watch over anything?”
| “of course it’s plain,” he
said. |
“Well, does there seem to be any difference, then, between blind men and
those men who are really deprived of the knowledge of what each thing is; those
who have no clear pattern in the soul, and are hence unable – after looking
off, as painters do, toward what is truest, and ever referring to it and
contemplating it as precisely as possible – to give laws about what is fine,
just, and good, if any need to be given, and as guardians to preserve those that
are already established?”” – Plato, Book VI, Page 192
“”Well, then, I suppose that if the nature we set down for
the philosopher chances on a suitable course of learning, it will necessarily
grow and come to every kind of virtue; but if it isn’t sown, planted, and
nourished in what’s suitable, it will come to all the opposite, unless one of
the gods chances to assist it. Or do you
too believe, as do the many, that certain young men are corrupted by sophists,
and that there are certain sophists who in a private capacity corrupt to an
extent worth mentioning? Isn’t it rather
the very men who say this who are the biggest sophists, who educate most
perfectly and who turn out young and old, men and women, just the way they want
them to be?”” – Plato, Book VI, Page 199
Is This An Overview?
The rule of the many cannot develop
a just society, for the many are corruptible.
Most people would be willing to do harm to others to help themselves,
but are prevented by the potential consequences of being caught. The corruptible are those who cannot
understand ideas that do not change, the perfect. The corruptible mislead others, and therefore
need to have their ideas removed from society.
Within society,
there are a few who can understand what is always the same, the
philosophers. The philosophers are those
in possession of knowledge that make them worthy of being rulers, creating a
necessary hierarchy. Philosophers can
become guardians of society, to preserve laws.
A just society needs philosopher-kings to lead them. For a philosopher-king can withstand the
corruption of the many, and educate the many to behave justly. The soul of these guardians is filled by
knowing that which is always the same, immortal and true.
What Did The Ancillary Authors Think?
The translator, and introductory author, claimed that The
Republic was not written to be reasonable, to make valuable claims, but to be a
drama of ideas. To be outrageous and
absurd. To provoke thought. To be read as dramatic irony rather than for
political ideas.
This claims seems to be problematic given that Plato’s
contemporaries did not treat Plato’s ideas in such a way, and by dismissing the
claims in the book removes Plato’s responsibility from the ideas.
Caveats?
This book is presented as a dialectic, a discussion of ideas, a dialogue. The discussion is an illusion. Plato uses Socrates as a method of explaining ideas, rather than explaining the ideas of Socrates the philosopher. The characters who are part of the discussion, sometimes provide readily overcome criticism, but throughout most of the conversation, they just accept and praise every Socrates claim. Deferring to Socrates rather than having a conversation with Socrates. Just like how the people who are ruled are meant to defer to the philosopher-king who is supposed to know the appropriate decision. The claims that are provided are generally flawed as they use irrelevant comparisons, have contradictions, and assume no possible alternative idea is acceptable.
