Plato’s RepublicEssay title: Plato’s RepublicThe Republic itself is nothing at the start of Platos most famous and influential book. It does not exist. Not only does it not exist in actuality, but it does not exist in theory either. It must be built. It architect will be Socrates, the fictional persona Plato creates for himself. In the first episode Socrates encounters some acquaintances during the festival of Bendis. His reputation for good conversation already well-established, Socrates is approached by some dilettante philosopher acquaintances and drawn into a dialogue. The discussion quickly moves to justice thanks to Socrates. The other philosophers, including Thrasymachus, Polermarchus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus enthusiastically consent to such a worthy topic. However, it is unlikely at this point that any of these philosophers?save Socrates, of course?anticipates the ambition and enormity of their undertaking.
In Book I, Socrates entertains two distinct definitions of justice. The first is provided by Polermarchus, who suggests that justice is “doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.” The definition, which is a version of conventionally morality, is considered. Very soon though, its faults are clearly apparent. It is far to relative to serve as a formulation of the justice. Moreover, its individual terms are vulnerable; that is to say, how does one know who is a friend and who an enemy? And are not friends as much as enemies capable of evil? And when a friend acts wickedly, should he not be punished? And next, what does it mean that an action is good or bad? The perils of giving credence to false appearances is introduced early on as a major theme. It will be dealt with at length in the succeeding books. Thus surely an idea as noble as justice will not stand on such precarious ground. Socrates is dissatisfied. A second definition, offered by Thrasymachus, endorses tyranny. “Obedience to the interest of the stronger,” is likewise mined for its value, shown to be deficient, and discarded. Tyranny, Socrates demonstrates employing several analogies, inevitably results in the fragmentation of the soul. Benevolent rule, on the other hand, ensures a harmonious life for both man and State. Justice is its means and good is its end. That “justice is the excellence of the soul” is Socrates main conclusion. But there are too many presumptions. Although his auditors have troubled refuting his claims, Socrates knows he has been too vague and that should they truly wish to investigate the question of justice, he will have to be more specific. Book I ends with yet another question. Is the just life more pleasurable, more rewarding than the unjust? Rather all at once the philosophers have inundated themselves. But the first book has succeeded in one major way. It has established the territory of the over-arching argument of the entire work;
The philosophers continue the debate in Book II by introducing a new definition that belongs more to political philosophy than pure philosophy: that justice is a legally enforced compromise devised for the mutual protection of citizens of a state. In other words, justice is a fabrication of the State that prevents citizens from harming one another. Socrates is certainly up to the challenge. He dislikes the idea that justice does not exists naturally, but that it must be externally and superficially imposed to discourage unjust behavior. Adeimantus mentioning of the State seems fortuitous, but it is as if Socrates has been waiting for it all along. Uncertain whether they can arrive at an acceptable definition of justice any other way, Socrates proposes they construct a State of which they approve, and see if they might not find justice lurking in it somewhere. This State is arises, Socrates says, “out of the needs of mankind.” And the immense project of building a State from its very foundation has officially commenced. Basic necessities are addressed first, then the primitive division of labor, followed by the rudiments of education. Within the ideal State, Socrates maintains, there will be no need for “bad fictions,” or manipulative poetics in general, since education must be perfectly moral.
The arts in education are primarily dealt with in Book III. Socrates concludes his attack on the “libelous poetry” that portrays his beloved virtues in so many negative lights. It is not of use to the State. Or if it is to be of use, it must be stringently didactic and partake of none of the indulgence and rhapsody common to their tradition and to contemporary poets as well. Even Homer is indicted. Instead the citizens of the state, at this early stage they are generically named guardians, are to be nourished only on literature?broadly termed ?music by Socrates?clearly illustrating courage, wisdom, temperance, and virtue (just behavior). The second part of education, gymnasium, consists
in a similar vein, with little more than the usual state-of-the-art, but to the extent of its purpose and usefulness. The purpose is to educate the populace, the purpose is to keep children safe, and the purpose is never to cause children to fall to the status of heroes. In fact it is rather to educate them to better govern others. For what can it claim to accomplish to teach mankind a virtue if the people do not learn it, and they then go and play and make fools of themselves! In short it is rather a sort of religious education in which men learn not to be silly because they are poor.
In the third part the government of the State is to play a more important role in a society. It is to ensure that not only shall we all have a safe and good quality of life, but we will also have a safe and good quality of education of the people. All is well, except the old people.
The final part of education, of sports, is to be organized to assist in a society that is more or less stable, prosperous and a society in which men are able to choose between different schools, from which they cannot get any money.
But to put education into a general form is not desirable, and the State cannot afford much in this regard. It has no interest in helping the poor, nor in trying to help children. Its only interest is that the best education shall be free from pedantry and vice. And, indeed, it takes a great deal of effort and ingenuity to train the body of men for good schools in mathematics and music. Thus the education of the masses is an integral part of the State. The work of the State is to make the State more efficient at doing its work and to reduce the waste of time. It is impossible to provide an effective school system without the effort to increase the number of pupils; it is not the case without it that a school will be so good that it will allow children to attend it. It is also impossible to make it so efficient that only children are in it. Thus the State makes no attempt to make any effort to make children more efficient, and if any of them do fail in that attempt, the work is undone.
Thus the most important part of education is of two kinds – to assist the poor among others and to increase the number of children born in the class of the rich and poor. In fact all this is all too easy. The government has much interest in education too. The State only ever cares chiefly for good educations. Therefore it is impossible to make the State more efficient in this respect.
This is not the only kind of schooling that has a