“REPUBLIC”

BY: PLATO
Book I

While visiting the Piraeus with Glaucon, Polemarchus tells Socrates to join him for a

romp. Socrates then asks Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus their

definitions of justice. Cephalus defines justice as giving what is owed. Polemarchus

says justice is "the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies."

Thrasymachus proclaims "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger."

Socrates overturns their definitions and says that it is to one's advantage to be just

and disadvantage to be unjust. The first book ends in aporia concerning its essence.

SPARKNOTES SUMMARY:
● Socrates asked the question, What is justice? But he refuted the answers
provided to him; however, he didn’t give his own definition of it.
● The discussion ended up in an aporia- deadlock.
●

PLATO SEEKS FOR ANSWER TO SOCRATES ON:

WHAT IS JUSTICE?
WHY WOULD WE BE JUST?

Book II

Socrates believes he has answered Thrasymachus and is done with the discussion

of justice.

Socrates' young companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, continue the argument of

Thrasymachus for the sake of furthering the discussion. Glaucon gives a lecture in
which he argues first that the origin of justice was in social contracts aimed at
preventing one from suffering injustice and being unable to take revenge, second
that all those who practice justice do so unwillingly and out of fear of punishment,
and third that the life of the unjust man is far more blessed than that of the just
man. Glaucon would like Socrates to prove that justice is not only desirable, but
that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired both for their
own sake and their consequences. To demonstrate the problem, he tells the story of
Gyges, who – with the help of a ring that turns him invisible – achieves great
advantages for himself by committing injustices.
After Glaucon's speech, Adeimantus adds that, in this thought experiment, the
unjust should not fear any sort of divine judgement in the afterlife, since the very
poets who wrote about such judgement also wrote that the gods would grant
forgiveness to those humans who made ample religious sacrifice. Adeimantus
demonstrates his reason by drawing two detailed portraits, that the unjust man
could grow wealthy by injustice, devoting a percentage of this gain to religious
losses, thus rendering him innocent in the eyes of the gods.
Socrates suggests that they look for justice in a city rather than in an individual
man. After attributing the origin of society to the individual not being self-sufficient
and having many needs which he cannot supply himself, they go on to describe the
development of the city. Socrates first describes the "healthy state", but Glaucon
asks him to describe "a city of pigs", as he finds little difference between the two. He
then goes on to describe the luxurious city, which he calls "a fevered state".[8] This
requires a guardian class to defend and attack on its account. This begins a
discussion concerning the type of education that ought to be given to these
guardians in their early years, including the topic of what kind of stories are
appropriate. They conclude that stories that ascribe evil to the gods are untrue and
should not be taught.

Book III[edit]

Socrates and his companions Adeimantus and Glaucon conclude their discussion
concerning education. Socrates breaks the educational system into two. They
suggest that guardians should be educated in these four cardinal virtues: wisdom,
courage, justice and temperance. They also suggest that the second part of the
guardians' education should be in gymnastics. With physical training they will be
able to live without needing frequent medical attention: physical training will help
prevent illness and weakness. Socrates asserts that both male and female guardians
be given the same education, that all wives and children be shared, and that they be
prohibited from owning private property. In the fictional tale known as the myth or
parable of the metals, Socrates presents the Noble Lie (γενναῖον ψεῦδος, gennaion
pseudos), to explain the origin of the three social classes. Socrates proposes and
claims that if the people believed "this myth...[it] would have a good effect, making
them more inclined to care for the state and one another."[9]

Book IV[edit]

Socrates and his companions conclude their discussion concerning the lifestyle of
the guardians, thus concluding their initial assessment of the city as a whole.
Socrates assumes each person will be happy engaging in the occupation that suits
them best. If the city as a whole is happy, then individuals are happy. In the physical
education and diet of the guardians, the emphasis is on moderation, since both
poverty and excessive wealth will corrupt them (422a1). Without controlling their
education, the city cannot control the future rulers. Socrates says that it is
pointless to worry over specific laws, like those pertaining to contracts, since
proper education ensures lawful behavior, and poor education causes lawlessness
(425a–425c).[10]
Socrates proceeds to search for wisdom, courage, and temperance in the city, on
the grounds that justice will be easier to discern in what remains (427e). They find
wisdom among the guardian rulers, courage among the guardian warriors (or
auxiliaries), temperance among all classes of the city in agreeing about who should
rule and who should be ruled. Finally, Socrates defines justice in the city as the state
in which each class performs only its own work, not meddling in the work of the
other classes (433b).
The virtues discovered in the city are then sought in the individual soul. For this
purpose, Socrates creates an analogy between the parts of the city and the soul (the
city–soul analogy). He argues that psychological conflict points to a divided soul,
since a completely unified soul could not behave in opposite ways towards the
same object, at the same time, and in the same respect (436b).[11] He gives examples
of possible conflicts between the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts of the soul,
corresponding to the rulers, auxiliaries, and producing classes in the city.
Having established the tripartite soul, Socrates defines the virtues of the individual.
A person is wise if he is ruled by the part of the soul that knows “what is beneficial
for each part and for the whole,” courageous if his spirited part “preserves in the
midst of pleasures and pains” the decisions reached by the rational part, and
temperate if the three parts agree that the rational part lead (442c–d).[12] They are
just if each part of the soul attends to its function and not the function of another.
It follows from this definition that one cannot be just if one doesn't have the other
cardinal virtues.[11]

Book V[edit]

Socrates, having to his satisfaction defined the just constitution of both city and
psyche, moves to elaborate upon the four unjust constitutions of these. Adeimantus
and Polemarchus interrupt, asking Socrates instead first to explain how the sharing
of wives and children in the guardian class is to be defined and legislated, a theme
first touched on in Book III. Socrates is overwhelmed at their request, categorizing
it as three "waves" of attack against which his reasoning must stand firm. These
three waves challenge Socrates' claims that
● both male and female guardians ought to receive the same education
● human reproduction ought to be regulated by the state and all offspring
should be ignorant of their actual biological parents
● such a city and its corresponding philosopher-king could actually come to
be in the real world.

Book VI[edit]

Socrates' argument is that in the ideal city, a true philosopher with understanding
of forms will facilitate the harmonious co-operation of all the citizens of the
city—the governance of a city-state is likened to the command of a ship, the Ship of
State. This philosopher-king must be intelligent, reliable, and willing to lead a
simple life. However, these qualities are rarely manifested on their own, and so they
must be encouraged through education and the study of the Good. Just as visible
objects must be illuminated in order to be seen, so must also be true of objects of
knowledge if light is cast on them.

Book VII[edit]

Socrates elaborates upon the immediately preceding Analogies of the Sun and of
the Divided Line in the Allegory of the Cave, in which he insists that the psyche
must be freed from bondage to the visible/sensible world by making the painful
journey into the intelligible world. He continues in the rest of this book by further
elaborating upon the curriculum which a would-be philosopher-king must study.
This is the origin of the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.
Next, they elaborate on the education of the philosopher-king. Until age 18,
would-be guardians should be engaged in basic intellectual study and physical
training, followed by two years of military training. However, a correction is then
introduced where the study of gymnastics (martial arts) and warfare – 3 plus 2
years, respectively – are supplanted by philosophy for 5 years instead. Next, they
receive ten years of mathematics until age 30, and then five years of dialectic
training. Guardians then spend the next 15 years as leaders, trying to "lead people
from the cave". Upon reaching 50, they are fully aware of the form of good, and
totally mature and ready to lead.

Book VIII[edit]

Socrates discusses four unjust constitutions: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and

tyranny. He argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in
succession, eventually becoming a tyranny, the most unjust regime of all.
The starting point is an imagined, alternate aristocracy (ruled by a
philosopher-king); a just government dominated by the wisdom-loving element.
When its social structure breaks down and enters civil war, it is replaced by
timocracy. The timocratic government is dominated by the spirited element, with a
ruling class of property-owners consisting of warriors or generals (Ancient Sparta is
an example). As the emphasis on honor is compromised by wealth accumulation, it
is replaced by oligarchy. The oligarchic government is dominated by the desiring
element, in which the rich are the ruling class. The gap between rich and poor
widens, culminating in a revolt by the underclass majority, establishing a
democracy. Democracy emphasizes maximum freedom, so power is distributed
evenly. It is also dominated by the desiring element, but in an undisciplined,
unrestrained way. The populism of the democratic government leads to mob rule,
fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit to take power and
establish tyranny. In a tyrannical government, the city is enslaved to the tyrant, who
uses his guards to remove the best social elements and individuals from the city to
retain power (since they pose a threat), while leaving the worst. He will also provoke
warfare to consolidate his position as leader. In this way, tyranny is the most unjust
regime of all.
In parallel to this, Socrates considers the individual or soul that corresponds to
each of these regimes. He describes how an aristocrat may become weak or
detached from political and material affluence, and how his son will respond to this
by becoming overly ambitious. The timocrat in turn may be defeated by the courts
or vested interests; his son responds by accumulating wealth in order to gain power
in society and defend himself against the same predicament, thereby becoming an
oligarch. The oligarch's son will grow up with wealth without having to practice
thrift or stinginess, and will be tempted and overwhelmed by his desires, so that he
becomes democratic, valuing freedom above all.

Book IX[edit]

Having discussed the tyrannical constitution of a city, Socrates wishes to discuss

the tyrannical constitution of a psyche. This is all intended to answer
Thrasymachus' first argument in Book I, that the life of the unjust man (here
understood as a true tyrant) is more blessed than that of the just man (the
philosopher-king).
First, he describes how a tyrannical man develops from a democratic household.
The democratic man is torn between tyrannical passions and oligarchic discipline,
and ends up in the middle ground: valuing all desires, both good and bad. The tyrant
will be tempted in the same way as the democrat, but without an upbringing in
discipline or moderation to restrain him. Therefore, his most base desires and
wildest passions overwhelm him, and he becomes driven by lust, using force and
fraud to take whatever he wants. The tyrant is both a slave to his lusts, and a master
to whomever he can enslave.
Because of this, tyranny is the regime with the least freedom and happiness, and
the tyrant is most unhappy of all, since the regime and soul correspond. His desires
are never fulfilled, and he always must live in fear of his victims. Because the tyrant
can only think in terms of servant and master, he has no equals whom he can
befriend, and with no friends the tyrant is robbed of freedom. This is the first proof
that it is better to be just than unjust. The second proof is derived from the
tripartite theory of soul. The wisdom-loving soul is best equipped to judge what is
best through reason, and the wise individual judges wisdom to be best, then honor,
then desire. This is the just proportion for the city or soul and stands opposite to
tyranny, which is entirely satiated on base desires. The third proof follows from this.
He describes how the soul can be misled into experiencing false pleasure: for
example, a lack of pain can seem pleasurable by comparison to a worse state. True
pleasure is had by being fulfilled by things that fit one's nature. Wisdom is the most
fulfilling and is the best guide, so the only way for the three drives of the soul to
function properly and experience the truest pleasure is by allowing wisdom to lead.
To conclude the third proof, the wisdom element is best at providing pleasure,
while tyranny is worst because it is furthest removed from wisdom.
Finally, Socrates considers the multiple of how much worse tyranny is than the
kingly/disciplined/wise temperament, and even quantifies the tyrant as living 729
times more painfully/less joyfully than the king. He then gives the example of a
chimera to further illustrate justice and the tripartite soul.
The discussion concludes by refuting Thrasymachus' argument and designating the
most blessed life as that of the just man and the most miserable life as that of the
unjust man.

Book X[edit]

Concluding a theme brought up most explicitly in the Analogies of the Sun and
Divided Line in Book VI, Socrates finally rejects any form of imitative art and
concludes that such artists have no place in the just city. He continues on to argue
for the immortality of the psyche and even espouses a theory of reincarnation. He
finishes by detailing the rewards of being just, both in this life and the next. Artists
create things but they are only different copies of the idea of the original. "And
whenever any one informs us that he has found a man who knows all the arts, and
all things else that anybody knows, and every single thing with a higher degree of
accuracy than any other man—whoever tells us this, I think that we can only
imagine to be a simple creature who is likely to have been deceived by some wizard
or actor whom he met, and whom he thought all-knowing, because he himself was
unable to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation."[13]
"And the same object appears straight when looked at out of the water, and crooked
when in the water; and the concave becomes convex, owing to the illusion about
colours to which the sight is liable. Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within
us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and
deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an
effect upon us like magic."[13]
He speaks about illusions and confusion. Things can look very similar, but be
different in reality. Because we are human, at times we cannot tell the difference
between the two.
"And does not the same hold also of the ridiculous? There are jests which you would
be ashamed to make yourself, and yet on the comic stage, or indeed in private,
when you hear them, you are greatly amused by them, and are not at all disgusted
at their unseemliness—the case of pity is repeated—there is a principle in human
nature which is disposed to raise a laugh, and this which you once restrained by
reason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is now let out again;
and having stimulated the risible faculty at the theatre, you are betrayed
unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home."
With all of us, we may approve of something, as long we are not directly involved
with it. If we joke about it, we are supporting it.
"Quite true, he said. And the same may be said of lust and anger and all the other
affections, of desire and pain and pleasure, which are held to be inseparable from
every action—in all of them poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying
them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are
ever to increase in happiness and virtue."[13]
Sometimes we let our passions rule our actions or way of thinking, although they
should be controlled, so that we can increase our happiness.