The Republic

Why is it determined that justice is good in itself?

Because if justice means health of the soul, it does not matter if anyone else thinks that justice is good

Education in the Republic

-Categories: Musical and gymnastics

Glaucon

-Closest disciple of Socrates and the older brother of Plato -He can be considered the embodiment of conventional thought -Most interested in determining what justice means

Thrasymachus

-Incredibly aggressive -Acts as the embodiment of tyranny and explosively interrupts in book one and claims that Socrates is just messing with Polemarchus and that he just wants to show off how 'wise' he is, Socrates replies that Thrasymachus only looks at people as potential customers -He is a paid teacher/teaches people how to give speeches Justice: Is the interest of the strongest

Polemarchus

-Invites Socrates to his home -Originally is eager for conversation -Son of Cephalus -Heir to his thoughts and possessions and takes up his argument when Cephalus leaves -Better man than his father because he can admit when he is confused Justice: Builds on his dad's definition that it is giving each man what he deserves by saying it is also specifically being good to one's friends and bad to one's enemies

Beginning of the city

-Socrates asks how justice fits into the city and Adeimantus suggests it has something to do with the way various people relate to one another -Socrates says the city comes about because people have to rely on others -Originally the city was sparse but then Glaucon says that the state needs to be more luxurious which leads to the need of an army -They decide the most important thing will be guarding the city

Community Family life aspects

-The guardians will choose which women and men can reproduce -marriages last only one night -Prevention of sleeping with other family members through age group classification

Cephalus

-Urbane, rich, foreigner who is a legal resident in Athens -Father of Polemarchus -There is a conversation about what is made/earned and it appears that his father made a lot of money, the Dad spend a lot of it, Cephalus seems to have made some of it back and it stems the attack of loving something because it is yours versus loving something for what it is, it is suggested that Cephalus is attached to what is his -He obviously does not respect that his father over spent money and thus loves the money as more than just use -He is forced out of the conversation -Does not seem to want to talk about justice when the topic switches from talking about wealth and abruptly leaves Justice: Giving each man what he deserves

Imitation

-imitation is disliked because they had said earlier that people should mind their own business and do what they are best at, imitators do not specialize in any one thing so they should not be supported -only imitation that will be supported is one where they are imitating good things -A good poet will be crowned and recognized as having skills but then kicked out -afterlife should not be seen as scary so as to prevent the guardians becoming scared -comedies and tragedies banned

Benefits of community family life

-liberation from family life -trying to prevent love of one's own through emphasis on the community

Musical education

-myths told to children need to be regulated because those myths do not depict gods that are admirable -Does not claim that he knows the truth of the gods but that he does know how to recognize when something is false

What are the differing views on justice

1. Cephalus: Justice is giving what is owed --> Polemarchus: Justice is giving good to friends and evil to enemies 2. Thrasymachus: Justice is the interest of the stronger

What are the three waves of social change that Socrates wants to institute?

1. Same education and practices for women and men 2. Community of shared women and children 3. Philosopher kings should rule

How many people are present?

11

Gymnastics

A healthy soul will naturally want a healthy body Austere diet but not an extreme exercise regime -music and athletics should be indulged in in a way that is good for the soul and is thus in moderation

Happiness (IV)

Adeimantus wants to know how Socrates can defend a city where the things that make people happy would be banned -Socrates says that they need to consider happiness in the whole -He also would not be surprised if the guardians actually were happy

Why does Socrates not like laughter or grief?

Because he wants to encourage things that are moderate because they only want things that are good for the soul and those things are not moderate

Myth of the metals

Because ruling the city is such an important job, and because even wise men can lose faith or be deceived, Socrates insists that they set up tests to choose from the guardians who should rule the city This brings in the myth of the metals: in order to get the parents to be willing to let their kids be segregated into classes, he says that both the guardians and the people will believe a noble lie that the kids are the children of the earth and they come from different metals. This myth would make the citizens of the city care about one another. At this point it is clear that the life of the guardians is one where they have no home and are only paid in good and not in private goods, it is briefly mentioned that there would be common share of kids when explaining the need for a myth of the metals

Historical background

Before the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian war

Characters by book

Book 1: Polemarchus, Cephalus, Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon, Thrasymacus Remainder: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Thrasymachys, Plolemarchus, Socrates

Dog/guardian analogy and what book?

Book II: The guards need to be both active and gentle so as not to fight against each other like dogs -Socrates says that dogs love what they know and are mean towards what they don't know in the same way the philosopher is open to learning and not to ignorance -For this reason the education will need to be very important so that the guardians will know what to be gentle towards and what to be aggressive towards -He uses dogs as an example rather than parents because he has a deep distrust of what is love of one's own

Adeimantus

Brother of Plato and disciple of Socrates. One of the ones who calls to Socrates to come The second of Plato's brothers, Adeimantus is a source of poetry and literature in the course of the dialogue. He is also avowed disciple of Socrates and, like the others, declines when given opportunities to lead the discussion. In Book III he has difficulty understanding Socrates' idea about narrative style, which forces the philosopher to clarify a sophisticated point.

How is Cephalus/Polemarchus idea of justice overturned?

Cephalus: Giving what is owed Polemarchus: Specifically, giving good to friends and evil to enemies Socrates: Confuses Polemarchuus and comes to the conclusion that, were this true, the just man would be a thief (this is what causes the outburst of Thrasymacus) -At first Polemarchus clarifies that the one who seems good is the friend and the one who seems bad is the enemy --> Socrates retorts that people make mistakes and if they did end up making a mistake in judgment would it still be considered justice to give bad to a good person just because your perception is that they are a bad person? (The root of Socrates' argument is that there is a distinction between loving what is good and loving what is your own (loving what is good would leave you to not make the mistake, loving what is your own might incorrectly lead you to think someone you like who is bad is good) -This brings up the question of whether it is every good to harm someone? --> They decide that to harm someone is to deprive them of their human virtue, Polemarchus and Socrates eventually agree that it is a human virtue and thus that doing justice cannot do harm

War

Children raised to be soldiers will come and watch the battle so they can see it -cowards and deserters will be demoted to craftsmen (this begs the question of why they were ever soldiers if it is not in their nature) -

Book I Summary

Discussions of Justice, 3 kinds

What is the argument of Glaucon in book two?

Glaucon first talks about the way things can be good: 1. good in itself (smelling a rose) 2. both good in itself and for its benefits 3. good in its benefits but not in itself (money) Socrates says justice falls in the second category Glaucon's plan: 1. Define what justice is 2. Demonstrate that those who act justly do no unwillingly and out of necessity 3. Demonstrate that the unjust are better off How: Argues through the example of the ring of Gyges and through an unjust man and just man who are perceived as the opposite to come to the conclusion that justice is the advantage of the weaker because it is a fraud against the stronger If there is a just and an unjust man, the unjust one has the advantage of getting ahead and the just does not, thus when people agree to be just it is just the stronger getting tricked Socrates suggests that they would have better luck looking for justice if they look in something bigger like the city

Justice (in the individual)

Justice in the individual parallels the soul; there are distinct parts of the soul in the same way a person can both stand still and wave their arms (standing yet moving example). The greatest desires of someone are hunger and thirst heat people do not always act on those desires.

What are the implications of the conclusion Polemarchus and Socrates come to about whether justice can ever cause harm?

Justice is a virtue and thus cannot cause harm -People like to punish/harm an unjust person to satisfy themselves ordinarily, Socrates does not believe in this because justice cannot do harm

Justice (in the city)

Justice is the principle they established in the beginning; each person excels at a single thing they are most suited for; justice is pretty much the virtue of minding your own business and it thus shows what allows the other virtues in the city like wisdom, courage, and moderation to exist. Socrates was able to come to this conclusion because they realized that the city was BEST SERVED WHEN EVERYONE PLAYED THEIR OWN ROLE and that problems arise when this is interrupted

Why is the format of the Republic a dialogue

One could have an argument with the person and can interrupt them throughout, rather than large speeches where the speech is taken as a whole, it also is really dependent on who is speaking, psychology becomes an important factor; once one becomes aware that we may have opinions in our soul that we are not aware of in our minds, one notices more problems and can have a dialogue with oneself

Socrates

Plato writes the dialogue about him, Socrates never begins a dialogue on his own

Avoidance of the issue of shared community life

Polemarchus wants to hear more about what Socrates said earlier about sharing all things in common and Socrates has clearly been purposefully avoiding this topic and acts like he has been arrested and forced into having the conversation --> This depicts the idea of a conflict between the political community and philosophy. The reason he does not want to have the conversation is because he had doubts about whether the republic is 1. possible 2. the best. This is a reverse of the typical situation since the others want to have a thorough conversation and Socrates does not want to engage in a mess topic. Socrates claims he is afraid of leading is friends astray but that he is not afraid laughter from his friends)

Wealth (IV)

Poverty and wealth cause problems in cities and as a result should be avoided. They are enemies of productivity and the guardians need to be cautious against this. Adeimantus worries about how they will fight in wars without money Socrates replies that this will not be an issue because their city is rich in wisdom and this is better than money Full argument: 1. City without wealth is not desirable to invade 2. the soldiers will be tougher because they are poor and without luxury 3. allies will be easier to make because the ally would get to keep all the money

Music

Since they have already decided to eliminate dialing, lamenting, and drunkenness as music they agree to eliminate forms of music that encourage this -only courageous beats -music is the most important part of education because it leaves such a profound impact on the soul

Virtues

Since they have thus established the perfect order, they know that justice must exist within it, they just have to identify it. They will look through all the virtues and identify them and then they will find justice. They decide to look at the virtues in the guardians because they have the most wise and useful knowledge 1. Courage 2. Moderation 3. Justice

Book II Summary

Socrates begins with the assertion that justice is worthy of pursuit both as an end and as a means to an end; he suggests a new method that will place justice in the state and then in the individual; they realize that all they determined in book 1 was that justice would not do harm; they are yet to prove that justice will produce happiness and they need to prove that since they are trying to prove that justice is a virtue

Establishment of the political community

Socrates is forced into the conversation/going to the house by Polemarchus but there is something in it for Socrates (he likes conversation) so he goes along with it --> Shows how the political community is a combination of force and persuasion since there is something in it for the people

Courage

Socrates is not just interested in them not being afraid, he uses the dye example to show that he does not want them to lose conviction in their beliefs and lose what their education has taught them

Plato's doubts about the republic

The entire argument that women need to be a part of the republic is based on the concept that the community experiences things as one... does it make sense to think that people would want to live in a city where pain and pleasure are experienced as a whole? It is not so much a question of whether the actual city is possible in a technical sense but in whether people could be convinced to live and participate accordingly

Philosopher Kings

The philosopher can see the true form of beauty and has knowledge of what is true whereas ignorant people love what passes away and is not permanent. Philosophers love things fully and thus for what it is --> As a result it is likely that they will have to be forced into being rulers because it will be like a chore for them and it will take away from their ability to philosophize somewhat. They need philosopher kings because of the argument on specialization, and they will pretty much have to specialize in the three parts of the city and maintaining the balance. -An order where the philosopher has a home is better for the political community

Control & perfection of the city

The topic of war/wealth is what brings Adeimantus to worry about size of the city. -Socrates says that the size should be maintained the same so that nothing of the perfection would be changed (they have made the perfect city and they want it to stay that way) Perfection of the city will mean that laws will not be necessary and that the legislation will be useless. the benefit of controlling the young education is that they do not have to control much of the adults it's just that everything has to stay the same

What do they decide about women ruling?

There is a debate about whether, because everyone is supposed to do what their nature is, if women can be guardians because they have a different 'nature' from men. Socrates points out that just because they are excellent at different things does not mean they really have different natures. Ultimately decide that despite women being physically weaker, they should be taught the same and rule the same way. -The fact that the city is best when everyone is at their best, so if the wives were not properly educated they would drag down their spouses

Law

They should be confident in their idea of justice to the point of not needing lawyers

Moderation

This is what helps everyone in the city to work together, virtue of harmony, the auxiliaries accept their position, this will look like doing your own job without being forced into it

How is Thrasymachus' idea of justice as the interest of the stronger overturned?

Thrashymachus claims that injustice benefits the ruler absolutely -This is because justice is always about subordinating your own interests to someone else, so when the ruled act accordingly to the rulers, they are acting justly when they do what their rulers tell them to -By definition of who a ruler is, they must act unjustly because they cannot subordinate their interests and rule (Machiavelli??) His argument boils down to: (1) Justice is the profit of the stronger (2) Injustice is better --> Socrates responds that it is to your advantage to be just and to your disadvantage to be unjust; this is because the 'end' of the soul is life therefore the end of the soul must also be justice because the just man has better quality of life Conclusion: Thrasymachus is someone who is conflicted in the soul. It becomes apparent that he is not really convinced of his own argument that justice is as lowly a thing as he describes it as. The ultimate question thus becomes whether his soul is right or if he needs to reform the opinion of his soul to be just Socrates wins the argument but Thrasymachys is not persuaded, through the course of the conversation he becomes gentler and begins to go along with the conversation; he agrees to oppose Socrates throughout the rest of the dialogue because it is clear they are all trying to get to the bottom of the discussion

How does it all begin?

When Book I opens, Socrates is returning home from a religious festival with his young friend Glaucon, one of Plato's brothers. On the road, the three travelers are waylaid by Adeimantus, another brother of Plato, and the young nobleman Polemarchus, who convinces them to take a detour to his house. There they join Polemarchus's aging father Cephalus, and others. Socrates and the elderly man begin a discussion on the merits of old age. This discussion quickly turns to the subject of justice.

Can philosophy and the political community exist together?

can people handle philosophy without being ruined? Philosophy shows opinions as merely opinions, but the political society of current is held together by opinions Strauss makes a similar comment that philosophy questions the very things that keeps society together and that is why it is not possible Could make the argument that Kojev is arguing for a solution similar to Socrates: Pretty much an enlightened philosopher king/tyrant that makes society NOT based on on opinions but on real wisdom that EVERYONE (homogenous and universal) would follow and so in this way makes it possible to have philosophy and politics -Socrates articulates a divide between understanding the world and being able to participate in politics -This might be why Kojev thinks that they can't just work together but that the tyrants have to be philosophers themselves

Tripartite Soul

reason, spirit, appetite Originally he says that it has only the two parts: 1. Rational 2. Desiring; but the Republic has 3 parts: Socrates remembers that there is a spirited part to soldiers