Socrates and Plato: Ideas of the Great Philosophers

Introduction

The ideas of the ancient philosophers such as Socrates and Plato are often looked to for wisdom and an idea of the ‘right’ path one should take. These individuals provided a great deal of information regarding the proper functioning of a society, including what it would take for a man to be a good leader. According to Socrates and Plato, a good leader had to first be a moral and ethical man who had been awakened to the greater truths of the universe and was willing to return to help guide his fellow citizens to a similar vision.

While they may have differed on whether a good leader was defined by engaging in right action or participating incorrect thought, it was generally agreed that a good leader must be a just man, which would give him no reason to be unhappy and thus enable him to be an effective and fair leader. This, of course, requires a definition of the term ‘just’ as it applies within the context of the development of a leader. However, the ideas brought forward by Plato, either on his own or through the mouth of Socrates, who undoubtedly influenced much of his thought, would be particularly impossible to apply to today’s society.

Main text

As seen in the writings of Plato regarding Socrates, which some will argue is a blending of the two philosophers’ ideas, one of the requirements for a moral and ethical man is that he must first know “his spiritual self as it really is, including all its shortcomings, strengths and potentialities.”[1] As Plato was a disciple of Socrates and the source of much of the information we have regarding much of what Socrates had to say, Socrates’ concept of ethics is relevant to an understanding of Plato’s views.

According to Socrates, it is the man who does not know himself who cannot accurately judge his own capabilities and his own unique path to the greatest good based on accurate use of his strengths and knowledge of his weaknesses. Socrates takes this another step by suggesting that knowledge of oneself will instruct from within regarding those things which are good (moral and ethical) and those things which are not.

He suggests this by claiming that things that are good will make us feel happy inside while things that are bad will be immediately recognizable to the man who knows himself because these actions will cause “spiritual degradation and mental deterioration”[2] that will be immediately apparent.

Socrates’ most famous student, Plato, pulled together the ideas of his mentor and Pythagoras to combine them with his own response to what he’d seen of the world to develop his Theory of Forms, in which the ultimate goal was to progress through the levels of reality to the highest level, also known as the greatest good. This is presented as the Allegory of the Cave in Book 7 of The Republic. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato sets forth the idea that mankind is only living in an illusion of life, that the reality is beyond the scope of our own senses and can only be reached through the intellect.

In the dialogue Plato presents, Socrates explains “here they [human beings] have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads.”[3] In this vision, Socrates explains that the human beings are watching a giant screen on which marionettes and other things dance, but the humans can only see the shadows of these moving things.

The actual colors and nature of these things cannot be perceived from such a perspective, but not having known anything else, Socrates argues that the humans don’t know there’s something to miss: “To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.”[4] In addition, Socrates goes on to explain that when one of these individuals is released from the bonds that bind him, “he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows.”[5] Even when facing the true reality, these individuals will strive to reject what they see, still preferring to believe that what they once knew is still real.

However, Socrates continues the discussion by explaining that once this individual is forced to live in this newer light, the person will begin to understand their new perception as being the true reality by degrees: “… first he will see the shadows best, next to the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven.”[6] From this acceptance, Socrates theorized that the person would be very reluctant to return to the cave and would instead take pity on those he had left behind him in the cave.

If that person returned to help the others and could make himself accepted as such, Socrates indicates the people would have a tendency to idolize him, but having only been ahead of them in seeing the true reality, this leader would be reluctant to take on such a role. However, if the person had returned to their imprisonment within the cave before their sight was adjusted, they would instead be ridiculed, considered crazy by the inhabitants of the cave who had never left and held as an example for why no one should try venturing out of the cave.

As is seen in this allegory, Plato does not view reality as being the world of substance and things that we can see in everyday life, but is something more abstract that can only be obtained through intellectual thought. In determining the path to the greatest good, Plato differs from Socrates in the proper method of obtaining that level. Where Socrates says it is through right action, Plato says it is through correct thought.[7] In the case of humans, this perfect form is commonly identified as the soul, which, existing in the realm of ideas, begins in a perfect state and can only be harmed by the wrong actions defined by Socrates[8] or by the wrong thoughts according to Plato.

Admittedly, this is a fine line of distinction as action typically follows thought, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless as thought does not always precede action and action can take place without full agreement in thought. In determining who should be leader, it becomes obvious through this story that the uneducated individual would not have the ability to reach this deep level of thought required to be an effective leader. Instead, the leader must be someone who has been encouraged to step outside of the cave, have a long enough look around to discern the true aspect of things and then follow the call to assist his former cave-mates.

Another important aspect of Plato’s ideas revolves around his realization that an unhappy man cannot make an effective ruler because he is continually struggling to find what will make him happy rather than being concerned with the welfare of the state.

Further evidence of Socrates’ influence can be seen in Plato’s idea that only the unjust are unhappy, so to be happy (to achieve the greatest good), one must first be just. Plato attempts to define the term “justice” in his first chapter of The Republic. This is done by repeating the discussion held by Socrates and several others regarding the issue. In presenting the conversation in this way, Plato is able to get around many of the arguments that might be placed against his concept of justice by presenting these arguments as a logical means of reaching his conclusion.

For example, Polemarchus tells Socrates that “the repayment of a debt is just, and in saying so he appears to me to be right,”[9] while Socrates answers with an example, “he certainly does not mean … that I ought to return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt.”[10] As each statement is given and each is answered with an example of an exception, Plato develops the concept that justice is not a singularly defined, standard answer applicable to all things. Instead, it is a habit of conscious consideration regarding the various elements involved.

Plato provides a greater definition of his concept of justice later in The Republic, after it has been considered from a variety of viewpoints, as being concerned not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others – he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three principles within him … [and] has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act … always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom.[11]

In other words, the just man, or anything else that can be said to be just in some way, is a man who commits himself to his own work in harmony with others, seeking to rule only his own inner life and to comport himself in the completion of his duties with careful consideration of what constitutes just and good action at all times. The main identifying theme behind all actions is identifying what brings the individual, the state or the condition to a greater alignment with the just and good condition for all.

As has been shown, Plato’s concept of ethics plays a large role in helping these individuals determine what are good and just actions as each decision require careful thought and measurement of the possible outcomes. This concept of what constitutes a just man feeds greatly into Plato’s concept of how leaders of societies should be selected if they are to be the ethical creatures necessary for his utopian vision to work. It is the just man who is capable of playing in tune, not exceeding the note, but striking just the right one, and it is this just man who should be leader.

Inputting forth his theories of ethics and morals in the context of an individual man, Plato further develops The Republic into a full-fledged utopian society. Here, he sets forth an example of a just society in which there are no possessions, where children removed from their parents soon after birth are given equal upbringing and education and all of them, boys and girls alike, are given equal opportunity to achieve the philosopher-king status based on their own unique talents, abilities and aptitude for higher thought. Because all children are educated equally, this enables adults to begin sorting them into different divisions as they grow, according to their biological inclinations and abilities rather than by their affiliation with any particular adult members of the community.

Children would be sorted into different forms periodically in order to produce the workers, the soldiers and the philosophers, who receive the most training. In this view, each individual is given an equal chance to grow up to be a leader, but only if they are able to demonstrate the complex processes of thought and consideration and have proven themselves to be unselfish and just in nature.

Because everyone had an equal chance and was separated based upon their own abilities and interests, they should all be content to work within their fields of expertise, neither envying others nor being envied. In removing the concept of personal possessions and traditional family relationships in which one man ‘owns’ one woman and her children, even these temptations for jealousy are removed, enabling each individual to act according to their most ethical nature.

“If our citizens are well-educated, and grow into sensible men, they will easily see their way through all these, as well as other matters which I omit; such, for example, like marriage, the possession of women and the procreation of children, which will all follow the general principle that friends have all things in common.”[12] The philosophers, having received years and years of education and training, would then be in an inspired position, intellectually and spiritually, to take up their positions as defenders of justice.

By imposing such a just society, Plato points out these rulers would “be above bribery; and their only ambition would be to ensure justice in the state”[13] because they would have no possessions to protect or accumulate and would have no individual living spaces in which to inspire awe among their peers or subordinates.

In practical terms, these ideas would be impossible to implement. This only begins with the impossibility of finding or training the ‘ideal’ leader. “The point is that righteousness can be achieved only when each of the three elements of the soul is fulfilling its own function – much as justice is achieved in the state only when each of the three social elements is fulfilling its role in society.”[14] This comparison between the individual and the workings of the state is completely in keeping with Plato’s concept that the issues of ethics and politics were one and the same.

The individual could not be separated from the state just as the state could not be separated from the individual. It was for this reason that the philosopher class was required to have so much education within the prescribed curriculum.

Summary

Only with the education Plato describes can the philosopher gain the ability to balance the three elements of his being both internally and externally to such an extent that he (or she) becomes capable of appropriately balancing the elements of a problem within the society to come to an ethical, just conclusion. Because the philosopher-king would have to interact with other societies structured differently from his own, he would necessarily become corrupted by the status of other kings and leaders, the possessions and power they wield and would have a difficult time getting his uneducated and severely restricted population to compete on any real basis with the products and intellectual pursuits of other countries.

To establish the type of training and strictly stratified society he proposes, Plato would also need to completely trample the basic rights of man as he stole children away from parents and would have to establish a Gestapo-type military in order to enforce his restrictions against marriage and traditional nuclear family living arrangements. Finally, the difficulty of keeping literature out of the hands of the public, particularly in today’s world of high-speed internet, is virtually impossible and, as Plato himself illustrated, the introduction of literature to the people would be the destruction of the society he’s envisioned.

References

Magee, B. (1998). The Story of Philosophy. New York: DK Publishing.

Plato. (360 BC; reprinted 1992). The Republic. A.D. Lindsay (Trans.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sahakian, W. and Sahakian, M. (1966). Ideas of the Great Philosophers. New York: Barnes and Noble Books.

Strathern, P. (1996). Plato in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

1. Sahakian, W. and Sahakian, M. (1966). Ideas of the Great Philosophers. New York: Barnes and Noble Books: 32.
2. Sahakian, Sahakian: 33.
3. Plato. (360 BC; reprinted 1992). The Republic. A.D. Lindsay (Trans.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 388.
4. Plato: 388.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Strathern, P. (1996). Plato in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee: 25.
8. Magee, B. (1998). The Story of Philosophy. New York: DK Publishing: 29.
9. Plato: 297.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid: 354-355.
12. Plato: 344.
13. Strathern: 38.
14. Ibid: 46-47.