Republic (Plato)

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Republic opens with Socrates and Glaucon walking down to Piraeus, the port of Athens, when a man named Polemarchus intercepts them. Polemarchus does not ask. He points out that his group outnumbers the two of them, so they must come along to dinner and a festival. Socrates wonders aloud whether he might be persuaded to let them go. Polemarchus answers that he will simply refuse to listen. Socrates agrees to come. From this small comic standoff over force and persuasion, Plato launches one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory. Written around 375 BC, this Socratic dialogue circles one stubborn question. What is justice, and is the just man really happier than the unjust man? Over ten books, Socrates and a shifting cast of Athenians and foreigners chase that question into strange territory. They build an imaginary city ruled by philosophers, debate whether art should be censored, and end with a man who returns from death to report what he saw. Why has a single conversation, set during the Peloponnesian War, been read as both a blueprint for utopia and a warning about tyranny? And how did one dialogue come to be voted the greatest philosophical text ever written?

• 2. The Definitions That Fail

  ›

  Cephalus, the aged father of Polemarchus, gives the first answer, and Socrates dismantles it. Asked whether life is painful in old age, Cephalus says the years have brought him repose. The fading of the appetites, he says, is like being delivered from a multitude of furious masters. He then defines justice as honesty and returning to people what they are owed. Socrates objects with a simple case. It would not be just to return a borrowed knife to a man who has gone mad and would harm himself with it. Polemarchus takes up the thread next, arguing that justice means doing good to friends and harm to enemies. Socrates refutes this in four parts, concluding that harming anyone, even an enemy, creates injustice and so cannot itself be just. Then Thrasymachus enters with the harshest claim of Book One. Justice, he says, is whatever is advantageous for the stronger. When Socrates notes that the strong sometimes make mistakes against their own interest, Thrasymachus sharpens his point. He compares a ruler to a shepherd who herds sheep not for the sheep's sake but for his own profit, and insists the unjust man who escapes detection is better off than the just one. Socrates answers that crafts aim at the good of their object, so ruling exists for the benefit of the ruled. The best rulers, he argues, are reluctant, governing only to avoid being ruled by someone worse. He closes Book One with three arguments for the just life over the unjust, built on wisdom, harmony, and the soul.

• 3. The Ring And The Lie

  ›

  Glaucon, dissatisfied, tells the story of Gyges to push Socrates further. Gyges finds a ring that turns him invisible, and uses it to commit injustice and seize great advantages for himself. Glaucon's challenge is sharp. Defend justice as good in itself, not merely for its rewards. Prove the just life beats the unjust life even when no one is watching. Socrates responds by proposing to look for justice in a city before looking for it in the soul. He sketches a healthy state of producers making enough for a modest living, but Glaucon scorns it as a city of pigs. So Socrates builds a luxurious city instead, what he calls a fevered state, crowded with endless variety and therefore needing a guardian class to wage its wars. To keep guardians from turning into tyrants, Socrates introduces a tool that has unsettled readers ever since. The rulers must perpetuate a noble lie, the gennaion pseudos. In his myth of the metals, each person is told they contain gold, silver, or bronze, fitting them to rule, guard, or produce. Socrates claims that if the people believed this myth, it would make them more inclined to care for the state and one another. The guardians who emerge from this scheme own no private property, keep no privacy, and hold no wealth, so that nothing distracts them from the good of the city.

• 4. Kallipolis And The Soul

  ›

  Adeimantus interrupts to protest that guardians stripped of property and family will simply be unhappy. Socrates answers that the just city aims at the happiness of the whole, not of one class. Then he completes his ideal city, Kallipolis, and finds in it the four cardinal virtues. Wisdom lives among the guardian rulers. Courage lives among the guardian warriors. Temperance spreads across all classes when they agree about who should rule and who should be ruled. Justice, finally, is each class doing only its own work and not meddling in the work of the others. The boldest proposals come in Book Five, where Adeimantus again interrupts. In Kallipolis, male and female guardians receive the same education and perform the same roles, because Socrates holds that sex is not relevant to governing. The rulers organize sex festivals with a rigged lottery, so the best male guardians father children with many female citizens, and those children are raised without knowing their parents. Socrates notes the risk of incest in such a scheme. From the city, Socrates draws an analogy to the soul. A divided soul, he argues, has three parts, the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive, matching the rulers, the auxiliaries, and the producers. A person is just when each part attends to its own function. It follows, he says, that no one can be just without also possessing wisdom, courage, and temperance.

• 5. Why Philosophers Should Rule

  ›

  Only philosophers, Socrates argues, have knowledge rather than mere opinion, because they understand the Forms. When Glaucon doubts whether such a city could ever exist, Socrates concedes the difficulty but defends the ideal as valuable for clarifying justice and injustice. Still, he insists the city might come to be, if it is ruled by a philosopher, a philosopher-king. Adeimantus objects that philosophers are corrupt, strange, or useless. Socrates answers with the image of the Ship of State, likening the rule of a city to the command of a ship. The philosopher-king he describes must be intelligent, reliable, and willing to live simply, qualities so rare they must be cultivated through education and the study of the Form of the Good. To illustrate that Form, Socrates offers two analogies, the Sun and the Divided Line. These set up the most famous image in the whole work, the allegory of the cave in Book Seven, which dramatizes Plato's distinction between the world of appearances and the real world of the Forms.

• 6. How Regimes Decay

  ›

  Five types of regime fall in a chain of decline that Socrates traces from best to worst, while Plato's number is enigmatically mentioned. Aristocracy, the rule of the philosopher-king, degenerates into timocracy when miscalculation produces a generation drawn to wealth as well as virtue. Timocrats prize gymnastics, the arts of war, and courage. As wealth eats away at honor, timocracy gives way to oligarchy, where the rich rule and value moderation only because it helps them hoard money. When the poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, democracy follows, and the lower class swells. Its populism breeds mob rule, which a clever demagogue can exploit to seize power and install tyranny, where no one has discipline and society sinks into chaos. The tyrant enslaves the city, uses his guards to purge the best people, and provokes warfare to secure his position. Socrates then maps each regime onto a corresponding kind of soul, tracing how an aristocrat's son becomes a timocrat, a timocrat's son an oligarch, and so on down to the tyrant. The tyrant, he says, is driven by lust and uses force and fraud to take whatever he wants. He is at once a slave to his own desires and a master to whomever he can enslave. From this descent Socrates concludes that ruling should be left to philosophers, the least susceptible to the corrupting pull of greed and power.

• 7. Art And The Afterlife

  ›

  Imitative art is banished in Book Ten, where Socrates rejects artists from the just city because they create only copies of the idea of an original. He warns about illusion, noting how an object looks straight out of water and crooked in it, how the concave seems convex, a weakness of the human mind that conjuring and deception exploit like magic. He extends the worry to comedy and the passions. Poetry, he says, feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up. It lets them rule when they ought to be controlled, if mankind is ever to increase in happiness and virtue. Then Socrates turns from criticism to consolation, arguing for the immortality of the soul and a theory of reincarnation. He recounts the Myth of Er, about a man who dies and returns to life after twelve days. Er reports how souls in the afterlife were punished or rewarded according to their justice, and then chose new lives to be reincarnated into, mostly out of habit, desire for pleasure, and fear of past pain. Socrates ends by saying he would rather persuade his companions to believe the soul is immortal and capable of remaining constant in the face of any pleasure or pain.

• 8. The Long Argument After Plato

  ›

  Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, wrote his own Zeno's Republic in opposition to Plato's, and later Stoics found it embarrassing for defending free love, incest, and cannibalism. The dialogue's reach runs through centuries of thinkers who borrowed, adapted, or attacked it. Cicero gave the work its English title through his De re publica, written some three centuries later, though res publica does not exactly translate the Greek politeia, a general term for the forms of government a city-state might take. Augustine of Hippo answered with The City of God and its vision of an eternal Jerusalem. In the Middle Ages, lacking Aristotle's Politics, Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes, wrote a commentary on the Republic instead, accepting Plato's principle of women's equality while embracing the censorship of literature. Thomas More borrowed the device of a utopia for his own Utopia, an island that shares Plato's common property and lack of privacy. In the twentieth century the readings split violently. Mussolini admired the Republic and read it for inspiration, while Karl Popper, in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, singled out Plato's state as a totalitarian dystopia that treated the working class as human cattle. Martin Luther King Jr. named it the one book, aside from the Bible, he would want on a desert island. In 2001 a survey of over 1,000 academics and students voted it the greatest philosophical text ever written, and in 2021 another survey found it the most studied book in the top universities in the United States. Julian Baggini judged that the work was wrong on almost every point, yet added that without it we might not have philosophy as we know it.