The Republic by Plato

Okay, so, this is not my usual topic.  However, since I took a World Lit in Translation class last semester, I figured I would publish my reflection papers as reviews.  I'm going to start from the beginning and then work my way to the last paper I did.

Mind you, these are more academic in style and not as conversational as my normal posts.  I hope that doesn't affect your liking of my blog.

To start off, we have Plato and The Republic. I used this edition, published by Penguin Classics.

Here is the paper I wrote reflecting on Plato:

Upon reading Plato’s Republic, one becomes immersed in a dialogue between student and pupils.  The argument of whether true justice exists and what it looks like becomes the center around which the debate travels.  Socrates, the teacher, and dialectic who steers the debate argues that there is such a thing as true justice and true beauty—one must look at the nature of them to understand what these two aspects truly are.  To do that, Socrates and Glaucon imagined up their perfect society, or Utopia.

            Keeping in mind that Plato wrote the Republic concerning the works of his beloved teacher Socrates, I feel it is very likely that counterarguments to Socrates’ line of thought were purposefully neglected from the text.  There are a lot of contradictions involved.  Socrates condemns dishonesty and then goes on to state that children and Guardians must be lied to in their upbringing to shape them into the individuals required to further the society.  For instance, the dialectics were debaters who considered writing to be of a lazy intellect, and yet Plato loved to write.  Socrates repeatedly overgeneralizes and uses abstract terminology to describe things which are concrete.  How can a thing be both tangible and intangible?   Further proving overgeneralization, Socrates gives one example which states the relationship between individuals and justice and attempts to apply it across the board, something in which Clifford Geertz would undoubtedly find fault.

            The Republic is inherently flawed.  Its arguments are a bit ridiculous and are not adequately refuted.  Instead, the reader is led down a path to believe whatever it is that Socrates chooses to suggest, much like the cave-prisoner in the Allegory of the Cave is “made [to] look towards the source of the light itself (pg 241, 515e).”  The reader is forced to follow the suggestion of Socrates as no arguments against him are being made.  Glaucon blindly and faithfully follows wherever Socrates suggests.  The only logical arguments come from the mind of the reader as they employ their sense of reason while attempting to digest what is being force-fed them by Plato.

            Despite some convolution concerning overgeneralizations, there are some points in which Plato, and, in turn, Socrates, were much more radical for their time and this reader appreciates the attempt at equality during such an ancient time.  The application of equality in the Republic allows women much the same honors and duties as men, so far as they are “fitted by nature for something (pg. 166, 455c).”  Sadly, in the same turn, Plato goes on to express these thoughts towards women, which followed well into the 21^st Century, depicted in the excerpt from 455d (pg 167):

Well, do you know of anything at which human beings practice in which the male sex isn’t superior to the female, in all the respects mentioned?  Or are we to waste time talking about things like weaving, or looking after pancakes or stews, where the female sex does seem to count for something, and there’s nothing more ridiculous than if a woman comes off second best?

Socrates is of two different minds on the subject of feminism though he claims that there is only one true version of anything.  If only one can be true then why are both portrayed by the so-called master himself?  It’s maddening that Glaucon never refutes the holes in Socrates’ logic but blindly follows him, despite Socrates intending to teach one to strive for understanding and think for oneself rather than follow along because another said so.

            While navigating Book V, I was struck by the similarities with which Lois Lowry constructed her dystopia in The Giver. Socrates’ society is mimicked in The Giver and is evidence that it was the foundation upon which Lowry constructed her novel.  The two parallel in that “They’ll take the offspring of the good ones, I think, and carry them off to the rearing-pen, where they’ll be under the care of special nannies…Offspring of inferior parents, together with any of the better sort that may be born with some defect, they’ll hade away as appropriate. (pg. 174, 460c).”  These two “perfect” societies are built upon a flawed foundation.  They both assume that humans can be pigeon-holed into aptitudes and will not evolve in their passions.  Socrates even refutes his point with the Allegory of the Cave.  He was referencing higher understanding in the Allegory, but it can also apply to human nature.  As a child, I did not want to become a teacher.  That passion found me later in life.  How unfortunate would it be, then, if I had continued down what I imagined I was suited for only to find that it was a fleeting phase in my life and that a higher level of understanding awaited me?

            Socrates is undoubtedly of great import as his views and philosophies have shaped much of how we think in present times.  His point of seeking knowledge for the sake of learning is one such point and encourages metacognition.  For instance, the Allegory of the Cave suggests that being chained up and believing the lie that shadows are the true forms is unnatural to humans.  Instead, it is far more natural to be released from that lie and exposed to the truth outside the cave.  Despite how natural it is, people will hold tightly to what they believe to be true regardless of evidence that proves otherwise.  They must possess the ability to analyze information and apply it to their lives to prove its truth or falsehood. 

            In conclusion, the Republic is valuable in the sense that it encourages deeper thought and understanding through the asking of questions.  It is not a blueprint for justice or a perfect society, but rather the musings of an individual who even today would be classified as an extremist.  Its purpose is not to create a society or blindly lead into a way of thinking, but it is to create thought and the process of gaining knowledge by the asking of questions and discussions with individuals of a similar desire to learn.

__________________________________________________________

Okay, so that's that.  I was not a fan of Plato or The Republic the first time I read it, or his other works, for that matter.  However, the more I've read of him and the more I begin to understand his approach, I can see it's value.  The fact that this book is still around is a testament to its influence.  In a way, this text has shaped the world in which we live.  Without Plato, Saint Augustine wouldn't have had the examples by which to support Christianity, and Christianity has become a religion that has dominated and shaped the world, whether you like it or not.  

Either way, Plato's influence should not be undersold.  He's definitely an aquired taste, and you don't have to like him to appreciate his impact.