Justice, Myth, and Education in Plato's Republic

Introduction: Reading Plato in a Modern Context

Many of the rhetorical terms used by Socrates in Plato's Republic can be misleading to a casual reader from contemporary American society. It is important to clarify the definitions of justice, myth, and the education of children as they are used within this text, so that a reader is neither confused nor misled about the basic tenets of this great, though autocratic, Greek philosopher's core beliefs regarding the stratified nature of an ideal society — one that mirrored the human soul.

Although the title of the text refers to a "Republic," and a republican form of government as it exists in our own nation is representative and contains many democratic elements and institutions — such as the electoral process — Plato intended his work as a critique of democratic Athenian society and institutions. He believed it was most just that the will of the most philosophically and morally gifted should prevail, rather than society being ruled by the many. This, for Plato, was justice. Consequently, his definitions of such core concepts as justice, myth, and ideal education differ sharply from the connotations these words carry in contemporary media discourse, where republicanism is synonymous with popular democracy, justice is meant to be blind, myths are dismissed as fairy tales, and education is democratically dispersed among the citizenry so that anyone can succeed.

Plato's Definition of Justice

Plato's republic is an autocracy of merit, led by philosopher-kings. Merit, however, is determined at birth or relatively early in life, rather than after a full education has taken place. Children are raised collectively, removed from their parents as young as possible, in order to inculcate in them the ideals of this republican society. The powers that be then select those most fit to become guardians or leaders. This arrangement reaffirms the notion of justice that Socrates advocates when he argues against the sophists in the first extended dialogue on justice. One sophist proclaims that the most rhetorically gifted speaker deserves the greatest rewards from society, as judged by the masses.

In contrast, Socrates maintains that those who are most gifted to lead — rather than those who are the strongest — should dominate the leadership of a given society. The most militarily fit should fight, just as those who know how to mend shoes should be cobblers. Socrates thus defines justice in terms of every human being fulfilling his or her role according to their highest skill, and society should be structured and segmented accordingly, rather than having every person attempt to govern or compete for elite positions of leadership. This stands in direct contrast to the view of Thrasymachus, who declares, "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger" (Republic 338c). The sophists believed that those who could sway the mass will should lead; Thrasymachus believed the most physically powerful tyrant should lead. Socrates denies the validity of both positions.

The Role of Philosopher-Kings and Merit

One of the most fundamental problems with such a republic, of course, is determining who will identify those most fit to govern — especially given that the masses are apt to become prey to false, emotionally charged words and myths rather than truth. To be fair, in Socrates' estimation, royalty and birth alone are not the only determinants of fitness: merit is assessed by the guardians of the preceding generation. Even the child of a guardian or philosophically accomplished leader does not automatically inherit leadership; one must demonstrate intellectual fitness through education.

This is the ideal. Yet those who lead the society are granted tremendous power, and it remains questionable whether these ideal philosophical leaders — who shape the educational system of the next generation and transmit its values in place of a culturally generated system of myths — are truly so perfect as to be unbiased. After all, it is they who censor the words disseminated by their society in the pursuit of a kind of perfection in the world.

Conclusion: Plato's Republic and Its Limitations

However tempting it might be to look to the ancient Greeks for guidance in an election year, Plato's Republic — although not a conventional tyranny — still seems prone to abuses. Human beings of such philosophical purity are difficult to come by, even when raised upon carefully curated myths of justice. Plato's vision of a pure society remains instructive, however, when paired against our own raucous notions of politics and the democratic wrangling that so repulsed Socrates in ancient Athens.