11/22/2024 - Plato's The Republic

Plato's republic is considered to be the cornerstone of western philosophy, and by all accounts, this seems true. However, does that make it a quality read? nnnnot really. Lets talk about it.

Final rating: 2.5/5

(based on reading enjoyment, not the value of the book)

 First I want to say that I read most closely the first book, that about justice and morals, as suggested by a friend to be the most relevant. While I did read the rest, it is not nearly as pertinent to society today. But lets break down what the book is about first.

Plato's the Republic is written as a dialogue between Socrates and some "friends" or other minds. In either case that has Socrates debating others on justice, morality (book 1) and the societal structure of Plato's version of utopia (books 2 onward). In this book, Plato is writing all characters dialogue, so it ends up being a little silly as its really just Plato arguing with himself and winning every argument (shocker). There is a prologue to the book that runs about 30 to 35 pages which is essentially an essay that details what Plato thinks throughout the book, you can honestly get away with JUST reading this prologue if you don't really care about how Plato gets to his thoughts, and rather just what they are. It even details most of his perfect society, which is neat.

One of the things I like most about the prelude is actually the background it gives on Plato himself. The book notes how, because this is from the perspective of someone from ancient Greece, many of the things Plato writes about cannot be 1:1 translated to today. (both in lesson and in lexicon). We, in the modern day, probably don't consider morality and justice to be the same concept, but it seems like this was the common ground during Plato's day. I found this pretty cool! 

Lets talk about the book itself.

Book 1, on morality:

This book is mostly about proving that justice, and by some tie morality, is either implicit to humanity, or that humans should do good (and will be rewarded for doing good) even in a vacuum. There are several counter arguments put forth but of most notability is Thachimysus's (or something similar to that name) counter argument that Justice or morality is really just the strong imposing its will on the weak. This topic is sort of dodged by stating that unjust (or immoral) men will not work together, and thus cannot accomplish anything. I tend to disagree with him throughout much of the book, and this is one of those cases. I think arguing for an objective morality means you have to be able to define morality. Plato even writes that he is sad that he fails to do this, he cannot define justice in a succinct way, but rather just thinks that it exists even without societal input. My own thoughts? I think that, like the final argument in book 1, morality exists as a compromise between the unjust and the just (not exactly its argument, the final argument is more like all men are unjust, but the pain of being harmed is not worth the ability to harm, and therefore morality is a compromise, but I'm coopting it)  to create a system of rules that benefit the many.

While many of the lessons contained within book 1 are better represented with someone with a little more academic background in this sort of thing, I'll do my best to represent my thoughts, though keep in mind one of the things that I find fun about these reviews is how little I reference outside material when possible, so I will continue that trend even here (even if its a little damaging to the review haha). Plato's moral ideas is one that I have obviously been faced with, with or without reading The Republic "is morality inherent to humanity, or is it a social construct." And while this isn't the first time I've thought about it, I am re-looking at it now:

 As I said before I think it's a little bit of both, but I will expand on that thought here. I think my best stance on the subject would be as a "biological moralist" (if that isn't a real term, I'm coining it here and now). I believe that morality can be split into two categories, "higher" morality, and "lower" morality. Lower morality is that which makes up the basis of society, do not kill people, try to be "kind", try to prevent death, etc. These rules are biologically tied to our altruistic social structure (altruistic here as a biological term, not a philosophical one.) These rules generally only apply intrinsically to our in group, those who are directly around is, and generally does not apply as automatically to those in your "out" group or those you do not have direct ties too. I do want to make it clear that empathy is of course possible for an out group. I just mean it is not as automatic or at the very least it is not tied to "lower" morality. Summarizing here: lower morality is biologically tied to our evolution as pack animals, we thrived by helping our in group and aggressing the out group, and many of these ideas are still wired in our brain. When Glaucon states that all men wish to be unjust, but the harm of hurting each other is not worth the risk of being harmed, I think he means to be speaking of this in group out group dynamic. Lower morality, similarly, doesn't actually have to be tied to how heinous we consider a crime, only what rules we might follow in the absence of society. When I hear Glaucon is talking about "undo harm" I consider this to be (in my terms) him talking about when only lower morality is present, and the out group is large. AKA: when your in group is just your immediate locals, and the out group all others. and I think it is what holds a larger society together. This is a set of rules we have put forth to protect various out groups from each other, and is often (though not always) enforced by law (murder of someone in an out group, is an easy one to point too). In this way I think law, higher morality, and justice, are tied together. They are a triumverent of rules we have invented to prevent various smaller and dissimilar in groups from acting unfavorably or uncooperatively. Again, this is obviously not to say that you or I, if given the opportunity, would kill. But I would bet there is a higher percentage that would than under normal circumstances. Higher morality breaks down further as we delve into more and more dire circumstances. Similar to nature, the in group shrinks and the out group gets bigger as resources get more scarce. at it's lowest, much of a higher morality will be completely abandoned by general "masses" and lower morality will reign.

This is my best attempt at explaining my views on morality. I am sure it will be a little messy to read but hopefully it's somewhat understandable.

 From  the few other platonic literature sections I have seen, Plato likes to make his arguments in a few stages. Firstly he will write his "opponent" to tell him their argument, typically this is a good paragraph, next Plato (as Socrates, in this case) will begin to ask seemingly disconnected statements, asking if his opponent agrees with each one, before finally in part 3 he connects these statements into his "actual" counter argument. One of the things I really struggled with is just understanding the arguments at all, Plato is writing, of course, by the societal standards of ancient Greece. This makes his points, at least for me, really hard to parse. Often he would say things that I did not understand, making points about how potters never make mistakes, or doctors being doctors on merit of their mistakes? to me it didn't make much sense. But! regardless, often he would sum up his arguments at the end of a section, which made it more understandable. This will be a common theme throughout the book.

Book 2 and so on:

Lumping this all into one big section to talk about Plato's well... Republic! I'm going to SUPER squish this, if you're interested in the actual in's and out's you'll have to read the book. 

Gonna start with what Plato thinks on other societies: On Democracy (which, by the way, in his time meant a bunch of guys getting together and voting on stuff) he felt that the average voter is not smart enough to run a nation, and therefore will typically vote against their best interest. For a representative system with a ruler who is elected, he thinks that the ruler will be "all talk" aka only do or say things that make his popularity grow, without regard for what would constitute an actually good choice. For tyranny he criticizes, of course, that the unjust rule but also that private gains, aka subsidizing any member or ruler of government will lead to members of that government only making choices to improve their private gain. There are a few others, but that's what I remember most.

SO, if no other society will work, what is his grand idea. Well first we have to separate the masses into two categories, "guardians" and "the other various losers who happen to be around" (not really, its more like the general masses) Guardians are highly educated, cannot own property, and eugenically bred for talent. That's right, Plato was a eugenicist, though not for race, or even really for any physical aspect (though he may have thought of the guardians as athletic) but rather thought if he could get enough talented people together, they would produce brilliant babies who would become the government. 

Now, how do we know if our eugenics baby is actually one of those smart folk? the academy, but backing up for a second... In Plato's society, there is no family, all children are born in nurseries, and while gender separation for jobs is generally non-preferred, there is clearly some statement on women's primary job being to birth more guardians. After birth, all children, both low born and Guardian, go to the academy, where inevitably most of the stupid moron non eugenics babies will drop out, but not all of them... allowing new talent to enter the Guardians. similarly, if a Guardian baby is not successful, they can drop down to the lower class. Now of these successful recruits, those who do the best, or perhaps even perfectly, will become the highest caste: the philosopher kings.

These kings will be the overall rulers of society, so intelligent and not driven by material things that they will only make perfect decisions surrounding the state, leading to a utopia. You may recall though, that these higher classes cannot own property of any kind. no possessions, why then, would they bother to work at all? well, Plato's answer: they will be too afraid NOT to rule, as allowing the moron mob to rule is a worse fate. Yes, in this utopia, nobody actually wants to be a guardian, they are the lower class in a sense, the Philosopher kings would rather return to their studies, but all will be so afraid to allow the mob to rule that they will continue upholding society indefinitely. 

some other notable things: the state controls all education, and in fact, controls everything. Nobody should learn outside what the academy teaches, and nobody should object to the academies orders. They will be the paragon of "justice" in the most pure sense.

This is his society as I understand it (extremely abridged). There are so many problems with it, I'm not even going to comment on most of it it, he makes no real effort to explain how all of this will be set up initially, nor does he provide any real distinction between the Guardians and the rest other than the fact that one class is presumably smarter in some way. and of course the giant evil gaping hole that is eugenics.

Lessons applied to today's world:

For the most part, Plato doesn't really say a whole lot that can be applied to todays world, but.. there is one thing I wanted to mention that is pertinent especially today (in the US).

This "dumb mob" exists, and Plato was right! most voters ARE stupid, and in truth cannot be trusted to vote for ruler who's qualities actually line up with the job. This is the only literature that has ever pushed me closer to thinking "damn, maybe we should have an electoral college" not as its set up now, but as some sort of buffer between the moronic masses and actual government charge. IDK.

Morality being beneficial to humanity I would recon I agree with as well, even without an implicit moral code that exists in some fabric of the universe, I think  that generally a society is succeeding if justice pays better than injustice.

Well, thats really all I have to say on that. Sorry for the lack of a closing statement, didn't have a whole lot to say.

Cya next time, I think the next book is the prince. But infinite jest is up there as well. We'll see. Crime and punishment I'm on chapter 4 (book club with the fam means only 2 chapters a week).