Analysis of Plato the Rebublic

At the beginning of Book I, we are introduced to the narrator, Socrates, and his audience of peers. We are made aware, however, of Socrates' special charm and intellectual gifts through the insistence of Polemarchus and the other men for the pleasure of his company. The tone is casual and language and modes of expression rather simple, as is commonly the case in Plato's dialogues. However, Plato's unaffected style serves at least two purposes. For one it belies the complexity and elevation of the ideas, thus it is in accord with Socrates' characteristic irony itself, which draws the "fool" in by feigned ignorance, only so that the master can show that he does not know what he thinks he knows. And second, the plainness of style

complements truth and wisdom, the aim of all the dialogues, which by nature are aphoristic.

In Socrates' conversation with Cephalus, the proper approach to aging and the state of old age is addressed. Although other men Cephalus' age commonly complain that for them, "life is no longer life," Cephalus feels that they misattribute discomfort and unhappiness resulting from their defective characters to advanced age. Building on a statement by Sophocles, Cephalus concludes, "he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age." Socrates' inquiry as to whether Cephalus' happiness owes to the comfort of wealth demands a qualification of this position? That while a man's nature ultimately determines his peace of mind in old age; wealth is also an undeniably important factor.

The passage concerning justice illustrates Socrates' dexterous intellect and his dogged skepticism. Playful and humorous at times, the conversation ends, at several points, in absurd--and apparently inexorable--conclusions such as that the just man is a thief. What is at work here is another type of irony, in which Socrates and his auditors accept as a temporary resolution what the dialogue's audience, i.e. the reader, cannot. Here, Plato grants the reader space to think for himself. A central problem with Polemarchus' definition (borrowed from Simonides) a form of conventional morality of justice, "doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies," is the vulnerability of its individual terms. Not surprisingly, Socrates probes each one, exposing any and all weaknesses or limitations in pursuit of Truth.

It is precisely this meticulousness that leads Thrasymachus to accuse Socrates of never answering questions. Socrates' response (another question) clarifies his epistemology: "how can anyone answer who knows, and says that he knows, just nothing??" What Socrates' knows is incommunicable other than to say that he knows nothing. His philosophical speculations embody a process rather than a philosophy. That is, Socrates' method is in accord with the nature of inquiry and of intellectual exploration itself: he is his style. And, acutely aware of this fact, Socrates repels every temptation toward dogma, characterized by Thrasymachus' complaints.

The second definition of justice, obedience to the interest of the stronger, is Thrasymachus' veiled justification for tyranny (might is right), and is foreshadowed in his indecorous demand for payment. He is portrayed in sharp contrast to Socrates, who suggests that the stronger may not always know his own interest; therefore, at times, it is necessary for the weaker to disobey him. Socrates then successfully upsets the definition by demonstrating that, insofar as his role is an art, a ruler acts in the best interest of his subjects, as exemplified by the physician for his patients and the captain for his crew.

Still unresolved, the debate moves into a second stage, where tyranny, or perfect injustice, and benevolent rule, or perfect justice, are evaluated against one another. Again, through a series of examples, Socrates prevails--the unjust man's pride and ambition are shown to be weaknesses, since he is incapable of singular as well as common action, while on the other hand the just man is humble, wise, and strong.

For his own pleasure, Socrates carries the debate into a final stage, in order to prove that the aim of a man's life should be justice not injustice. Socrates uses the analogy of the soul, considering its proper functions and its end. If the souls' end is life, Socrates says, and its excellence, or perfect execution of that end, is the fulfillment of life, then justice is the excellence of the soul because, as he had revealed earlier, the just man enjoys better quality of life. Although it would seem that Socrates' conclusion, that he still knows nothing about the nature of justice, is merely

facetious, it is not. In the course of the dialogue, the philosophers have studied justice's manifestations only when, in truth, it is an abstract concept, an ideal, or a form, and according to Plato, belongs to a category or realm outside and beyond definition. Therefore, justice is unknowable as such.

The dialogue of the second book is more an intellectual exercise than the previous book, since Glaucon takes a position contrary to his own (in fact, it is Thrasymachus') for the sake of argument, and so that they might arrive at a more satisfying conclusion. Therefore, he poses the allegory of the shepherd. The allegory suggests that, magically freed of legal/social responsibility (invisibility), any man would act unjustly and seek power.

Adeimantus' injection of poetry from Aeschylus, Hesiod, and Homer as endorsing the rewards and relative ease of injustice over justice complements his brother's legalistic argument. He is drawing on their shared cultural tradition, in which he can find no convincing example of justice pursued as an end in itself and not merely as a means, in this life or the next, to an end. The deceptive, disappointing worth of poetry is a theme to be explored in depth later (the final conclusion occurs in Book X). What he wants from Socrates is "the essential good and evil which justice and injustice work in the possessors of them."

Socrates' method of approach consists first of the construction of a State in which justice will be tried against injustice, and, second, of the trial of the just individual. The first part is a massive undertaking, and the proper origin of the Republic a state that arises "out of the needs of mankind." The assumption (and it is one) is extremely important; it shall be the foundation of the Republic.

In order to ensure the basic needs of man, Socrates would assign each man in his burgeoning State a single occupation that suits his natural inclination, instead of leave every man to work separately for his every need.

...