Plato\'s Protagoras the Republic and Laws

¶ … Plato's "Republic" -- Justice, Myth, Education

Many of the rhetorical terms used by Socrates in Plato's "Republic" might be misleading to a casual observer from contemporary American society. It is important to go over the definitions of justice, myths, and education of children, as they are used within this text, so a reader is neither confused nor mislead as to the basic tenets of this great, but autocratic Greek philosopher's core beliefs about the stratified nature of an ideal society that mirrored the human soul.

Although the title of the text refers to a "Republic," and a republican form of government as exists within our own nation is representative and has many democratic elements and institutions to support its frameworks, such as the electoral process (for better or for worse), Plato intended his work to be a critique of democratic Athenian society and institutions. He believed that it was most just that the will of the most philosophically and morally gifted should lead, rather than society should be ruled by the many. This, for Plato, was justice. Thus, his definitions of such core concepts as justice, the meaning of myth, and the forms of teaching an ideal education are quite different from the connotations such words have in our media discourse today, where republicanism is synonymous with popular democracy, justice should be blind, myths are fairy tales, and education is democratically dispersed amongst the citizenry so that 'anyone' can succeed.

Plato's republic is an autocracy of merit, lead by philosopher kings. Merit, however, is determined at birth or relatively early in life, rather than after an education takes place. Children are raised collectively, away from their parents as young as possible, to inculcate them in the ideals of this republican society, and to chosen by the powers that be as to those who will be the most fit guardians or leaders. This reaffirms the notions of justice advocated by Socrates when he speaks against sophists of the first extended dialogue regarding justice, as one sophist who proclaims that the most rhetorically gifted speaker deserves the most plaudits from society, as deemed by the masses.

In contrast, Socrates maintains that those who are most gifted to lead, rather than those who are most strong, should dominate the leadership of a given society. The most militarily fit should fight, just like those who know how to mend shoes should be cobblers. Socrates thus defines justice in terms of every human being fitting his or her skill level as best as possible, and thus society should be structured and segmented accordingly, rather than every person attempting to govern, or fighting for the elite positions of leadership within a society. This is in contrast to the thuggish Thrasymachus who says, "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger," Republic 338c. Sophists believed that those who could sway the strength of the mass will should lead, Thrasymachus believes the most physically strong tyrant should lead, Socrates denies the validity of both.

One of the most fundamental problems with such a "Republic," of course, is who will determine who is the most fit to govern in such a society if the strength of the will of the masses, whom are apt to become prey to false and emotional words and myths rather than truths, will lead. True, at least royalty and birth are not the only determinants of fitness in Socrates' estimation -- merit is determined by the guardians who lived before, but merely because one is the child of a guardian or leader of great philosophical knowledge does not automatically mean one will lead, one must prove one's intellectual fitness through education.

This is the ideal. But those who lead the society are granted tremendous power, and it remains questionable of these ideal philosophical leaders, who lead and shape the educational system of the next generation and pass on the next generation's values rather than a culturally generated system of myths are so perfect as to be unbiased. After all, it is they who censor the words that are disseminated by this society to achieve a kind of perfection in the world.

Socrates would respond to this objection as he does to T. To Thrasymachus, who argues that a tyrant is happy and fortunate because he is immune to the requirements of justice. Socrates would state that the definition of justice and of the leadership of philosopher kings is that they are impartial and immune to finding happiness in an unjust fashion, in contrast to tyrants, the ideal leaders of Thrasymachus who states that "tyranny is not a matter of minor theft and violence, but of wholesale plunder, sacred and profane, private or public. If you are caught committing such crimes in detail you are punished and disgraced; sacrilege, kidnapping, burglary, fraud, theft are the names we give to such petty forms of wrongdoing. But when a man succeeds in robbing the whole body of citizens and reducing them to slavery, they forget these ugly names and call him happy and fortunate, as do all others who hear of his unmitigated wrongdoing." [Republic 344a-c]