“You know also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.”
– Plato’s “Republic” (written around 375 BC), Book II – spoken through the character of “Socrates,” whose depiction in “The Republic” probably does not represent the actual views of the historical Socrates (although his depiction in some other Plato dialogues may really do so)
I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek …
My first encounter with the ideas of Plato was in an intro to philosophy class in 2005. I became particularly interested in his work “The Republic,” and later read the work in English translation during the winter of 2006-2007. At that time, it was for my own amusement, and I read it all the way through in English. Later, the book was assigned for an intro to ethics class in 2009 (which was also a philosophy class). But this time, it was for an accelerated summer class, so I was forced to limit myself to just the assigned parts of it. I figured that if I had read the work all the way through long before this, then I didn’t need to read the entire work this time around. Later on, I learned the Ancient Greek language. Thus, I was brave enough to want to tackle the entirety of “The Republic” in the original. Now, I have finally finished doing so – a task that took me roughly four years. (Specifically, I read it from February 2019 through February 2023.)
Plato
… but I’m still not convinced by his arguments, or by the “philosopher-king” that he proposes
The Greek title of Plato’s “Republic” is ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ (“Politeia”). It has many translations, including “constitution.” Nonetheless, it might be best translated as “political entity.” In English, the work is ironically known as “The Republic” – but by modern standards, this is something of a misnomer. His “political entity” is far different from what we would today consider a “republic.” James Madison defined a “republic” as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place” (Source: Federalist No. 10). But this does not describe the “ideal” state of Plato. Rather, Plato’s “ideal state” is led by a philosopher-king with absolute power. Plato actually clarifies that he is all right with having a female ruler leading his ideal state, something which was quite radical for the time. Nonetheless, the ruler is popularly known as the “philosopher-king,” rather than a “philosopher-queen” or gender-neutral “philosopher-monarch.” But for simplicity’s sake, I will just use the common title of the “philosopher-king” here. Whatever the ruler’s gender, giving them absolute power would seem to bring numerous problems with it. This may be especially true, when this person is to rule for life as Plato advocates here. It appears to both ancient and modern readers like the philosopher-king will have many opportunities to abuse his power. Thus, Plato tries to reassure his readers that this will not happen. He says that the ruler will not be allowed to own money, or to have a normal family life. Thus, Plato claims that the ruler will not have a motive to abuse his power. But it seems that a ruler who’s this powerful would be able to overturn these restrictions at his own will and pleasure, destroying their value as safeguards against tyranny.
Plato
The role of education and censorship in this state, and assigning people into three classes
Plato has much to say about the role of education in his “ideal state.” He believes that all children should have instruction in the arts and literature, since these things help to teach moral values. But he believes that the state should exercise control over what children (or anyone) can view and read. He has many criticisms of artists and writers, believing that they corrupt the young by making wrongdoing appear attractive, and even necessary to the wrongdoer. Thus, he advocates censorship for all ages, with the philosopher-king controlling all information. Again, there seems to be a potential for this power to be abused – making this proposal seem a bit problematic, to say the least. But let’s move on to another aspect of “The Republic.” Plato also believes that children should be assigned into three classes – the artisans, the auxiliaries (i.e. administrators), and – most importantly – the “guardians.” These assignments would happen at an early age, and would last for the rest of their lives. Ironically, this theory is defended even by many who purport to oppose “social classes,” and who claim that people’s abilities are naturally equal. Plato certainly rejects these beliefs, since he believes that people have natural differences in ability which are permanent, and which merit this kind of assignment to social classes. He seems to give no indication that these assignments ever should (or could) be revoked.
The philosopher-king can arrange people’s occupations – and even their marriages
Of these three classes, the aforementioned “guardian” class would produce the philosopher-king. Thus, the future philosopher-king would be instructed from a very early age about how to rule. As the name “philosopher-king” suggests, he would be instructed in philosophy – and some other related topics that Plato also suggests. Some of this curriculum may actually be good, although it’s unclear how this is all connected with their performance as rulers. If the people have democratically chosen someone, then disqualifying them on the grounds of their educational background would seem a little strange. But as mentioned earlier, the people’s assignments to classes would be permanent and unchangeable. They would even be constrained into particular occupations, for which the philosopher-king believes them to be well-suited. How the philosopher-king would know all of this better than the people themselves is not really clear here. Most disturbingly, the philosopher-king would have power to arrange their marriages, to promote “good breeding” among the people. This is an idea now known as “eugenics,” and it has rightly been condemned today. Even many self-described advocates of Plato’s “ideal state” condemn this, since they are disturbed by this particular aspect of “The Republic.”
Plato
It seems fair to say that Plato’s “Republic” lacks any theory of individual rights at all
But the most serious problem may be the subordination of the individual to the state. It seems fair to say that Plato’s “Republic” lacks any theory of individual rights at all. This, in and of itself, would tend to make Plato’s “Republic” into something far less than an ideal state. There are other parts of the work that I admire, such as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. I have mixed feelings about some other parts of the work “Republic,” such as Plato’s theory of forms – or his taxonomy of different kinds of governments. This taxonomy would influence that of Plato’s student Aristotle. But the political ideas of “The Republic” – the ideas for which the work is best known – would seem to be a bit on the faulty side. It is one of the best-known utopian schemes ever to be proposed, although not necessarily the best-admired of them. Indeed, it would seem that this scheme leads to a certain amount of dictatorship, even if it is intended to be for the “good of the people” (which it may well be).
“The Republic” probably reflects the ideas of Plato, rather than those of Socrates
In Plato’s “Republic,” these ideas are presented by a character named “Socrates,” who had been Plato’s teacher some years earlier. In other Plato dialogues, the character named “Socrates” is the one who determines the direction of these dialogues. This is also true of the discussion contained in “The Republic.” But there is a crucial difference here, which is that these other Plato dialogues probably represent the actual views of the historical Socrates, while Plato’s “Republic” almost certainly does not. Rather, most scholars believe that Plato’s “Republic” probably only represents the ideas of Plato. Indeed, “The Republic” was written around 375 BC, some 24 years after the unfortunate death of Socrates by execution. In this period, Plato had plenty of ideas of his own for which to advocate, and expounded them in his two longest dialogues. One of these was the “Laws,” while the other was the more famous “Republic.” It seems unlikely that Socrates would have committed himself to such specific details about any kind of proposed “ideal state,” given that he humbly proclaimed his lack of knowledge about such things (or anything else). Thus, it seems more likely that these ideas instead come from the brain of Plato, who was much more comfortable with speculating about specifics – many of which have never been supported by evidence, in all the centuries since his time.
Socrates, who had been Plato’s teacher some years earlier
Conclusion: Plato’s “ideal state” has some serious, even unavoidable, problems
Thus, there are serious problems with the “ideal state” proposed by Plato’s “Republic.” The mere idea of having a “philosopher-king” with absolute power is frightening to anyone who believes in liberty, and so are the other social programs presented in “The Republic.” I confess myself suspicious of any utopian scheme, however well-intentioned such a scheme might be – and I acknowledge that Plato’s intentions seem to have been pure here. In fairness to Plato, he did not have the benefit of the hindsight that we now have about these matters. But historical developments since his time seem to contradict most of his proposals, suggesting that this so-called “ideal state” really isn’t much of an ideal. Rather than being a utopia, it seems to be at the other end of the spectrum – a hellish dystopia. There is controversy today about whether Plato’s ideas have ever been tested, just as there is controversy about whether Marx’s ideas have ever been tested. (More about that here.) But one thing seems clear here: there are no success stories for Plato’s proposed utopia, and there are many totalitarian nightmares that have followed the endowment of a particular ruler with absolute power. This evidence thus seems to contradict the political claims of Plato’s “Republic,” suggesting that its results may not measure up to their lofty (and noble) intentions.
Footnote to this blog post:
Plato’s “Republic” was criticized by a number of America’s Founding Fathers. Specifically, it was criticized by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and also by one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. (For evidence of this, see this blog post.)
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Part of a series about
Political philosophy
Plato’s “Republic”
Others to be covered later
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment