The Republic is a book written in 370-360 BC by Plato, the renowned Greek philosopher. He constructed the reading in the form of the dialog between his teacher Socrates, whom he respected much, and Socrates’ counterparts Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus, Niceratus, and Thrasymachus. In this dialog, which starts from the discussion of the very meaning of justice and injustice, Plato described Socrates’ ideas about the ideal city, whose citizens possess the virtues of wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice.
Moreover, in The Republic, Plato describes four types of imperfect political systems – timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny as well as the characters of its citizens, which directly correspond to each system. The most outstanding points also include Analogies of the Sun, and the Divided Line, and an Allegory of the Cave. This paper aims to describe Socrates’ ideal city and present his ideas about the philosophical principles of knowledge.
The Basics of Justice
In books, I-II, the author thoroughly tries to reveal what city is better – the just, or the unjust one, and who is happier – the just or the unjust man. Socrates uses sophisms to support the discussion, and on the one hand, it makes the reading more complicated. But still, this philosophical tool turns out to be very useful to reach the main point while also paying tribute to each participant.
Therefore, Plato describes the general circumstances in which the dialog is held and the characters of its leading participants. The conversation starts with the monolog of the old Cephalus, Polemarchus’ father, who gives the reader an idea of how the older man may feel if he lived a full and honest life (Plato 5). Cephalus also describes what sufferings poverty and old age may bring to an unjust man (Plato 6). Cephalus leaves, and Socrates proceeds with the discussion of what justice is, saying to Polemarchus that ancient teachers were determining it as making good for friends and doing evil for enemies.
However, Socrates objects that the truly just person should not do any evil at all. That is because justice is something opposite to evil, and thus cannot bring harm, while maltreating enemies will make them worse people, and not the better ones (Plato 12). Suddenly Thrasymachus meddles into the dispute and presents his point – he states that injustice is better than justice and that the unjust man will always be happier than the just one (Plato 15). Thrasymachus describes a city where injustice reigns and where just people do not receive any rewards for their wise and restrained actions, while unjust people flourish.
Thrasymachus’ manner of speech deserves particular attention since he seems to be completely unable to control himself and shows disrespect to his interlocutors, trying to frustrate them with anger and ridicule. Nonetheless, Socrates answers him very softly, although not without irony, and gradually refutes Thrasymachus’ point of view, who is forced to agree with Socrates (Plato 34). Further, in book II, Glaucon joins the conversation, and presents the ideas of Thrasymachus more sharply, describing the city where injustice reigns (Plato 36). In response, the Adeimantus invites Socrates to prove once again why justice is preferable. Socrates proposes to imagine a fictional ideal city where justice prevails, and, having examined its components, come closer to understanding the advantages of justice.
The Ideal City
Describing the development of an ideal city, Socrates explains that such a city will appear as a result of the need for mutual assistance. It will rely on the basis that every citizen will do the work to which their nature is most prone (Plato 46). Since each person will devote all free time to this one thing – for example, growing wheat, or sewing shoes – they will achieve perfection in their mastery, and the city will flourish.
Socrates begins by proposing to determine what essential qualities the citizens of this state will have and name them: wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice. He explains that the first three qualities will be represented in each layer of the population of an ideal city, where artisans, guards, and rulers will live (Plato 105). As a result, justice will be born in the process of harmonious interaction of these people. In particular, if artisans and guards will obey the rulers, justice will dominate in the city (Plato 109). Using the principle of analogy, Socrates says that a similar order will prevail in the soul of the citizens, who will have all four qualities, and will be guided by justice in their actions.
In book II, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus also discuss the issues of management, upbringing, and education in an ideal city. Socrates declares that the presence of virtues mentioned above will ensure the proper functioning of the state. Furthermore, the wisest, bravest, and most just inhabitants will become guards and will protect the city when necessary (Plato 51). It is noteworthy that, discussing the qualities of the guards, Socrates concludes that their character will be similar to the nature of purebred puppies – they will protect their people and pose a threat to strangers.
The philosopher also notes that such behavior will be the demonstration of justice for the guards. Finally, Socrates emphasizes that justice in the ideal city will be expressed in the following principle – everyone will do their own thing, and will not interfere in the affairs of others. Following this, the interlocutors proceed to the issue of guards’ education and say that the rulers will be chosen from this particular class.
Then, in book VI Socrates and the Adeimantus conclude that, since they are talking about an ideal city, the wisest people will have to rule it, and philosophers will be the best choice. He also emphasizes that these will be true philosophers – those who seek knowledge, and not the truth, since truth can be erroneous, and the process of cognition cannot (Plato 186). In this process of cognition, the most useful will be the dialectical approach since it allows seeing the origins of a particular issue (Plato 187).
When making various statements, the philosophers will search for these origins in the statements themselves, which will undoubtedly lead to the discovery of truth faster than when using a sophisticated approach (Plato 187). That is because the sophisticated approach offers to search for truth using assumptions lacking real understanding.
Thus, since philosophers will rule the ideal city, they will be educated in a particular spirit. According to Socrates, their bodies will be strengthened by gymnastics, and their souls will be enriched by music (Plato 148). They will also study philosophy, dialectics, and the quadrium of sciences – arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (Plato 151). It is noteworthy that Socrates proposed strict censorship of arts, including poetry and visual art. He also suggests there is a need for a careful choice of myths on which children are brought up so that nothing terrible gets into the souls and heads of citizens.
Moreover, some ideas about human relationships within an ideal city give a hint that Socrates deliberately used sophistry in the dialog to emphasize its weak points. For example, these are concepts that children will be taken away from their parents shortly after birth, or that all women will be shared, and only physically perfect people will be treated by doctors. Most likely, the proposal to censor arts should also be attributed here.
The Analogies of the Sun and Divided Line
In book VI, Socrates describes in more detail why philosophers should rule an ideal city. He emphasizes that wisdom is an essential quality for a ruler, and only philosophers possess it (Plato 178). At the same time, bravery is defined as a less critical quality. Nonetheless, bravery is crucial for the guards since it will help them to convince artisans to be temperate and obey the ruler; therefore, bravery will guard wisdom (Plato 179). Here, Socrates also says that rulers and guards will not have any personal property, only the common one.
Then the philosopher claims that neither wisdom, nor bravery, nor temperance is good itself, although they contain good. Hence, Socrates proposes to find a definition of good and uses the Analogy of the Sun. At first, he suggests that among all the human senses, the eyes are most similar to the sun, although they are not the sun itself (Plato 188). Furthermore, vision is the only sense impossible without an external agent – light. Indeed, at dusk, a person sees objects indistinctly, no matter how hard he tries to strain his eyesight, and then there is a feeling that such a person does not see well (Plato 188). On the opposite, in bright light, objects are visible, and it becomes evident that a person is sighted and sees well.
The same thing happens with the mind in the process of knowing the truth. First, it should be assumed that good is similar to the sun. Then when everything plunges into darkness in the absence of good, an individual trying to examine objects in this darkness seems foolish (Plato 189). But when the good illuminates all these objects, as if from the inside, they become visible and understandable (Plato 189). Therefore, it becomes evident to everyone that this individual is capable of thinking clearly and smartly.
Thus, Socrates concludes that eyes and vision are similar to the mind and the ability to think. At the same time, good – is similar to the sun and its rays, which are necessary for this process. Interestingly, the philosopher says that the sun, just like a good, nourishes objects and gives them life, although it is not life itself, but is something outside and above it (Plato 190). He also notes that the good can be comprehended through the dialectical ability of the mind.
No less impressive is the Analogy of the Divided Line. The philosopher says that there is a visible world of real things and the images of real things, which are reflections, like visions on the water or in polished metal (Plato 190).
Besides, in the human mind, there is an invisible world of ideas about real things and their images and assumptions about real things and their images (Plato 190). Thus, all things can be expressed as a line divided into four segments – AB, BC, CD, and DE (Plato191). AB is the visible world of images, BC is the visible world of real things, the CD is the world of ideas about images and real things, and DE is the world of assumptions (Plato 191). Socrates also says that the Analogy of the Divided Line speaks of the existence of four states of the human soul necessary for knowing the world – mind, wisdom, faith, and assimilation.
The Allegory of the Cave
The philosopher goes on and represents his most famous allegory – the Allegory of the Cave. He explains that people, his coevals, are like prisoners of a cave, chained in shackles. They sit in the cave with their backs turned to the entrance, and can neither move nor turn their heads (Plato 193). Above and behind them, is a source of light and a wall similar to a scene in a puppet theater. Behind this wall, people walk and carry various objects above their heads (Plato 193). The shadows of objects fall on the walls of the cave, and the voices of people echo in it. Prisoners in chains can only see shadows on the wall and discuss what they see.
However, if one of them is lucky to be chosen and forcibly brought to light, at first, he will not be able to see anything, blinded by an unbearable brilliance, although he will be told how beautiful the sun is. At first, he will begin to distinguish the shadows already familiar to him, then the reflections of things on the water, and only then will see the visible world (Plato 195). At night, in the light of stars, he will observe celestial bodies, and only at the very end will be able to look at the sun without squinting and, after seeing it, understand its essence and meaning.
Having seen enough, such a person then, most likely, will be imbued with compassion for his fellows sitting in the cave and will try to go down to them. However, his vision will again take time to get used to the darkness of the cave (Plato 195). He will also lose interest in discussing shadows on the wall, and will probably be criticized by his comrades (Plato 195). It will be difficult for him to convince them of the unreality of the shadows, and if he tries to force someone out into the world, such a person at first will most likely resist.
Socrates notes that, therefore, there are two types of people – those who cannot get used to the light, as they came out of darkness, and those who cannot get used to the dark, as they came down from the illuminated world. The former, in his opinion, are usually filled with joy and delight, and the latter is worthy of sympathy (Plato 198). As for the city, Socrates proposes to educate future rulers with the light of good but then obliges them to go down and rule those who so far see only shadows.
Political Systems of Timocracy and Oligarchy
In book IV, after listing the characteristics of an ideal city, the participants in the dialog agree that such a city can be considered healthy. At the same time, there are four types of unhealthy political systems that grow one from the other – timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. There are also four types of people who live in these political systems and are part of them.
Further, in book VIII, each of these systems is discussed in detail. Initially, Socrates and his collocutor, Glaucon, seek advice from the Muses. The muses glorify the fall of the ideal city since people stopped observing the cycles of nature and began to have children at the wrong time (Plato 223). Their children, having been born, were deprived of the perfect qualities of their parents (Plato 224). Thus, the ideal city turned into timocracy, where the rulers already had property, and greed began to prevail in their souls over wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice.
People could not openly spend their fortunes, acquired secretly, and kept them in their houses, around which they built high walls. Power began to be valued better than justice, and military merits – better than wisdom and temperance (Plato 225). However, the people of this society retained the frenzy of the soul, which still pushed them to exploits when they, risking their wealth, sought to gain fame and honor (Plato 226). Thus, the citizens of such a city will be greedy and ambitious, but they will retain the frenzy of the soul, or in other words, bravery, which is a good companion of justice (Plato 226). This bravery will help them to preserve the sprouts of justice and temperance in their souls. But they will forget about the thrive for wisdom and the knowledge of good.
Socrates then gives an example of the relationship between fathers and sons in such a society. He assumes that after the transition of a society to timocracy, a particular father was not ambitious and greedy, and did not seek to surpass everyone in politics, military campaigns, and civilian gatherings (Plato 227). He only quietly and peacefully did his business, and therefore had little money, for which his wife always complained to neighbors and his children, calling their father a worthless person.
Supposedly, the son listened to these words and was imbued with hatred for his father and a thirst to surpass him. In the city, he also heard how people glorified ambitious and money-hungry men (Plato 227). On the opposite, those who loved their jobs and did not meddle in someone else’s business were usually showered with mud (Plato 227). On the one hand, such a young man, under the influence of his father and seeing his lifestyle, will retain the desire for good in his soul (Plato 227). But on the other hand, he will be imbued with a thirst for money, ambition, and the desire to prove to everyone that he is better than his father.
Sooner or later, timocracy will inevitably become an oligarchy, since it will be increasingly difficult for people who refuse wisdom to control their vices, which they will indulge in secret. As a result, the central vice – greed – will prevail over all other vices (Plato 228). Presumably, people one day will become tired of hiding their vices from others and will want to indulge in pleasures openly (Plato 228). For this, they will offer to change the political system that prevents them from doing so to a more suitable one.
Therefore, the property qualification will be introduced, and people who do not have enough wealth will be deprived of civil rights. Thus, Socrates concludes, society will be divided into the rich, who enjoy all kinds of privileges, and the poor, who are in every possible way condemned and deprived of any rights (Plato 229). Besides, in such a society, the rich will hate each other, fearing for their wealth; they will also hate the poor, who will reciprocate.
Further, the philosopher again refers to the example of fathers and children to reveal the main traits of the oligarch’s soul. He describes a young man who lives in a family whose father, a prominent statesman, suddenly loses both his position and means for a living (Plato 231). Being pushed to this distressing situation, he is also deprived of civil rights, thus becoming a poor and helpless man.
The son of such a father will be shocked by the change that has occurred (Plato 231). He will lose the ambition inherent in the timocrats and focus on making money, trying to save enough to never again be in a similar situation (Plato 231). Above all, he will value money and will raise his children in austerity and thrift. He will also try to teach them to control their desires and spend money only on what is necessary, reasonably discarding everything else.
However, here Socrates again returns to the prospect of the transition of one political system to another. He says that the oligarchy will inevitably turn into democracy in approximately the following way. The only noble quality that will remain in the citizens of an oligarchic society will be temperance – the quality crucial for the accumulation of wealth (Plato 232). However, wars where citizens will be able to show up – will not end, as well as various competitions (Plato 233). The oligarchs will not be inclined to participate in wars and will spend small shares of their capital on them.
Moreover, not to participate, they will give weapons to the poor and rehabilitate them in civil rights. Among the poor, by that time, a rather large number of former rich people would be accumulated, dreaming about revolution (Plato 234). Having appeared together on competition or the battlefield, the poor will look at the rich and will see that they have neither wisdom nor bravery (Plato 234). Therefore, the poor will think to themselves – “Those men are ours, for they are nothing” (Plato 234). As soon as such an opinion spreads among the whole population, a revolution will come, bringing the new political system to life.
Thus, Socrates’ ideal city was described, and his ideas about the philosophical principles of knowledge were presented. To summarize, an ideal city, like its citizens, should have such virtues as wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice. The main advantage of an ideal city is that each of its inhabitants is engaged in their own business and does not meddle in others’ ones. Besides, such political systems as timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are the most common ‘diseases’ of the city and are deviations from the ideal.
Work Cited
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Allan Bloom, Basic Books, 1968.