I had ambitions to write about Plato’s Republic with some thoroughness, but I guess I will just pursue one point. Good enough.
I have been separating Socrates from Plato, an imaginative
exercise based on circular criteria. The
more Socratic of the Socratic dialogues are shorter, feature proto-novelistic details
about settings and characters, and end without resolving the question at issue. The first book of Republic is one such
proto-novel. With the second book,
though, the characters and details fall away, and Socrates, rather than interrogating
the ideas of his listeners, directly presents his own ideas. Perhaps the first book was written earlier,
or perhaps Plato was signaling with self-parody that he was shifting to a new
rhetorical mode. The topic is classic:
what is justice. Here, he shows, is how
I used to answer the question, and then here is the new way.
Socrates’s enemy in the first chapter asserts that justice
is the pleasure of the strong and the suffering of the weak – what most of us
would call injustice – with any other definitions simply the special pleading
of the weak. An ugly position, but a
strong one, hard to refute without a number of arguable assumptions.
Plato – Socrates is speaking, but I now think of the speaker
as ironic Plato – shifts the discussion to political justice and the ideal
city-state, where specially trained philosopher-kings, selfless because they
share property and even sexual partners, run a city based on a fictional racial
caste system and eugenics. It is not
quite a version of “You know who should be in charge – we should be in charge!”
but it is close, and the radical policies are of course, to anyone who
remembers the twentieth century, appalling, the setup for mass murder and the
destruction of human rights.
Socrates is, I find, an appealing if aggravating figure (and
aggravation is part of his appeal), but in The Republic Plato becomes
The Enemy, the intellectual ancestor of a lot of later ideological catastrophes.
His radical censorship, for example:
Then we must first of all, it seems, supervise the storytellers. We’ll select their stories whenever they are fine or beautiful and reject them when they aren’t. And we’ll persuade nurses and mothers to tell their children the ones we have selected, since they will chape their children’s souls with stories much more than they shape their bodies by handling them. Many of the stories they tell now, however, must be thrown out. (Book 2, 377c, tr. G. M. A. Grube)
Socrates / Plato particularly dislikes stories where gods
act like humans or where there is some kind of icky sexual aspect. He is a bit of a Puritan. He wants to bowdlerize Homer. Presumably Sophocles, too – “we’ll be angry
with him, we’ll refuse him a chorus” (2, 383c), and Euripides and Aristophanes
will likely be wiped out. I wonder how
much of Homer will be left.
We’ll ask Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we delete these passages and all similar ones (Book 3, 387b).
This is a bit of the Odyssey in which the souls of the killed suitors are
compared to bats. The objection of
Socrates is that it is too scary for a future philosopher-king! “[S]hudders” will make them “softer.” Hilarious.
I am aware of Leo Strauss’s argument that The Republic
is satirical, a travesty, meant to be outrageous. I don’t know.
I don’t dismiss the idea, but I have trouble following it while reading
the actual text.
An irony is that late in life, as I order his works, Plato
becomes a great storyteller, an early master of fantasy fiction. The rich, bizarre Parable of the Cave in The
Republic is the ancestor of endless science fiction stories, most famously,
I suppose, The Matrix movies.
Plato ends the book with an elaborate afterlife fantasy. The late dialogue Timaeus vividly
describes the creation of the universe.
The unfinished Critias describes Atlantis and suggests that the
bulk of it, if Plato had lived to finish it, would detail the long war between
Atlantis and the Athens of 9,000 years ago.
How is this anything but a fantasy novel? Two recent blockbuster movies have featured
wars with Atlantis, and I believe a third is coming this summer. To think that these goofy superhero movies
are direct descendants of Plato.
Our next philosopher is the down-to-earth Aristotle. We won’t find so much fantasy in the
commonsensical Nicomachean Ethics, which I hope to write up in early
June.