Platos Republic essay

Dr. Matthews
First Year Seminar-Pd. 1
Platos Republic is a collection of dialoues between Socrates and other
!thenian men which ultimately attempts to define the true nature of "ustice and
in"ustice. Plato beins by presentin the popular beliefs and conceptions about
"ustice and in"ustice and se#uentially finds flaws in each arument presented. $he
first few sections try to pinpoint what e%actly "ustice is. &n the fourth section '()*e-
(+)c, $hrasymachus ma-es the arument that bein un"ust is more profitable than
bein "ust. $o this. Socrates responds with three aruments/ first. that the "ust man is
wise and ood and the un"ust man is e0il and inorant '()1d-(+2d,3 second. that
in"ustice creates di0isions and is unharmonious whereas "ustice is harmonious '(+2d-
(+4b,3 and third. that "ustice is happiness and thus e%cellence. and so is conduci0e to
profitability whereas in"ustice is the opposite '(+4b-(+)c,. 5sin the entirety of
these three aruments Plato discredits $hrasymachus arument and determines that
"ustice is more profitable than in"ustice. 6a0in lain to waste the common
conceptions of "ustice and in"ustice. Plato proceeds to the creation of an ideal state in
an attempt to understand the oriins of "ustice and in"ustice.
Socrates beins his aruments in section four after determinin that
$hrasymachus attributes the characteristics such as bra0ery and honor to the un"ust
man as opposed to the "ust man. Socrates mo0es into his aruments with the premise
that 7the "ust does not desire more than his li-e but more than his unli-e. whereas the
un"ust desires more than both his li-e and unli-e89()1d:. $his conclusion ma-es
1
sense loically. accordin to a common mans e%perience. and thus the arument
beins on a stron note.
Socrates ad0ances his arument usin three analoies. Socrates first uses the
analoy of a musician. Socrates establishes that a 7musician is wise. and he who is
not a musician is foolish89()1e:. $hen usin this premise Socrates as-s whether in
performin the mundane tas- of tunin a lyre a musician would want to surpass
another musician. Socrates ma-es it clear that a musician would ha0e no such desire3
his only desire would be to tune his instrument better than one who was not called a
musician. ! musician does not desire to surpass another musician in tunin a lyre
because to be i0en the title of musician one assumes basic s-ills such as the ability
to tune his own instrument.
Socrates ne%t employs the analoy of a physician. #uic-ly establishin that a
physician would not want to be better at pro0idin medicine for ailments than
another physician but only better than one who is not a practicin physician. !ain.
as with the musician. once a person is called a physician he is e%pected to -now how
to prescribe medicine and so there should be no desire to ain a better rasp of this
-nowlede. ;ust as a person can either swim or not swim. a physician can prescribe
medicine and a non-physician cannot.
$he final analoy that Socrates uses is one of -nowledeable men and
inorant men. 6e concludes that a -nowledeable man would not desire to e%ceed
another -nowledeable man but only to e%ceed an inorant man. &f one is a
-nowledeable man. "ust as if he were a musician or a physician. then it is assumed
4
that he -nows certain thins that are indisputable and so. 7<ould he not rather say or
do the same as his li-e in the same case89(+2b:. $o say somethin different in the
same situation than another -nowledeable man could call into #uestion the e%tent of
ones -nowlede. $o i0e the same answer as another -nowledeable man would
confirm the truth of the answer. and so a -nowledeable man would only desire to be
better than one who is not titled a -nowledeable man.
Socrates then mo0es bac- to arumentation throuh loical forms. $he
-nowin would be considered wise and the wise would be called ood. thus
determinin that the wise and ood person would desire to surpass only his unli-e
and not his li-e. whereas the e0il and inorant or the un-nowledeable would desire
to surpass both. $his trait of the wise and ood person alins them with a "ust man
and the e0il and inorant person with an un"ust man. =ecause of a pre0ious assertion
that a man is the same as his li-e is. then the "ust bein li-e the wise and ood is thus
wise and ood. and the un"ust bein li-e the e0il and inorant is e0il and inorant.
Socrates ma-es this conclusion by ta-in the information leaned from
arumentation by analysis. $hen usin loic he connects the dots and deri0es this
conclusion.
$he one fault in Socrates arument resides in his analoies. Socrates. in all
of his aruments. assumes some sort of absolute -nowlede or ability a person such
as a musician or physician or -nowledeable man is e%pected to ha0e. Socrates
assumes that any art has an absolute which cannot be e%ceeded. &f this were true
there would be no ad0ances in -nowlede or music or medicine. <e would still be
(
practicin the same type of medicine that they practiced in ancient >reece. $here is a
le0el of e%cellence that all people who claim mastery of a "ob must ha0e. such as
how to tune your instrument or dianose diseases. Yet mastery does not mean that a
musician cant impro0e. since he cannot achie0e absolute perfection. $he
instruments that we use today are not the same as those used in ancient >reece and
this is because. althouh a musician or instrument ma-er -new how to ma-e the old
instruments. he desired to impro0e them. $hus he attempted to surpass his li-e. in
order to impro0e musicianship as a whole. &t is throuh this constant desire to
impro0e. and thus e%ceed ones li-e. that instruments e0ol0ed to what they are today.
Despite the >ree-s belief that time was circular and that there could be no proress
in the linear sense. there is a cycle to time nonetheless and thus at some point there
must be proress towards the most perfect portion of the cycle as well as a retreat
from this principle as well.
$he same is true for physicians. &f desirin to surpass another doctor were not
a human trait then we would continue to practice medicine in the same way the
ancients did. $his is ob0iously not the case. ?specially in the case of a physician it
ma-es perfect sense to constantly see- impro0ement in ones methods. for the
physicians "ob is to -eep his fellow humans healthy. &n the circular sense of time.
our modern world is mo0in towards the perfection of medicine. ?0en thouh these
proressions in each trade are destined by the repeatin cycles. nonetheless at some
point one physician must surpass another in order for the whole profession to mo0e
forward. &t is also ine0itable that at some point medicine will diress.
)
Socrates arument about a -nowledeable man is especially hard to accept.
@nowlede is definitely not absolute. $herefore how could one whose profession it
is to be -nowledeable not desire to increase the breadth of his -nowledeA &f so.
then one would desire to surpass both those who are -nowledeable and those who
are inorant.
!bsolute -nowlede is somethin. as Plato ma-es clear in his Phaedrus, that
humans are hard-pressed to attain. Bbtainin absolute -nowlede ta-es a charioteer
who is able to balance the noble and inoble horse. and thus is an incredibly hard
tas- to achie0e. &f the absolute -nowlede of the hiher realm is realiCed. it follows
that one would no loner see- to e%ceed another of his li-e for there would be no
more -nowlede to be ained. &f this absolute -nowlede is the criteria by which a
man is considered -nowledeable. then Socrates arument holds. but li-enin it to a
"ust man does not follow. ! "ust man does not ha0e to be one who has absolute
-nowlede but rather the -nowlede specific to their trade. if "ustice is understood as
Plato defines it. 7D"ustice will be admitted to be the ha0in and doin what is a
mans own. and belons to him89)()a:. $hus absolute -nowlede cannot be a
prere#uisite to bein a "ust man or a -nowledeable man. and because this is so. a
-nowledeable man will desire to e%ceed his li-e for there is still more to be learned.
$he same can be said of -nowlede. as with the physician and musician. that we are
either mo0in towards perfection or not in the cycle of -nowlede ordained by
circular time. Ee0ertheless at one point or another there must be forward motion. and
+
the propaation of the forward motion is dependent upon the surpassin of e#uals in
each field.
!lthouh these last points must be considered. Platos oriinal arument
cannot be discounted either. &n section three. $hrasymachus ma-es clear his
definition of perfection. 6e ma-es the distinction that one is not always a physician
or ruler. only when he is perfect is he a man of his trade. 7they none of them err
unless their s-ill fails them. and then they cease to be s-illed artists. Eo artist or sae
or ruler errs at the time when he is what his name impliesD89()2e:. $hus unless a
musician or physician or man of -nowlede is perfect at his trade he is not a man of
his trade. and so my pre0iously ad0anced arument no loner holds. &n so lon as a
physician is a physician and is perfect there is nowhere for him to proress to and no
room to desire more than his li-e. $his definition of perfection contained within the
te%t. is testament to the e%tent to which Plato made sure to co0er e0ery possible
counter-arument. before ad0ancin his own aruments. $o thorouhly pro0ide a
counter arument that would discredit the wor- of Plato would ta-e lon and
scrupulous dissection of the te%t in its entirety to ensure that Plato had not addressed
the issue in another section3 a feat which the timeline for this essay does not allow.
not to mention the fact that we ha0e not read the full te%t of the Republic. $hus the
arument of the Ffather of western thouht remains triumphant.
G
<or-s Hited/
Plato. Republic. First Year Seminar Readins Fall 422*.
*