FREE ESSAY ON PLATO'S REPUBLIC JUSTIFIED

PLATO'S REPUBLIC JUSTIFIED

PLATO'S Republic 
In Plato's Republic, Socrates leads a discussion with his fellow philosophers attempting
to isolate the concept of justice in the soul. In order to accomplish this task,
they hypothesize that justice can occur both in the city as well as and the soul. Because
the philosophers are more familiar with the workings of a city than the soul,
they try to find justice by creating the ideal city, or Kallipolis. When they find
justice in the ideal city, they are able to apply as well as justify the use of that
same
concept in the soul. From their discussion, they conclude that the components of the soul
and the components of the city are related, and that the concept of justice
occurs in both.
Empirical observation shows that a city is created because no single person is
self-sufficient. All the needs of the citizens determine the components of their city,
from
the basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter, to the more elaborate needs such as
swords, plumbing, and books. In an ideal city, the philosophers believe each
citizen will do the task that is best suited to him or her. Such a division of labor
makes the city the most efficient, or ideal. 
Socrates then examines these various tasks and is able to separate them into three
distinct groups: those which produce something for the city, those which protect
the city from both internal and external subversion, and those which provide control and
direct the other two groups. The people who carry out these tasks are called
producers, guardians, and rulers, respectively. 
Socrates then deals heavily with education. He decrees that the citizens, specifically
the guardians, are to have both physical and mental training, for those who
devote themselves exclusively to physical training turn out to be more savage than they
should, while those who devote themselves to music and poetry turn out
softer than is good for them (410c). Here, starting to lay the groundwork for relating
the city to the soul, Socrates likens the savageness to a person's spirited
characteristics and the softness to his or her philosophic characteristics. The two are
in harmony to make the guardian both moderate and courageous. 
Turning to the rulers, Socrates hypothesizes that they must be the best of the guardians
(412c) and hence the ones who are best at guarding the city (412c). The
rulers need to be knowledgeable, not easily deceived, care for the city greatly, and
pursue what is most advantageous to the city.
The producers of the city are not discussed as in depth as the other two classes.
Socrates wants to wait until justice has been isolated before delving into the topic of
the producers' manner of education. 
With their Kallipolis formed, they are now able to make certain assumptions that are
needed in order to support the concept of justice in the soul. Foremost, they
can assume that the city is completely good, solely from the fact that it is an ideal
city. If it is completely good, it must have the four characteristics of being wise,
courageous, moderate, and just, based on their agreed beliefs on an ideal city. Socrates
et al now try to isolate the first three characteristics, believing that justice will
remain.
They determine that the city's wisdom stems from knowledge and the ability to apply it;
specifically, knowledge of guardianship. This knowledge is in abundance in
the rulers, so wisdom most closely must relate to the rulers. 
Courage, or civic courage as they call it, is empirically determined by Socrates and the
others to come from those who fight for the city. From the actions of the
guardians, not the producers or rulers, is a city called courageous or cowardly.
Therefore, courage most closely relates to the guardians. 
Compared to the wisdom and courage, moderation, Socrates states, is more like a kind of
consonance and harmony (430e), and he uses the idea of self-control
as an example. This seems to show that one part of the city is in control of another
part. In the city, the producers have a variety of needs and wants. Moderation
occurs when these desires are controlled by the rulers. 
Having shown the first three of the city's four characteristics, they believe that
justice must be whatever is remaining. According to Socrates, justice is doing one's
own work and not meddling with what isn't one's own (433b). It follows that injustice
would be meddling with what is not one's own, such as a farmer trying to be a
ruler. 
Socrates has spent considerable effort defining the workings and characteristics of the
ideal city. This detail is needed when they attempt to map the same concepts
to the soul, for while they are applying these concepts they will also be exploring the
workings of the soul itself. Socrates bases his mapping of the concept of justice
saying a just man won't differ at all from a just city in respect to the form of justice;
rather he'll be like the city (435a). 
In order to show that the soul, like the city, indeed has distinct parts and is not a
single entity, Socrates uses the theory of opposites; some single thing cannot be
'true' and 'not true' at respect to the same instance. To utilize this theory he
discusses appetites, the want or desire for an abstract thing. In this particular case,
Socrates uses the appetite of thirst. When a person is thirsty, there are many cases
where the person rationally decides not to drink, even though the appetite
remains. Such cases illustrate two distinct and, in this instance, 'opposite' parts of
the soul: rational and appetitive.
Socrates is not content with merely two parts to the soul. To account for a person's
actions due to anger or other emotions, actions that conflict with both the rational
and appetitive parts, he surmises that there must be a third part to the soul as well,
the spirited part. He discusses cases where a person's spirited actions act in
harmony with both the rational and appetitive parts of the soul, seemingly proving its
independence. Socrates is now content with three parts to the soul. At this point
in his argument, Socrates appears a little less than thorough. In his arguments, he seems
to create the spirited part to satisfy conflicts he perceives, but then seems
quite content to stop there. In his rush to create a soul with as many parts as the city,
Socrates fails to investigate the possibility of a soul with more than three parts.
While it is inconclusive whether or not a further division of the soul is needed,
Socrates method does not necessarily prove that there are three and only three parts to
the soul.
To relate the just city and the soul, Socrates attempts a hierarchical relationship.
Socrates makes use of the fact that each citizen in the ideal city is doing his or her
own work and is therefore just. Now, if the citizen is just, then it follows each part of
the person's soul must also be doing its job and be just. This assertion, of
course, rests on the assumption that justice applies to both the city and the soul and
that the soul is divisible. If this assertion is valid then the comparison follows: the
rational part of the soul is analogous to the city's rulers, providing wisdom and
leadership, and the spirited part of the soul is analogous to the guardians, providing
courage. Also, the person and the city can both be called moderate if all the parts are
acting harmoniously. Thus, as with the city, justice is what remains. And, just
like the city, justice is each part doing its own job and not meddling with what is not
its own. Just as a just city is in a natural state, to produce justice is to establish
the parts of the soul in a natural relation of control and being controlled (444d).
To find justice in the soul, Socrates and his fellow philosophers are faced with the
daunting task of also determining the inner workings of the soul itself. However, by
creating and examining an ideal city, they are able to isolate certain characteristics,
including justice. Examining the ideal person, they are able to come up with a
division of the soul. Although his method here is not as thorough as it should be, his
resulting division seems plausible. Their examination hinges on being able to apply
the same concept of justice to both the city and the soul. Without this, their
examination of the soul has no backing arguments and therefore, based solely on its own,
no credence. With the supporting accounts however, their definition of justice is
validated and they are thus able to achieve their goal of finding justice in the soul.