Book IV of The Republic of Plato, translated by Allan Bloom, is the culmination of Socrates’ attempt to convey his understanding of Justice, in response to Glaucon’s challenge to prove “of what profit is Justice in itself to the man who possesses it, and what harm does injustice do?” (367d). Socrates frames his argument on the theoretical building of the perfect city to examine Justice on a larger scale.
Socrates’ rationale is that it is easier to identify the characteristics of Justice in the macrocosmic level of the city, and then apply its attributes to the individual soul. In Socrates' model the citizens are separated by the ruling function of their souls and assigned the position for which they show the most aptitude. This results in a hierarchal division of the citizenry into three social classes: the craftsmen (to produce for the city), the auxiliaries (to protect the city), and the guardians (to rule the city). To analyze the legitimacy of Socrates’ reasoning, one must examine his definition of Justice.
Socrates recognizes the essence of justice to be each individual in the city
practicing the craft for which they display the most natural ability (433b). He concludes that if a person has an aptitude for healing, he should become a doctor, if he has an aptitude for woodworking, he should become a carpenter, and if he has an aptitude for controlling personal appetites and looking towards the best interest of the city, then he should become a guardian. Socrates’ distinguishes injustice as the opposite, the attempts of individuals to meddle in affairs they are not suited for, seeing the exchange among classes as the worst thing a person could do to disrupt the ideal functioning of the city. Each person is limited to applying their knowledge to the single craft best suited for them.
In his approach, Socrates’ seems to equate Justice with efficiency. The notion of knowledge and virtue being the credentials of a fit leader is the foundation of the Socratic assertion that ruling is the natural aptitude of the guardian class, the irony being that by their nature they would be least disposed to choose a position of authority. The guardians must prove to be incorruptible by power, driven by a conviction to do what is best for the city. They are chosen at an early age in the Socratic plan, based on their ability to suppress their natural appetites, not being “charmed” by fear or pleasure (413c). Socrates views this as a necessary component of just leadership, the suppression of indulgence in carnal pleasures being a litmus test for determining which individuals are most capable of laying aside self-interest for the good of the state. To nurture this, and other commendable character traits, Socrates resorts to a systematic re-education of the young through censorship.
Socrates helps us to distinguish the right type of education as being the one which promotes virtuous behavior in its stories, poems and music to ensure that the guardians are not tainted by inferior morals. This breeds cooperation among the citizenry, who deem virtuous leadership to be in their best interest and to be paramount for the successful functioning of the city as a whole.
At this juncture, Socrates applies his definition of Justice in the city to the soul of an individual. He divides the soul into three classes, representative of the three classes in our city: the appetitive part (craftsmen), the spirited part (auxiliaries), and the rational part (guardians). Socrates interprets the just soul as healthy and moderate; each division of the soul performing its specific function, with the rational part being the natural ruler. The just soul is in harmony with itself and is ruled by knowledge, while the unjust soul is characterized by internal conflict, ruled by its appetites (444 b). To aid our understanding, Socrates compares justice of the soul which produces virtue, with injustice which produces vice: “virtue, then as it seems, would be a certain health, beauty, and fine condition of a soul, and vice a sickness, ugliness, and weakness” (444 e). This clarifies Socrates’ word picture of Justice in the individual by associating proper relationship between the parts of the soul with health and disordered behavior with disease.
In his defense of Justice, Socrates redeems the prudence of the man who practices Justice while suffering injustice at the hands of others. Staying within the limited parameters set forth by Glaucon in which to frame his discussion, Socrates gives an eloquent argument in favor of the benefit of justice to its possessor. He protects its honor by proving that an individual profits by Justice, even if unnoticed by others, by having a healthy soul. Socrates compares the properly aligned soul to a healthy city; harmonious, moderate, and efficient - capable of managing, ruling and deliberating correctly. Meanwhile, the misaligned soul would be comparable to a poorly run city - incapable of accomplishing its work well by being deprived of its virtue. This meets Glaucon’s criteria that justice be shown to be profitable to a man in and of itself, and reinforces the rebuttal to Thrasymachus’ assertion that, in this world at least, the life of a unjust man is far better than the life of a just man. Socrates craftily reasons that aside from the eternal consequences, the benefits of a healthy soul far outweigh the earthly reward of the unjust – a diseased soul incapable of handling its own affairs.
Some Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment