The Republic: Justice

Right and Wrong versus “advantage”

The sophists, such as Thrasymachus in this dialogue, believed that right and wrong were subjective – there being no absolute right or wrong. All actions were either for your advantage or disadvantage (i.e. might makes right). He thinks that justice is an unnatural constraint on our desires. It is like Thomas Hobbes Leviathan - we have all had to make compromises to live within a state and have laws to protect us. It seems that it is better to be thought of a just, but really be unjust.

“Appearance tyrannizes over truth”

Socrates says that justice is not only being honest and following laws. For example, you would take a weapon away from an insane friend. It is suggested that Justice is do harm to friends and harm to enemies, but this is imperfect since we can make mistakes. Also our friends are not entirely virtuous and our enemies may not be pure malcontents.

Socrates then explains that injustice is contrary to wisdom and therefore cannot be a virtue. He says that a virtue like justice is its own reward and that we all want justice and it protects us from injustice. “Laws exist to provide reason for those who are not strong enough to rule their own soul.”

The Republic: an overview

The Republic is Plato’s most well-known dialogue, contains his most memorable metaphors and is his most articulate attempt at describing what “justice” is. Reading this was a long, slow journey (with my note taking), even though I had read it a few years ago. Much of this dialogue concerns Socrates conversing with others trying to understand what a just person is by comparing the individual to a city-state. “A city is the soul writ large”, Socrates says as he makes an analogy between different individuals within a city to qualities that exist within a person.

Socrates says there are basically three elements to a person or a city. At the lowest level are the great masses of people, the “producers” of goods and services, which in an individual would be the “appetites”. These give us desires and drive us to do things. They must be controlled by the “auxiliaries” or soldiers, who in an individual would be represented as courage or spirit. These auxiliaries, who also protect us from outside forces, must in turn be ruled over by “reason” in the individual, or in a city-state this would be the “guardians” or “philosopher-kings”.

Every class has its own desires: the mass of people (appetites) lust after all things and pleasure ,but especially desire money; the auxiliaries (courage) want honor and pride and can lead us to anger; the philosopher-kings (reason) strive for knowledge and wisdom and rule over all. When the balance is upset in a city, much as in an individual, disaster will result.

I think Plato’s tripartite soul sounds very familiar to Sigmund Freud’s Id, Ego and Super-ego. The Id is like Plato’s appetites, the Ego could be considered the auxillaries and the Super-ego is certainly the guardians. I am not a Freud expert, so this is only an observation.

Other "Great Books"

Reading Plato's lengthy dialogue "The Republic" is like pulling a parachute through water. I am taking notes as I read, which is probably the real reason my pace is suddenly languid. Rather than slog through Plato (which I am still doing) I decided to do some side reading.

About two months I added a collection of books to my library that I found at my wife's grandmother's house. Assembled in 1967, these books are from the makers of the GBWW and the reading selections are still considered classics, but they are directed toward children. Therefore I am still reading "western literature classics" and this is a needed break from Plato.

Recently I have finished:

A Christmas Tale by Charles Dickens - Although we are all familiar with this work I think few of us have read the original work. I would not call this a children's book unless your child has a graduate school vocabulary. It is quite well written and I am looking forward to reading more of Dickens in the future.


Stories from 1001 Arabian nights: Several short stories, includes "Ali Babba and the 40 thieves".

Greek and Roman Mythology: Lots of stories here - quite informative.

Fables by Leo Tolstoy - Probably the most accessible literature written by Tolstoy.

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson: This is a great story! The wooden legged pirate Long John Silver, a loquacious parrot and buried treasure marked "X" on a map! The pirate, swashbuckler dialogue is fantastic - and it makes you want to drink a lot of rum.

Euthydemus

Socrates describes Euthydemus and Dionysodorus as two brothers who are "perfect in the use of their bodies" and "invincible in every sort of warfare". They are also sophists who take money and offer wisdom in the art of rhetoric and persuasion.

Euthydemus and Dionysodorus have come to Athens to "teach virtue" for those willing to pay and the Athenian noblemen have brought their sons to learn from them. Socrates wants to know how you can teach virtue. It soons becomes clear that the brothers do not want to teach wisdom, but only the skill of manipulating an argument with absurd, abstract reasoning. At times it can seem as though the brothers are employeeing similar tactics as Socrates. However, Socrates approaches the discussion from a point of ignorance, hoping to "learn" from the brothers while they attempt to make others feel foolish. They also claim that everyone already has wisdom, but that they can help it be revealed.


Euthydemus: Do you not know letters?

(Clinias) He assented.

E: All letters?

C: Yes.

E: But when a teacher dictates to you, does he not dictate letters?

This again was admitted by him.

E: Then if you know all letters, he dictates that which you know?

This reminds me of an infomerical on late night television when the the demonstrator tells you that the power to make money (lose weight, do math in your head, etc) is inside you but his special book (video, 6 week program, etc) will help you become a better person. It is comical if you get it, but don't buy it.

Protagoras the Antagonist

If Socrates had an enemy it would be the sophists, and the greatest sophist was Protagoras. The sophists traveled throughout the Greek world teaching wisdom, or really rhetoric; the ability to make a weak argument look stronger and to trap people in their words. Protagoras was the most famous of these and is known for his quote, "Man is the measure of all things". This is a sort of moral relativism; if we feel something is good, just, etc., than it is, even if someone else feels differently based on their own perspective. For example, what is good for the undertaker is not good for the person who just died. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Obviously some people (like the Catholic church) would disagree strongly with Protagoras. I recognize that what seems moral and acceptable in one culture or time is not acceptable in another place or time. I think that is part of being open-minded, well traveled and understanding.

This dialague concerns a discussion between Protagoras and Socrates to determine if virtue can be taught. Socrates says that "virtue" is knowledge and that "evil" is another name for ignorance. It is impossible to be "bad" if we know "good" (i.e. have knowledge). Socrates believes that no one willing commits an evil act (steal, lie, etc), unless they slip into a state of ignorance and become unaware of how their actions will adversely affect them.

I have my own theories on why people commit evil acts or harm themselves. It is a constant struggle for some people, including myself, to overcome their appetites. I do not think it is a lack of knowledge, but a lack of good judgement, which is an emotional response not a logical one. I will "harm" myself because it feels good at the time, just like a jury can be swayed by arguments that appeal to their emotion despite the evidence on the contrary.

Plato does parse words, which I think is good and bad. Of course we want to define what it is to be just, good, holy and virtuous, but he also makes arguments pivot on the definition of “being” compared to “becoming” and to “will” instead of to “wish” as he does in Protagoras. It does make me feel as though ancient Greek and English are not so different; but semantics are the same in any language, modern or ancient. Socrates is debating if “hard” is the same thing as “evil” from an ancient poet, Simonides. Likewise, the fact that a sentence ends in “truly” apparently can change the whole meaning of a phrase. I am impressed that language could be used like a tool, almost like math to calculate the meaning of a message (which I guess would be called “Logic”). However, sometimes words lack clear definitions (unlike numbers!). I believe this is where this where Plato gets into trouble.

Courage, Temperance and Friendship

I was reading a Hemingway novel a week, but reading Plato has turned my sprint into a crawl. The GBWW reading program requires that I only read Plato's Apology, Crito, The Republic this year. However, a few years ago I read these, so I decided to skip ahead and read a few of Plato's other dialogues. I finished reading three of these which discussed the topics of courage (Laches), temperance (Charmides) and friendship (Lysis).

In Laches, Socrates tries to determine what it means to have "courage" by speaking with two generals (strategos), Laches and Nicias. Who knows courage better than a soldier? Lachias calls courage "an endurance of the soul", which he eventually refines as a "wise" endurance of the soul. This is because the difference between a brave and foolish man is how much he knows. However these is no way to know if a man is courageous or an idiot if he fights against something he does not think he can overcome. Niceas tries to link courage to knowledge of the opposition. However, if knowledge makes us brave then just knowing things makes us courageous (which they agree is not true).

I have often wondered about the difference between being brave and being a moron. Recently I watched a History Channel special on WW2 fighter aces, one of whom said that "courage is instinct" when you are utterly terrified . It seems to me that "thought" is not part of the equation in this particular person's mind. I was happy to read that this issue perplexed Plato and his contemporaries and it was interesting to see it thoroughly vetted. Does standing against fear make us courageous? What is the difference between unthinking fearlessness and thoughtful retreat?

Charmides is the eponymous character of this dialogue who Socrates questions to discover the meaning of "temperance". The Greeks held this trait in high regard and linked it to the inscription at the Oracle of Delphi which read "Know Thyself". The conversation tries to define temperance as being "modest", "doing our own business", "self-knowledge" or a "knowledge of knowledge". As a "self knowing restraint" it appears that temperance means you know what your know (know yourself) and also know what you do not know. (Having known unknowns, or maybe unknown unknowns to quote Rumsfeld).

I thought it was interesting when Socrates says that by asking someone a question, we are really asking a question to ourselves. I had to think about that for a while. Another phrase that held my attention was when Socrates said that by "acting according to knowledge we shall act well and be happy". Does that mean I will only be happy when I act according to what I know? For example, I know studying for a test will give me a better grade and I will be happier....so why would I act contrary to my knowledge? Why would I drink more wine knowing that I will have a hangover the next day? I must not be acting according to my knowledge, I suppose.

Conversely, does that mean that my happiness is limited by my knowledge? I have often said that "ignorance is bliss". According to Plato I am only deceiving myself since I can only be happy with knowledge and making good decisions. Of course I have thought that WE alone are the cause of 90% of our own problems.

Lysis is a story about "friendship" and why we choose to be friends with other people. We have often said that opposites attract, but Socrates says it is "monstrous" to think that a good person would be friends with a bad (or unjust) person. Also, Socrates does not think that bad people can be friends with bad people (apparently bad people have no friends!). Therefore "likeness" or a common view of the world must be what draws people together. However, if people have everything they need why would they want to friends with someone who is just like them? Socrates suggests that we desire friends because they fill a need. Does this mean that if we did not have a "need" to fill, we would not need friends? It made me wonder if all my friendships were just ephemeral relationships that would pass into time as the needs which justified their existence dissipated.

.

"May not the truth be that, as we were saying, desire if the cause of friendship; for that which desires is dear to that which is desired at the time of desire?"

Plato: an introduction

Reading Plato can be both light and easy, but also dense - kind of like getting hit with a wet sponge. Plato's "Dialogues" are conversations between Socrates and other people, where Socrates searches for "truth" and "wisdom" through a method of questions, inquiries, analogies and a lot of discourse. Plato was a student of Socrates, but Socrates never wrote anything down. Therefore, we only know Socrates's thoughts and words through Plato, and therefore some of Plato's own philosophy surely contributes to what Socrates says.

I have caught myself laughing out loud when I read Plato. Some of his dialogues, especially when Socrates is speaking to the Sophists whom he dispises, can be amusing. Socrates appeals to the persons ego, flattering them, while claiming he only wants to learn what great wisdom they have. They typically oblige him, often in a condensending manner.

When the Sophist has laid enough rope to hang themself, Socrates then uses their own logic against them by pulling the most outlandish example he can think of. The person Socrates is speaking with must agree to support his points since their whole arguement depends on it, but then they find themselves completely disarmed and their arguement undone.

Although reading these dialogues is easier than reading a text book, the material still requires that I pause and reflect on the meaning behind what is being spoken.

Hemingway: historical fiction

I thought I should add a few more things about Ernest Hemingway before I move on to other authors. Reading EH’s books I admire his adventurous life and his ability to present complex material in a simple narrative. However, what makes EH great to me is that his stories resonate in me long after I have put his books down. RecentlyI have come to appreciate EH in a way that I think he never imagined. His stories were written 60-80 years ago therefore, when you read his books, you are taking a step back in time.

In “A Farewell to Arms” I was thinking about how Frederic Henry encouraged his wife to smoke and drink during pregnancy to keep their newborn small. No doubt doctors encouraged this as well, but it didn’t do any good since she died in childbirth anyway. It would be appalling to think of this today, but in 1918 I suppose this was the norm.

I was impressed that EH was able to write his detailed and well researched book about the Spanish Civil War “For Whom the Bell Tolls” while he was sequestered away in far off rural Idaho. Published in 1940, he predicted the coming devastation of WW2, Fascism vs. Communism and the future of war. Although WW2 had technically begun by the time the book was in print, I felt like EH could have been describing the events of 1945 in post-script.

I found it amusing how EH could not depict sexual scenes in his books, providing only suggestions of the deed done. This is not surprising given the values and reading tastes at the time compared to the graphic books of today. Likewise, I imagine this also explains why the dialogue where characters utter profanities was replaced with colorful language or merely “obscenity” this. This was particularly funny when characters engaged in heated arguments as in FWTBT where the dialogue is: obscenity you and the obscenity mother that brought you into this obscenity world. In contrast the “n-word” and other racial epithets are spoken without hesitation.

I thought that EH portrays an antiquated view of women as clingy, needy, vacuous arm candy. In both FWTBT, AFTA and “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” the women appeared to me to be equating their own self-worth to their association and adoration of the protagonist. I do not fault him for this at all and he probably was expected to have characters like this in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s.

I do wonder how much Hemingway also wrote about himself. Clearly his love of bullfighting came through in his character’s detailed descriptions in TSAR and FWTBT. When Hemingway was 62, at his home in Idaho, he crept carefully downstairs one morning as to not wake his wife. He then loaded both barrels of his 16 gauge shotgun, placed the gun to his head, and ended his writing career. Toward the end of FWTBT, the last book of EH I read, the main character Robert Jordan describes his grandfather’s suicide in an eerily similar way. Looking back it seems that Hemingway predicted his own death 20 years earlier, which is something that we only appreciate by compressing his life under the microscope of time.