In The Republic Plato breaks his ideal society into three classes, the lower working class of artisans, and then the ruling classes of the guardians and auxiliaries. The guardians must be chosen from the people who are best suited to lead (412 c). There is another qualifying factor that the guardians would need to, “… besides being intelligent and capable, really care for the community...” (412 c). The guardians are given their legitimacy because the members of society who empower them know that they have the populace’s best interest at heart. They are the ones most suited to do the job of ruling and the lower class has no qualms about giving them absolute control.
The society as whole is what legitimizes the power of a government. When a person consciously chooses to participate within a society they are (wether deliberately or not) subjecting themselves to the ruler. In order for the society to continue to function as a cohesive unit this implicated agreement is necessary.
This is the reason which Socrates gives for not wanting to escape from prison. He has lived his entire life in Athens. He seems to truly believe in an wish to uphold the Athenian society. Even while he realizes he is being unjustly punished, if he were to delegitimize the society’s power over him he would most likely damage it. Socrates sees that even while the charges that were brought against him were unfounded, he has to comply with the consequences laid upon him. Because of his true love for Athens he gives his own life so that the cities society might be able to remain that much stronger.
Socrates in his own way was helping Athens to move to a more perfect state by allowing himself to die. The perfect society requires that all people obey the wishes of the rulers for if the rulers truly have their society’s best interest at heart then their commands are just and fair. Socrates through his compliance is choosing the most just course of action for the society, even though it is unjust on his individual level.
-Eric
I definitely agree with your analysis of The Crito and Socrates' dilemma. Although I do have several questions. To begin with a more general question which I had throughout The Republic. If Guardians are to be the ultimate power, because they, above all others, have the best interest of the society as a whole in mind, who exactly are these "members of society who empower them". If these men are able to select the most truthful and best rulers why are they themselves not Guardians? I find this situation to be very similar to: which came first the chicken or the egg. How can someone select a Guardian without first being one?
ReplyDeleteYou also state that a perfect society requires the populace to always respect the wishes of the rulers. It is for this reason that Socrates refuses to escape. I have to wonder, however, is it better to uphold the society as a whole even when its actions may be unjust in the hopes that it will move towards a more just state? Or to challenge the rulers, often resulting in the destruction of a society, culminating in a successive stream of new nations, each a perhaps purer version of its former self? Also, did Socrates actually believe that Athens' leaders/society was just and therefore worth preserving, or was he simply in love with his own idea of Athenian society and could not bare the thought of its destruction?
Anyways I really enjoyed reading this, great job Eric!
This is a great summary of what Plato writes in both Crito and The Republic Eric. I think you did a great job in understanding and re-writing what he wrote, as well as what you believe on the subject. I completely agree with Catherine though, that these few questions she brought up are great points. Is Socrates actually not escaping from prison because he believes that this will somehow keep the Athens nation just, or is he possibly scared? He is being treated extremely unjust, so how is this okay from a "just society?" I believe he is too scared to disobey what he has been told his entire life, even though his job as a philosopher is to question everything around him. Maybe this is just another way to make himself more famous and thought of as a "great ruler, who will do anything needed for what he calls justest or value". If someone else was in his spot, would he still believe the same thing?
ReplyDeleteDoes he actually believe that the nation is just through ever single individual in it, and if you don't comply with the rules given, you are punishing the entire government and society, and could somehow destroy it? And this brings me back to Catherine's point on how maybe if you did destroy the government, it could possibly start something new and better, possibly more just because these "guardians" would have to work harder and show that their rules are actually for the good of the people (even if they people might be too scared to argue....)
Both quotes: "Even while he realizes he is being unjustly punished, if he were to delegitimize the society’s power over him he would most likely damage it."
and...
"The guardians are given their legitimacy because the members of society who empower them know that they have the populace’s best interest at heart. They are the ones most suited to do the job of ruling and the lower class has no qualms about giving them absolute control."
are my two favorite, and definitely the most interesting. I would love if you could expand on your opinion of these ideas at some point (you as well Catherine). Does the lower class really have no qualms?
Awesome job guys!
Personally I don't believe that there can be an entirely just society. I'm not sure that the unjust deed done to the few is worth the justice of the many. Often it seems that once injustice makes an appearance it is wont to dissipate and will only occur more frequently in the state. Power is a highly corruptible notion, if leaders were allowed to do entirely as they pleased it seems impossible for them to refrain from making injust decisions.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that Socrates or Plato thought that Athens was an entirely just state. Plato even ranked democracy among the most impure forms of government. Perhaps Socrates, although acknowledging that Athens was far from perfect, felt that his own life was worth sparing to uphold a state which he felt was invaluable and maybe able to attain near perfection.
Personally I feel that the Machiavellian view of society is far more realistic. Injustice will always occur,a leader must simply attempt to centralize it and keep it from growing too large. Also, it seems that new nations move towards a more free and sometimes just state as they are reborn.So perhaps it is better to continually challenge personal injustice even if it results in the demolition of the state.
Socrates realized that Athens was far from a perfect society. He also however did seem to embody the guardians and have its best interest at heart. When someone has spent their entire life searching for truth, it can be assumed that they hold onto their beliefs rather dearly. Socrates was chose what he saw as the more moral course of action. Keep in mind that Socrates was not merely sentenced to death by a monarch, he was tried before a jury of his peers and was convicted through the due process of law. While Socrates did realize that this only occurred because of an abuse of the legal system, he could not morally disregard his sentence after the trial was over. He did what he could to make his defense and after that still failed he accepted his fate.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be noted that he is in some way serving his own self interest by allowing himself to die. He is after all an old man and must realize that death cannot be far off. Socrates must have had in mind that he would either die, alone and hated in a foreign land, or at home in Athens surrounded by his friends with relatively little suffering.
Addressing the question as to whether or not the rulers truly have the populace's best interest at heart. In Plato's ideal state the guardians most certainly do. It is after all an ideal state the functions perfectly. In Athens however there weren't really rulers so it could be said that regardless of the motivation that society wanted Socrates dead. I see Socrates' choice as this, either give up on the idea of society altogether by running away and deligitmizing its power over him, or by upholding its wishes and dying quietly. If he were to have run he would have been saying that because society can be unjust anarchy is preferable.
On a side note i must admit that i am still sort of hiding behind Plato and not truly saying what i myself believe. You both seem to say that you do not believe in the possibility of a Utopian society. You say that injustice is a given within society but i disagree. I think that a way we have of rationalizing suffering and unpleasantness is to say that it is unavoidable. I believe that it is possible to found a completely just state. Unlike Plato however i argue that there could not be a stratified class system. In my personal republic there would not be a ruling class, in fact there would be no ruling at all. A perfect society is one which is able to move beyond the games of power that we are constantly playing. Each citizen would need to recognize that all people are equally important and live in a cooperative environment. It would be a society that would also have to move beyond any sort of monetary system. Everyone is provided for and in turn gives back to the society in their own way. I guess you could say i believe in a sort of pure communism in which each individual has the entire societies interests at heart.
that is a very interesting idea Eric, but honestly--I really disagree. I can't even comprehend how that society would work. If everyone was able to freely live their lives without power of any sort ruling them or others around them, i believe everything would go to chaos. Others wouldn't help give back to the society, im sure many would NOT have the societies best interests at heart. If you could pick and choose the people that you allowed into your society, or somehow at birth taught them these lessons (like Athens tried to do, but MAKE SURE that they stick with them) it could possibly work, but that is extremely difficult. And then another question--what would happen when one person went against another, lets say one man believed that he wasn't equal to another, and kills said person? Does he get punished, seeing as there is no ruling whatsoever over the people? They would realize they are completely free, and chaos would ensue.
ReplyDeleteDifficult does not mean impossible, and honestly i am not sure i have enough faith in humanity to believe that it actually is. But really that is beside the point.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about an ideal anyway. Basically i do believe that inherently all people are good and wish to be happy. This is one of the basic tenets upon which this society would need to be founded. It would require a complete revolution against the primary way in which society functions now, which is to further oneself at the expense of others. You through your argument assume that the way we live now is our natural state of being. That we are greedy and selfish animals that attempt to further ourselves by any means possible. I simply do not agree with the statement that complete freedom leads to chaos if it is within a society that is structured upon mutual benefit. Certainly however if we were to move into a state of complete freedom in the USA we would destroy ourselves rather quickly. I believe that we have gotten to the point we are at because the powers that be cannot allow us to unify if they are to remain in power. I do believe that power corrupts much more so than complete freedom. This is why many people will use the argument that humans are self centered, because they have only ever experienced cultures based on this. Very few people have had the chance to witness societies in which the people have each others interests at heart.
I do believe that people can be guided to a place in which they recognize that every individual should have equal opportunity to flourish. This is the most basic tenet upon which my society would be based. This would require the de structuring of almost every institution that now exists within our society. Dogmatic religions, political parties, economic institutions, and military organizations would have to be done away with.
You also argue that some people would simply take advantage of the society and basically get by without contributing. I also simply do not believe this assertion. There is the simple fact that because of todays technology we do not need everyone to be farmers. A small percentage of people truly dedicated to helping their fellows would fill these most basic and important roles in society. Other people would be free to create and help further society through their innovation. Would you have me believe that in a world such as this someone would consciously choose to do nothing? People get bored easily and because so much of the “entertainment” we have today is really just a way to control people many of those things would no longer be an option.
You are right though it would be extremely difficult but I do think it is an attainable goal. It would require a lot of work to help people to move beyond old modes of thought. In truth it would most likely only be possible after a catastrophic disaster such as nuclear war. It would need to be built from the ground up with all people joining into its creation. Another important fact is that it would almost certainly have to be a completely global society. If another nation existed it would almost certainly prey upon my ideal state because it would be productive, and defenseless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would have to agree with Katie that this sort of a society could not function. This, however, is an entirely relative assumption. Based on our current knowledge of the human being it seems impossible for an entirely free social structure to exist. Yet what we know is very situational, because of the society/age in which we were raised it is difficult to find one's natural state amongst the vast layering of societal influence that has been reaped upon us. Obviously modern day beings have been corrupted/influenced by the structure and character of our society which would prevent them from always putting the states interests before what they viewed as their own. People, in general, no longer place others before themselves on more than an occasional level.
ReplyDeleteIf it were possible to completely wipe out one's memory of the past and place a group of beings together it would be interesting to see if they developed a society similar to those that ourr ancestors developed or an entirely knew one. Even if they had someone to guide them in this process of creating a free state, would not said person have outside knowledge and be influenced by their own personal views on the states that we have today? Also, as is wont to happen, should someone suffering an emotional breakdown (unless you suggest that these would no longer happen in said state because everyone would be happy), a moment of passion, or simply mental insanity do harm to another, how would this situation be handled? If no one is in charge would not there be different views on how to contrive a punishment? If one person, or a committee of persons, took it upon themselves to oversee a punishment would they not be creating a social power strucutre? As you said power is far more corruptible than freedom, what would prevent them from this corruption. Especially since in this ideal state they would have had little exposure to power and would therefore be all the more prone to its wiles.
I am also unclear on how such a state would come into existance. If a nuclear war where gargantuan populations are annihilated should occur, those remaining might be prompted during their moment of shock, fear, and disturbance to create such a state. How long could this go on for? The human mind is unable to retain a memory for the entireity of ones life, throughout time the memory of the tragedy would fade and I would have to assume that people wish to return to a life similar to the one before the incident which they would probably idealize. Even if people found they were happier in such a free state and wished to remain there, I do not think it is possible for everyone to agree on everything. When there is conflict, there must always be a resolving faction whether that is one person, the majority, or an outside group there is always someone exerting power over another. This sort of power would eventually lead to corruption, that is the nature of power.
So ultimately two questions. How would conflict be resolved? and How would such a state be founded without someone with knowledge of modern societies being involved?
Catherine,
ReplyDeleteYou and Katie both brought up the idea of "punishment" for crimes. This again is a way in which our views differ. I do not really believe that punishing someone for wrongdoing is a constructive action. Also really the only crimes that need to be addressed would be those of violence. In a state where everything is provided there would be no property crimes or theft. People who commit violent acts need to be helped to overcome their problems not punished. Someone who kills another most certainly needs medical help and counseling not punishment.
Also i honestly challenge you to tell me what sort of conflict would ever arise in such a state. I seriously have a hard time thinking of any reason conflict among groups would arise in the first place.
You ask me how the society would be founded without the knowledge of modern societies. I would argue that it cant be. The entire premise of the society is to remove those things which are holding us back from our true human potential. It would need to be founded on the premise that it was improving modern society.
One thing both of you mention is human nature. The way in which you describe it though what i really think you are speaking about is western nature. You say, "People, in general, no longer place others before themselves on more than an occasional level." i completely disagree. While that statement most likely does hold up for Americans and many Europeans i do not believe at all that it is globally true. I argue that oftentimes people who live on the most basic of means are happier and more connected with others then we are with our affluence.
One interesting facet is the fact that many people do assume that their societies basic nature is also human nature. I think that this is something that we have created to justify our actions to ourselves. We try to justify selfishness and greed because we see it all around us. We say humans naturally do not have others interests at heart merely because we put ourselves ahead of others.
Just some food for thought.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteIf you could provide an example of any situation ever where there has not been any form of disagreement I would be more inclined to believe your argument. I am very aware that in other societies people are less affluent and there for more in-tune with their neighbors. Yet I do not think that they help others over themselves to the extent which you propose. By conflict I do not necessarily mean violence, although I do believe violence would on occasion occur, instead I mean disagreement. Even on the level that we experienced during our retreat during discussions. Or that Gandhi experienced among his followers. I can not think of a place where such disagreements do not occur, thus it seems impossible for a state with more than one citizen to exist without such disagreement.
Also I am still unclear on how such a society would originate. Could you expand on this?
There is an organization known as the Venus Project which more or less holds the views that i do.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/about
that is a URL linking to the basic information about the movement.
perhaps one of the most important things on that page is this, "Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur."
I see the society as possibly coming into existence in one of two ways. Either gradually with an intermediate stages until we can break free of the old social trends that hold us back, or by being built from the ground up after a disaster, war, revolution, whatever.
There is a lot of information on that site explaining the ways in which it could come about.
To be fair though Project Venus does go in a different direction primarily based upon economic reform followed by social reform. I think that it would be necessary to do it in the opposite order social revolution followed by economic reform.
ReplyDeleteSometimes i think i might just be crazy and far too optimistic about what we as humans are capable of.