Plato's Republic: Justice and Power
The greatest book of Western philosophy ever written.
Plato’s Republic is easily one of the crowning achievements of all Western philosophy and literature. It represents the high point of Greek wisdom, and the founding of a philosophical tradition that would shape all subsequent thinkers in the West. At the heart of Plato’s Republic is the relationship between justice and power. Seeking to understand the metaphysical nature of truth and goodness, the protagonist Socrates addresses what he thinks is the ideal society. This is the titular Republic, a place where higher knowledge and political power are in perfect harmony.
Book One
Consisting of ten books, the Republic is especially articulate about its overall themes in the very first book. The first book is almost a self-contained work in itself. Some German scholars have even conjectured that the first book of the Republic was written as an entirely separate dialogue. In the first book, Socrates narrates to an unknown audience. The first paragraph is an opening salvo into the core themes that characterize the entire corpus of Platonic philosophy and literature. Socrates begins by describing his travels down into Piraeus, the heart of democratic politics in ancient Athens. The port served as a vital commercial center, where shipping and trading were common. It was the locus of cultural exchange between Athens and the outside world. There were a number of reasons to travel to Piraeus. The city was home to entertainment, as well as a religious parade for the goddess Athena. Socrates is accompanied by a friend named Glaucon, who is himself one of the philosopher’s most erudite interlocutors. In Piraeus, Socrates and his friend are invited for dinner and festival with a man named Polemarchus. At the house, Socrates befriends Polemarchus’ father, an elderly man named Cephalus. Rather than being a mundane description, this first scene establishes many of the themes that are later explored throughout the Republic.
Power or knowledge
Socrates’ descent into Piraeus is an allegory for a philosopher’s pursuit of knowledge while in a state of chaos or confusion. Socrates attempts to persuade Polemarchus that he does not want to stay at the house, but is forced to do so. This sets up the dichotomy between force and persuasion, which is a central theme of Plato’s writings. The discontinuity between power and knowledge is what spurs Plato’s explorations about the ideal city. The philosopher explores whether a better society can be constructed, one in which there is harmony between metaphysical truths and political power. It is the apparent disconnect between knowledge and power which makes Plato’s discussion necessary. Another key theme is the role that a philosopher plays within a city, and his relationship to the wider community. Socrates is reluctant to stay in Piraeus, but is forced to by the compulsion of ordinary people. As such, there is a mutual relationship between a philosopher seeking truth, and the ignorant masses of humanity. In the opening of the Republic, Socrates does not make any decisions. He is forced into choices, which are instead made by Glaucon. This unbalanced dynamic represents how, in an unjust society, inferior people tend to make decisions on behalf on wiser people. The Republic presents a just society as an allegory for a virtuous person, and vice versa. In the Platonic view, the individual is a microcosm of society. More specifically, the Republic explores whether Athenian democracy is the type of regime that is most conducive to human flourishing. Because Socrates was sentenced to death by Athenian democrats, it seems that Plato disliked the whimsically and misguided nature of democracy.
Virtue and vice
Meanwhile at Piraeus, Socrates strikes up a conversation with Cephalus. Seeing that Cephalus is an old man, Socrates asks him about the process of aging. Cephalus replies that he can tolerate old age, as long as he has money. But Socrates wonders why anyone would need money. Cephalus then proceeds to explain how, in his younger years, he was a worldly man. He loved sex and wine and power. Full of desire, he was an erotic man in the broadest sense of the term. He lacked scrupulosity in his youth. But as Cephalus grew older, he grew increasingly concerned about death and the afterlife. He feared the retribution of the gods. Once dismissive of the idea of Hades, the now elderly Cephalus grew more aware of his own mortality. To atone for his dissolute youth, Cephalus wanted to use his financial fortunes to pay back his moral debts. This would not only repair his relationships with other humans, but it would also bribe the gods. He believed that if he did the right sacrifices and prayers, he could escape divine punishment. The once erotic young Cephalus had turned to superstition in his old age. Socrates stands in contrast to Cephalus, because the philosopher regards himself as free from the constraints of such worldly desires. More broadly, the two individuals symbolize the fundamental difference between a just society and an unjust one. A just society is one that is restrained and virtuous, while an unjust society is uncontrolled in its desires.
What is justice?
Socrates then asks Cephalus about the nature of justice. Cephalus defines justice as telling the truth, and giving what is owed. But Socrates challenges this definition, seeing it as limited. He gives a counterexample of giving a sword to a crazy person, which would obviously be unjust. Cephalus is a symbol for the piety of the ancestors. A superficial and superstitious man, he is a stand-in for traditional Greek religion. Socrates seeks to challenge Homeric religion, in order to promote a deeper understanding of the true nature of justice. Next, Socrates asks Polemarchus his definition of justice. Polemarchus defines justice as giving to each what is appropriate. To Polemarchus, this means helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. But Socrates pokes holes in this definition as well. He argues that it is self-contradictory, because harming a person usually makes them unjust. Socrates insists that a truly just man does not have any enemies, and treats all with compassion and magnanimity. For Socrates, true piety means serving the gods by improving one’s fellow human beings. In the Socratic view, this obligation is a universal one, one that applies to all human beings. A person expresses justice by educating others, according to Socrates. Having rejected traditional religion, Socrates has now also rejected authority as a legitimate basis of morality. He urges the audience to think for themselves. Third and lastly, Socrates asks Thrasymachus to define justice. To Thrasymachus, justice is simply the advantage of the stronger against the weaker. From that perspective, might makes right. There are no higher truths or goods that distinguish between virtue and vice. The character represents the position of the Sophists, a group of Athenian philosophers who promoted moral relativism. They denied the existence of absolute truths, particularly as applied to morality and politics. This amoral realpolitik is also found in the writings of Thucydides, the famous historian of the Peloponnesian War. Thrasymachus contends that morality is simply what the ruling class imposes on the weak. Laws are only implemented through brute force. There is no role for reason or higher morality. But Socrates challenges this political amoralism. The philosopher argues that rulers often do not know what is truly in their best interest, because they lack knowledge of higher truths. The purpose of the Republic, therefore, is to explain the ideal society, which is ruled by philosopher-kings rather than ignorant politicians.
Learn More