As Plato struggles to define a just and orderly society he makes a solid correlation between the individual, and the State as a whole. Plato asserts a just State has all three classes working together in harmony, and a just person has harmony between the three parts of their soul.
Plato explains that a person’s soul is divided, just as a society is divided, and both must be well ordered to run smoothly. The rational; which reasons, the irrational; which feels desire, and the passionate which is spirit, and more prominently anger. These are the components Plato claims must be mastered, and separated in such a way that they do not interfere with one another, to be in control of one’s self.
“For the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others,” (443d). Just as in a logical society, the different levels of power should not interfere with one another.
Plato furthers his observations on the correlations between the State and the individual by extrapolating the fact that all virtues and tendencies that arise in a society come about by work of the individuals, (just as a ruling of a court comes about by the people therein).
“Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there are the same principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the individual they pass into the State- how else can they come there?” (435e).
With these lines firmly drawn between the relationship of the State, and that of the individual, Plato logically states that the ideas that govern and control the State govern and control the individual as well.
Mastery over one’s self comes about when all the components of the soul work together, logically with rationality at the forefront (441e). Because Plato links the individual so closely to the State at large, his argument continues that both must have a logical order to be successful. A mastered State has all its components working together, with a hierarchy in place. A mastered individual has all the components of the soul working together with a similar hierarchy in place.
-Julia
Julia, I really like this! Our arguments are very similar. You make the distinction of the three parts of the soul very well and their correlation to the state. I think you could have ellaborated on your quote about mastery over one's self. How is separtaing the three factions self mastery? Perhaps that the governing of the state is similar to the governing of the self, or self mastery. Great job!
ReplyDeleteYou and I had very similar arguments as well, Julia, but yours is more developed than mine. I would love for you to read mine and comment if you have time.
ReplyDeleteAs for yours, I specifically liked the part about the relationship between the state and the individual. Maybe if you decide to incorporate this into a paper later you could delve further into that, and discuss more on how that relationship plays out when an individual is in charge of governing a state. For this piece, however, I think you did a fine job of going into the appropriate depth. Your choice of the quote from 435 was excellent, it really proves your point well. Overall, this is a really fantastic piece!
Julia,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that true mastery can only come when one's desires are all but subsumed by one's reason? (In other words when we only want that which we should have?)
Well written and clearly stated.
Julia,
ReplyDeleteJust a question to ponder.
Is the state of true self mastery (the kind Elise described) actually ideal? Would you actually be able to live happily if you enslaved yourself to reason?
just a thought
I think sometimes when reading philosophy everyone will tend to align themselves with the philosopher they are currently reading. I do this sort of thing all of time. I was just wondering whether or not people wonder at Plato's motivations in writing this piece. It seems to me like his argument rests on shaky foundations.
Julia,
ReplyDeleteIs there a difference between power as self-control and the power of the state? How does Plato figure this? It seems like reason is the key to controlling the self, but is reason and self the same thing?
I think this is extremely well written Julia, you have a clear and concise comparison between the state and the individual, with great quotes and a clear understanding. I just wish you had delved more into the actual connection between "self mastery" and state, because i feel that you definitely have a clear definition of both, but don't really connect how you can run a state the same way you can run yourself (besides mentioning that they all need to be in harmony)
ReplyDeleteThis response is well constructed and uses powerful quotes that express your intention well. I think you could have gone one step further though, and said that the just individual is the true extension of the state and it is this parallelism that makes him so powerful and fit to rule. If he has mastered his inner elements with reason, he is more fit to master those inner elements of the state at large.
ReplyDeleteCatherine, thank you for this. I did have some trouble finding quotes that I felt expressed my views without blatantly restating them. I was trying to make the point that the governing of the state was similar to the governing of the self in that the different factions of the soul should not interfere with each other. I see now that I didn't clearly state this point. Thanks so much!
ReplyDeleteNatalie, I hadn't thought about how the relationship would play out when a person is in charge of a state. This is a very interesting thought. Thank you for pointing this out. (and I'll be sure to check out your post as soon as possible!).
Elise- I don't believe that true mastery can only come when the other desires are controlled by one's reason. While I would like to just say yes straight off the bat (especially since I am a very logical person by nature) I can't honestly say that. I think that while that thought makes sense, it is better to have the wants, needs, and rationality working logically together. This is a difficult question, and I'll be sure to do more thinking on it.
Eric- I don't think you could live happily if you enslaved yourself to reason. Spontaneity, and fun are what make life interesting to live. And again, I'm a very logical person, so I know somewhat! This is why it is hard to make large sweeping statements, because it is so easy once you look at the argument in a specific situation for everything to fall apart.
And I agree, it is very easy to align one's thoughts with that of the philosopher, but then again, if you are reading their point of view, it's hard not to.
What do you mean by shaky foundations?
Jamie- This is a very good question, and one I don't feel like I can answer at this very second. I want to say immediately though that reason and self are not the same thing.
Katie- Thanks.
Brynna- This is an interesting point. Thank you for that. I'll definitely think about how this furthers my argument!