Book IV of Plato's the Republic begins with the assertion that a person is fostering justice by "doing one's own work" (58). But what exactly is one's own work? Is this doing what one enjoys? Is this doing what one is good at? Or is this doing what one is told to do?
Of course now an ideal answer would be either that "one's own work" would be what that person enjoys or excels in doing. And hopefully those even would be the same "work." After all, personal happiness and productivity are interdependent. Each thrives in its own thriving and the thriving of the other. So it is difficult for me to comprehend how it is just for someone to be doing something he does not enjoy or do well simply because he is already doing it. If I enjoy fixing watches and clocks, and if I have mastered the skills necessary to do so, there is nothing I can do that would be more productive and personally fulfilling than to fix watches and clocks. Additionally, as soon as I become aware of my having mastered the art of fixing watches and clocks, I will be more eager to utilize those skills I have. And the more I see that I can very successfully utilize those skills, the more pleased I will be with those skills and with my occupation. Moreover, doesn't any individual's doing something he loves or does well benefit the public as a whole? This occupation may end up being the most beneficial for me and for society on the whole since my skill and enjoyment encourage my fixing the watches and clocks. (Sure, this is not the most important job that exists, but there will never be any doubt of the time, which is as much as I can or want to accomplish in my occupation.)
But people are expected to remain in "the occupation in the city for which he is naturally best suited" (58). Well, who makes those decisions? Who decides his nature? His strong suit? His occupation? If anyone aside from that one person answers any of those questions, then this is not a just situation.
In reality, of course, this happens all the time. People need money to support themselves, and a job provides that money, whether or not the person doing the job enjoys it or is good at it. Although I enjoy fixing clocks and watches, perhaps someone else is better at it than I am, or perhaps there are too many people in this occupation. Then I would have to abandon the occupation I enjoy and excel in to pursue something that would not benefit myself or my community nearly as much. People do not say that situation is just, because it isn't. It's reality. Which is why I was very surprised and indignant to see that this theory of justice and a perfect state come from such an unjust reality. If we aim for what we have, we can only become a weaker society. Ideal or perfect things cannot be defined by or founded on aspects of an imperfect reality.
This is a just and ideal society only if "one's own work" is defined by that particular individual and no one else.
I really appreciate, how you try to connect Plato‘s thoughts to reality, because this is, what Philosophy is actually worth for - to solve problems of our lives.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to comment on your passage, in which you wonder, who decides, what the „ergon“ of a person is. In my opinion, we have to put ourselves in the position of the ancient Greeks. In their belief, there was something like the cosmos, means a higher order, given by higher beings. Every human being, animal and I think also the plants have a special function and a special place in this cosmos. A doctor for example, is supposed to be a doctor in this cosmic order. But how does this refer to the reality? Well, as we discussed today in class, when this person, who will become a doctor later on, as a balanced soul and can therefore make proper decisions, comes to the point, when he (she/it) has to decide, which profession he wants to do, his answer is, of corse, the career of a doctor. Where does this knowledge or intuition come from? It is inside of the human being, as a part of the cosmos, so to speak given by mother nature. Christians tend to say, it was God who told him, what to do.
Even if this person was not able to find out, what he wants to do, or better: what he is meant to do in his life, he will (hopefully) find the solution to this question as his life goes on. Don‘t we think in the same way today? We assume the life as a journey, of which at the end happiness should wait for us - or: we find our place in the cosmos.
Personally, I can really feel, what Plato wanted to say with this theory. Who can tell, what he wants to do all his life at the age of 20? Maybe we could answer the old question of the sense of life with a very simple statement: Find your ergon!
Florian Winkelmann
I agree with both Aubrey and Florian in this discussion. The question of who chooses one's "work" is an interesting one that I believe the majority of the class wanted to know. Personally, I think that, as Florian said, each person will be able to discover and choose to pursue their ergon with a balanced and just soul. However, as we all know, society is not always just which and, therefore, even if one finds their purpose in life, sometimes they must make a decision to pursue a life that is better suited for their personal situation. I believe this plays into the idea that chance can often be an important factor in determining where life will lead us. In the end, one will choose the best route for oneself in a pursuit to find happiness even if it is not exactly the life that was meant for them/ what would make them truly happy and successful. This means that one is still in control of their lives even when an unjust society or even chance alters the future one hoped for.
ReplyDeleteI also wondered how each person was assigned their ergon. It seems though that Plato thinks of ergons as being already imbedded in individuals and that their role is to find and live by them. It is hard to accept this helplessness and inability to direct ones own life as fair but maybe it could be just. In this scenario humans are bowing to the will of nature in accepting their natural, randomly assigned ergon rather than choosing a path for themselves. If this is so, then Plato must also be assuming that the force of justice is present in nature and that is where souls and societies get it from. In order to have a just society Plato says you need three equally important balanced class groups each doing their part. In order to have this you would need a balanced population, a population that included a balanced number of people for each group. This population of balanced souls would be provided by nature or whatever is giving each soul its ergon and must be the source of justice and the reason we search for it in ourselves and in our societies. In order to understand justice in Plato's context it seems important to understand where people get their ergons and to trace Justice from society, to individual, and back to the source whatever it might be.
ReplyDelete