Republic (Book II) by Plato
This post is part of my journey through the classic texts of Western civilization.
Injustice > Justice
We ended Book I with Socrates seemingly satisfactorily dealing with Thrasymachos and his objections. After all, he does make Thrasymachos blush and leave him without response. However, two of Socrates' companions, Glaucon and Adeimantos, do not believe that Socrates has fully answered Thrasymachos' claim (that they say many others share) that injustice is more profitable/advantageous than justice. For it seems after some thought that Thrasymachos has a good point.
Glaucon first outlines what people say the origin of justice is. The most profitable and advantageous scenario for somebody is to be able to do wrong/injustice and get away with it. On the other hand, the most disadvantageous scenario is to be on the receiving end of much wrong and not get vengeance. As men did not want this to happen to them, they sought an agreement with each other to not do wrong to each other thereby also securing their own safety. This social agreement/contract is the origin of justice. So a man is only just under compulsion and fear of punishment; but if he were able to do much wrong and injustice and get away with it, he surely would. To demonstrate this, Glaucon tells the famous story of the ring of Gyges.
There is a shepherd named Gyges who one day discovers a ring that can make him invisible. He proceeds to use this power to commit all sorts of injustices for his own profit and without fear of punishment, eventually seducing the king's wife, killing the king, and seizing the throne for himself. Would not any man do the same thing if he were able to get away it just like Gyges was able to with his ring?
Compare two extremes, the "perfectly unjust" man and the "perfectly just" man. Perfect injustice is when a man does all matters of wrong and injustice, and not only gets away with it, but is actually thought of by others as just. On the other hand, perfect justice is when a man is actually just and does right, but gets no honor and is continually thought of by others as unjust, yet he continues to live justly regardless. Which man is happier? Will not the perfectly just man at times wish to seem just to others while actually being unjust (just like the perfectly unjust man), while the perfectly unjust man will never desire anything about the perfectly just man's life? And as the perfectly unjust man—due to his favor with men—obtains wealth and status and all sorts of riches and goods, will not a reasonable man say the gods have blessed and had favor upon him?
Adeimantos jumps in to bolster the case for injustice even more. He points out that it is true that there are many on the opposing side who defend justice, yet they only praise justice for what it can give e.g. reputation, gifts, honor, etc. Additionally, though some may say that justice is to be preferred because the gods will find out about your deeds, Adeimantos points out that the poets who tell them about these gods also tell them that these gods can be persuaded and seduced with sacrifices, offerings, and prayers.
So, Socrates, what is the case for justice for its own sake?
The City and the Man
Socrates states at the beginning of this book that justice is to be loved both for its own sake and also for what comes from it. The scene is now set for Socrates to make his case; to do so, he invites the others to first consider a city and how justice and injustice come up there. For once this is understood, they can "examine it in the single man, looking for the likeness of the larger in the shape of the smaller."
Republic is often thought of primarily as a work of political philosophy. But we should keep in mind that the reason why Socrates begins the inquiry into a city is to examine justice in a man. This makes one wonder how much of what follows in the rest of the work Plato actually meant to apply in the realm of political philosophy, though I am sure that many valuable insights can still be made.
Socrates begins with a consideration of how a city comes to be. Since man is not self-sufficient and needs many things, men comes together and a city is formed. In this city, men will have different roles, for "we are not born all exactly alike but different in nature, for all sorts of different jobs." Different men will be suited for different tasks, for men are not equal: physically, intellectually, etc. Socrates basically makes the case for specialization, as it is more efficient and better for men to focus on the specific craft/thing they are good at rather than try and do all for themselves. For example, the cobbler should focus on making shoes and rely on others for his other needs.
There is one class of men that Socrates decides to spend a bit of time discussing, and that is what he calls the guardians. This is essentially the ruling class. A true guardian, according to Socrates, is "a lover of wisdom... and high-spirited in temper, and quick and strong." But how are these guardians to be trained and educated? Socrates says that the best education is "gymnastic for the body and music for the soul." Part of "music for the soul" is the telling of fables to children, but here Socrates warns that only the best fables must be told, since children are easily moulded and are impressionable when young. For example, some popular fables say that God is the cause of evil, when this is not so. Because of this, Plato prescribes what is essentially a blasphemy law, and says these fables must be prohibited.
We see the shift in the Greeks from knowledge of the gods through poets/stories/fables to knowledge of the gods via reason and natural theology. Plato is not willing to accept at face value what the poets say about the gods if what they say is contrary to reason. Another example follows right after, as fables should also be prohibited if they attribute lying to the gods. By far the most intriguing example is when Plato derides those fables that suggest that the God alters or changes. He presents a simple argument as to why this is not the case, which is essentially as follows:
- God is perfect and lacks no beauty or virtue.
- So God cannot become better and more beautiful.
- If God were to change, He must necessarily change for the worse or uglier.
- Nobody would willingly worsen himself.
- Therefore, God does not change.
Plato did not truly know God, but that does not mean that he could not know real truths concerning God. In the same way that Christians should have no issue taking truths from pagan biologists or mathematics, Christians ought not to be hesitant to take truths and arguments that pagan philosophers discover and discern via nature regarding God's nature.