Each postulate of Plato’s Republic is based on certain assumptions about human nature and the world around us, some of which are undeniable and some of which are incomplete. This does not necessarily invalidate his conclusions, but it is essential to examine all the underlying ideas that motivate each particular statement. This is a central feature of the analysis of any work of philosophy, and not unique to the Republic – though nor is it invalid when reading fiction, such as Borges’ Lottery.
In argument with Socrates, Thrasymachus states that “A just man always gets less than an unjust one…when taxes are to be paid, a just man pays more on the same property, an unjust one less…” (45). This represents the essential characteristic of justice that we discussed in class: fairness. In this situation, it is clearly just for everyone to pay taxes in the same amount on the same property. However, is this true and truly fair in every situation? Should all levels of society be taxed in the same manner, or are taxes strictly necessary? We can ask these questions because we know Plato lived in a democracy that collected taxes and which included both just and unjust people, just as our society does today. We must remember, though, that in another case where taxes or unjust people or money itself are nearly absent, his speculations on the nature of justice may need adjustment to remain useful. An excellent example of such a place is found in More’s Utopia, which includes an intriguing description of one particular realization of most of Plato’s ideas.
The Republic work owes much of its lasting impact to the persistence of the democracy; hundreds of years and many failed nations have shown that it is often the least worst option. For all its examinations of justice and utilitarian ideas, Plato’s conception of an ideal society has never underpinned a stable nation; the implementation of his ideal was so thoroughly examined in the Republic that either the system itself is unworkable, as certain parts are, or Socrates and the interlocutors made faulty assumptions about human nature and desires.
If the key to a lasting society is stability produced by a satisfied populace that is or believes it is empowered, then Plato’s assumptions and reasoning should still produce a workable society. This depends on forming the Noble Lies described later in the Republic into the same type of mystic, undeniable history that the Company in Borges’ story relies upon – assuming, of course, that the Company actually exists and is not in fact a manifestation of another set of Noble Lies.
"For all its examinations of justice and utilitarian ideas, Plato’s conception of an ideal society has never underpinned a stable nation; the implementation of his ideal was so thoroughly examined in the Republic that either the system itself is unworkable, as certain parts are, or Socrates and the interlocutors made faulty assumptions about human nature and desires."
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the last part of this selection, I believe that Socrates/Plato did in fact make correct assumptions about human nature. In class, we discussed whether or not the "spirited" part of the city (police officers, firefighters, etc.) would be necessary in a just society, for when every citizen is just, why would there need to be a system of checks and balances? Rather, if everyone sticks to their ergo, there should be no need for enforcement. I believe that Socrates had to have taken into account the fact that his guideline for an ideal society would need to be practical in order to be useful. Otherwise, if he was being purely hypothetical, he might have reasoned the most just society would not need class distinctions, regardless if they are heirarchical or not.
I like your response to this reading, but I do not think that it is fair to say that Plato's idea has never spawned a stable society. What unstable societies has it underpinned? Are there even any who have specifically stated that they were using Plato as their foundation?