Plato's Republic 1: Justice for Beginners
Summary
Plato’s Republic is full of bad arguments and worse political proposals and it may still be the most influential work of political theory ever.
Book 1 sets the stage for an all-night conversation between Socrates and some friends that covers: ethics; politics; education; epistemology; psychology; and a whole lot more.
It all gets started with the question “what is justice?”
Credits
Ancient lyre music: Michael Levy
Editing, episode art and social: Sepideh
Cephalus: Andrew Fleming
Polemarchus: Elliott Chambers
References
Transcript
Note: this is transcribed using an online transcription service so it’s probably going to have a few errors. We do don’t have time to go through these all carefully but still thought that it would be more helpful than having no transcript at all.
Clif 0:12
Today, how a book full of bad arguments and horrifying policies can still be an absolute masterpiece of political theory. And why being a team player might make you a bad person.
I'm Clif Mark. This is good in theory.
Clif 0:34
There is no book in the history of political theory that is a bigger deal than Plato's Republic. It's the big title from the big name in philosophy. So you might think that if you want some clear answers to how politics works, this would be a good place to start. It's really not. And that's not because it's out of date or surpassed by subsequent work. It's because of the kind of book that it is. There's a certain kind of philosophy book that I call an argument fortress. Argument fortresses have a clear thesis. They build up argumentative walls and fortifications to defend that thesis. They conduct attacks on rival positions. And when you're done reading it, you know what the author wants you to think, and why they want you to think it. Hobbes's Leviathan is an argument fortress. And so is John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Plato's Republic is not. You can read this entire book carefully and more than once, and you're not going to come out with a clear, unambiguous and defensible outlook on politics.
And there are lots of reasons for this. Part of it is that it's written as a play, so there's no way to know what the author really thinks just with the character say. And another apart is that the main character Socrates is so ironic and he uses so many images and metaphors, that it's hard to tell what he really thinks. But also, and this is key. A lot of the political proposals in this book are horrible. They will feel unpleasantly totalitarian. We're talking, banning private property, state run caste systems, mass brainwashing, eugenics, abolishing the family, and more. And the arguments that Socrates gives in favor of these proposals are pretty weak a lot of the time. Which is all to say that Plato's Republic is not an argument fortress. We don't even know what position he's defending for sure. We don't think he's defending it very well. And even if he was, it's a position that nobody nowadays would really want to take.
So why is Plato's Republic such a big deal? Why is it on every Introduction to Political Theory course and every Western Civ Foundation syllabus. It's because defending a well defined position against every possible attack is not the only thing that a work of philosophy can do for you. It can also open your mind. There is another kind of philosophy book that I call the Fantastic Voyage. And this kind of book, it usually starts somewhere familiar. But then it shows why the usual ways of thinking are flawed. And then it follows arguments into weird new territories, shows you strange and unforgettable images, turns familiar ways of thinking inside out and usually raises way more new questions than it answers. The purpose here is less to tell you what to think, than to open your mind to all new ways of thinking and new questions to think about. And Plato's Republic is the model for this kind of book. The plot is simple. Socrates and a friend turn up to a party and then have a wild all-night conversation that runs through ethics, politics, psychology, education, religion, music, epistemology, metaphysics, you name it. The characters pick up topics, they get weird with them, they raise a bunch of questions in the readers mind. And then they move on before they really get to the bottom of them. And they do it for 10 chapters, with the result that the book is less like a fortress, and more like a magic carpet ride through Plato's bizarre and brilliant brain.
Today, we're going to start with the first half of the first chapter of the Republic. And a minor note about Republic. The chapters are called books. So when I say Republic, Book One or Book Two, it just means chapter. As we learned in the apology series, Socrates, his favorite thing to do was just to ask people a bunch of questions, until he had demonstrated that they didn't know what they were talking about. And once he got people to this stage of confusion or bafflement, the conversation could go two ways. Either whoever Socrates was talking to would get mad and start to hate him and maybe start plotting to have him executed. Or they open their minds to philosophy carry on the conversation and start living the examined life.
The Republic as a book is Plato's fantasy of the second, mind-opening kind of conversation. And Book One is the part where Socrates breaks down existing beliefs and opens up the space for confusion and questioning. In this chapter, Socrates talks to three different characters who each represent a common view of what justice is. Socrates questions them, exposes some weaknesses in their theories, and that sets the stage for the wide ranging exploratory conversation that comes afterwards. We're going to do Republic the same way we did Apology, which means I'm going to paraphrase and abridge what's in the text, and then throw in sections where I explain what's happening, talk about the arguments, give context and so on. In the paraphrase parts, I'm going to play Socrates and I brought in some friends to come in and play the other characters.
And before we begin, I want to give you a little note on justice, the word justice is going to come up a lot, and it translates the ancient Greek word "dikaiosune". You don't need to remember that. But you do need to remember that that word means something a little different from the word justice in modern English. When we hear the word justice, usually people think of criminal justice or maybe revenge or social justice or something like that. But when Socrates and the gang ask "what is justice?", they're asking what does it mean to be a good or excellent person? Or what is the moral or ethical thing to do? Justice is a quality of character. But it can also apply to cities. The word has all kinds of meaning and associations. So you don't have to be clear on a definition right now. Just keep your mind open. And remember that justice as a quality of character is one of the central meanings.
Book One has three main conversations, and today we're going to cover two of them. The first one is with an old man named Cephalus. Cephalus was born outside of Athens. So he's not a citizen, but he's still a big shot. He was invited to settle in Athens by Pericles himself, and he ran a big shield factory with his sons. The text starts with a little scene setting from Socrates and then gets right into the talk with Cephalus.
Socrates 8:08
I was down at Piraeus with Glaucon. It was for the big festival for the new goddess Bendis. We watch some parades. We made some sacrifices. And we were on our way back to Athens, when Polemarchus and some friends caught up to us, and they invited us over to his house. I hesitated but they wouldn't take no for an answer. And Glaucon wanted to go. So we went. When we arrived, Polemarchus was there, obviously. And so were his brothers. Glaucon's brother was there too, and a sophist named Thrasymachus as well as several others. And of course, Cephalus was there that's Polemarchus's father. He was sitting down by some empty chairs, so we went over to say hello.
Cephalus 9:04
Socrates. So good to see you again. You really should come around more often. You know why the older I get, the more the pleasures of the body fade. And the more I'm interested in the pleasures of conversation. So please spend some time with these young men here. And come visit us anytime. Think of us as family.
Socrates 9:24
Thank you, Cephalus. I certainly will. Because I love talking to really, really old people, you know, because the old are further along in life, and they can tell us about the road ahead. And you, you're getting near the end of that road. So what can you tell us Cephalus? Is it hard being near the end?
Cephalus 9:45
Socrates, I'll tell you what I think. I get together with friends my age all the time. And they're always complaining about how much they miss all the things we enjoyed when we were young. The drinking and the feasting and the sex. They aren't like then life was splendid. But now we're not even living. And they also complain that their families don't respect old age like they should. But in my opinion, old age isn't to blame. I know lots of old people who are not like that at all. You know, Sophocles the poet, I once heard someone ask him about his sex life and whether he could still have sex with a woman. And he said: "Thank the gods, no! Having that frenzy monkey off my back is the biggest relief in my life." Socrates, that's how I feel. When you get older, and all your old desires start to lose their hold on you. When that happens, old age is just peace and freedom. It's like being released from a bunch of insane masters. So when old people complain about that, and about their families, not respecting them - it's not old age to blame, it's their character. Men who are content and have good characters - old age isn't going to be a problem for them. But men with bad characters are going to have a tough time, just like they did when they were young.
Socrates 11:06
Really Cephalus? Does anyone actually believe you when you say that? I bet a lot of people don't think that it's your character that makes old age so comfortable for you, but your money.
Cephalus 11:19
Yes, that's quite right. They don't believe me. And there's some truth to what they say. But not as much as people think. It may be true that money helps, but you need both. If you're poor, it doesn't matter how good your character is. Old age is going to be tough. But people with bad character are never happy no matter how rich they are.
Socrates 11:43
You know, capitalist. Eve never struck me as being overly fond of money. And I guess that's because you inherited yours. People who make their own money are doubly in love with it. First, they love it like a parent loves their own children, or how a poet loves his own poems, because they made it themselves. And then they also love it for what it can do for them. And this makes them terrible company because money is the only thing they can see any value in.
Cephalus 12:12
Yes, quite right.
Socrates 12:14
But for someone like you, who isn't obsessed by money for itself, what is the best thing that money can do for you?
Cephalus 12:22
A lot of people wouldn't believe this. But take my word for it, Socrates. When you start getting older, and have to start actually facing your death, you start to remember all those stories you used to laugh at, about Hades, and how men who have lived unjust lives are punished in the afterlife. And you start thinking about your own life and thinking about the bad things you've done. But if you have a clean conscience, then you have hope in your old age. That's why I think it's so important to have money, at least for people with good character. Because money protects us from having to do bad things. If we have money, we won't be forced to lie or cheat against our will. And that saves us from heading to the underworld terrified, because we still owe money to other men or sacrifices to a god. Money is good for lots of things, but to the intelligent man, that's by far the most important.
Socrates 13:24
That's really well put Cephalus, so interesting. And since you bring up the topic of justice, do you really think that telling the truth, and returning what you owe to people is all there is to justice? Or is it sometimes unjust to do these things? For example, if you borrowed some weapons from a friend, but that friend goes mad and comes asking for his weapons back? Surely, you'd agree that you shouldn't give them to him? Right? And if he asked where the weapons are, you shouldn't tell him the truth.
Cephalus 13:56
Of course not.
Socrates 13:58
So telling the truth and giving back what you've given, that can't be the definition of justice can, it?
Cephalus 14:05
No, I suppose not.
Polemarchus 14:07
Oh, yes, it can, at least if we believe Simonides the poet.
Cephalus 14:12
And that is where I hand off the argument to you, my son. I've got to go take care of the sacrifices. Good night, everyone.
Clif 14:32
I said each of Socrates's interlocutors in book one represents a common moral idea, a different answer to the question of what it means to be a just or good person. And Cephalus's answer is "follow the rules". Don't lie, pay back your debts, make the required sacrifices to the gods. Cephalus only talks about these three rules, but they aren't the only ones. They can be laws from the government, or religious rules or even just social conventions. He figures we all basically know the things that we're not supposed to do, and the key to being a just person is not doing them. And Cephalus's motivation for being just is straightforward. He doesn't want to get in trouble. Cephalus doesn't have a theory about why being good is important or why the rules are intrinsically just, he just doesn't want to get punished. We've all met people like Cephalus - they're uncomfortable breaking the rules, because they're afraid of going to prison, going to hell, or just having other people get mad at them. Now, this is not the most ennobling moral ideal that there ever was. But it's a good start. If you're teaching a child or space alien or AI, how to be good, tell them to follow the rules.
Still, that's probably not all there is to justice. So if you want to start a philosophical argument with a rules-y person, you do exactly what Socrates does. You find exceptions. You find situations where the rules give you the wrong answer, or where they contradict each other. Socrates says to Cephalus: "ah, you think that not returning what you borrow is wrong? Well, what about returning weapons to a friend who's gone mad?" And here, capitalists, his intuition that it's wrong not to return what you borrowed contradicts his other intuition, which is that it's wrong to hand deadly weapons to a friend in a mental health crisis. And this is supposed to show that the initial idea that justice is about telling the truth in returning what you borrowed, is flawed. And in many circumstances, people would see the flaw in their theory, and then they're supposed to revise it, or qualify it in some way, or come up with a new theory that accounts for these different intuitions. And that's how the conversation gets rolling.
But Cephalus doesn't bother with any of that. And I kind of like this about him. Because Cephalus knows what he believes, and he doesn't want to be drawn into an argument with Socrates. And I don't blame him. Socrates is better than Cephalus at arguing, and Cephalus is probably not going to change his mind. So what's the point? Instead of taking the argumentative bait, Cephalus just agrees with Socrates and wanders off to do his own thing. Which I kind of admire. Because I find that when someone is saying something that I disagree strongly with, it calls out to this stupid, maladaptive part of my soul that runs towards the argument. And it draws me into conversations that I know are going to be frustrating and time-consuming, and are not really going to help anyone. Which is why I try to remember Cephalus, and let some of them go by.
The last thing I want to mention before we go into the next bit of dialogue, is the little bit of class analysis that Cephalus throws in at the end. Today, it's pretty common to think of justice or morality as a matter of character, or of choice. If you commit an injustice, like lying or stealing, it's because you're a liar or a thief, you're a bad person. Cephalus has a different view. He says: "yes, breaking the rules is unjust. Everyone knows that and unjust people will be condemned and punished." But he doesn't see it as purely a question of character. It's also just a question of incentives. Athens was a very unequal society, there was a lot of poverty and debt. And Cephalus is saying that this puts people in a position where they're pretty much forced by circumstance to commit injustices. And that's why he thanks his money for keeping him out of trouble. And this I think, is supposed to be uncomfortable for the reader. Because even though Cephalus doesn't have a problem with it. This means that a rules based idea of justice, which we all hold, to some extent, decides on whether people are good or bad based on how much money they have. Socrates and Cephalus don't develop this line of reasoning here, but the relationships between justice and money will come up again and again throughout The Republic.
To summarize the first conversation of the book: Cephalus proposes that justice is just following the established rules that we all know, aka, telling the truth and returning what you borrowed. And Socrates says: "but aren't there exceptions?" That shows the weakness of that view, but Cephalus doesn't stay to defend it. Instead, is son Polemarchus, who you heard right at the end, jumps in and tries to defend a revised version of his dad's definition of justice.
Socrates 20:01
Cephalus said that justice is telling the truth and giving back what you borrowed. But that can't be true, because you can't give weapons back to a friend who's gone mad.
Polemarchus 20:12
Actually, it is true. Just as the poet Simonides, said, justice is given to reach what they are owed. But he wasn't being literal, Socrates. It's a metaphor. Simonides is didn't mean that you just owe people whatever objects you borrow from them. Justice means giving to each person what they deserve, what is fitting to give them. So the reason you shouldn't return weapons to a friend who's gone mad, is because they're your friend, and you owe it to them to help them, to act in their best interest and to always give them something good. And in this case, giving back their weapons wouldn't be good, Socrates.
Socrates 20:52
Ah, so just this means always helping our friends. Then what should we give back to our enemies?
Polemarchus 21:01
Just the opposite. An enemy owes their enemies exactly what they deserve - some harm.
Socrates 21:08
Interesting. You seem to be saying that the definition of justice is the art in skill of doing good to friends and harm to enemies.
Polemarchus 21:19
Yes, in my opinion, that's right.
Socrates 21:22
Well, let's look at it from another direction. Isn't the boxer who's best at landing a blow, also the best at guarding against one?
Polemarchus 21:31
In my opinion? Yes.
Socrates 21:33
And the person who's best at guarding against disease, the doctor, isn't he also good at causing illness?
Polemarchus 21:42
Absolutely, yes.
Socrates 21:44
Well, Polemarchus, it sounds to me like you're saying that the just man is a kind of thief.
Polemarchus 21:50
What? I am?
Socrates 21:53
Would you say that a just man is good at holding on to things that you've given him for safekeeping?
Polemarchus 21:59
Yes.
Socrates 22:00
And is the just man good at telling the truth?
Polemarchus 22:04
Absolutely.
Socrates 22:06
And like the boxer and the doctor, isn't the just man also good at doing the opposite? So if he's good at protecting things and telling the truth, he's probably also good at stealing things and lying. So maybe you think that the just man is like those characters in Homer, like Odysseus's father, who's always lying and stealing to help his friends and harm his enemies. Is this what you mean? The just man is the best liar and thief?
Polemarchus 22:37
By Zeus, no, this isn't what I meant, Socrates. After all those questions, though, I can't remember what I did mean. Still. I think justice is simple. It's helping your friends and harming your enemies.
Socrates 22:54
Okay, I get you. You don't think it's right to lie or steal but you do think it's just to harm good innocent people.
Polemarchus 23:03
No, not at all. Socrates, why would you say that?
Socrates 23:07
Well, Polemarchus, when you say friends, as in "help your friends", who do you mean? Good people? Or the people who you think are good?
Polemarchus 23:17
Friends are the people who we think are good.
Socrates 23:20
And do we ever make mistakes about this? Does anyone ever mistakenly befriend a bad person or become the enemy of a good person?
Polemarchus 23:30
Yes, this always happens, unfortunately.
Socrates 23:33
Well, Polemarchus, you said that it's just to harm your enemies. But if you make a mistake, and become enemies with good people, sometimes that means it's just to harm good people who've never done anything wrong.
Polemarchus 23:49
No, no, Socrates. Look, I must have got the definition of friends wrong. Before I said, friends of people who we think are good. Let's change it. Let's change it to "friends are people who we think are good, and are actually good". And enemies are just the opposite of that. So justice is helping good people who are friends, and harming bad people who are enemies. Makes sense?
Socrates 24:16
Polemarchus, when you harm a horse, does it become better or worse?
Polemarchus 24:24
Worse.
Socrates 24:26
And what about a dog? Does harming a dog make it better or worse?
Polemarchus 24:31
Worse. Where are you going with this, Socrates?
Socrates 24:35
Shouldn't we assume the same is true of humans? That when you harm a human being, they become worse and less virtuous?
Polemarchus 24:43
Certainly, yes.
Socrates 24:45
So do you think it's just to harm people and make them worse?
Polemarchus 24:49
No, Socrates. I guess it's never just to harm anyone.
Socrates 24:57
Well, good. It looks like we're in agreement. If we hear anyone from now on say that justice is helping your friends and hurting your enemies, will you, Polemarchus, be on my side to fight against them?
Polemarchus 25:11
Absolutely. I'm ready to be your partner in battle.
Socrates 25:15
It's settled then. But since we know that this isn't justice, what else could it be?
Clif 25:32
There is a lot going on in this conversation between Socrates and Polemarchus. First we have his definition of justice, which is "help your friends, harm your enemies". This may not sound like a common view of justice, because most people I know don't associate harming people with being a good person. But if we forget about that part for a minute or two, and focus on helping our friends, then I think it does sound plausible. Most people I know really do believe that helping your friends is part of what it means to be a good person. It's the principle of loyalty. And here, friends doesn't just mean personal acquaintance, the people who came to your last birthday party - it's much broader. I think of this in terms of teams.
Human social life, and especially political life, is made up of groups or teams that you're a part of. These can include your family, your friend, group, fellow citizens, members of the same race, or religion or class or gender, or political party or supporters of the same sports team, whatever. Almost any detail about a group can serve as a basis for team formation. Which teams are most relevant will change of course, depending on context, but probably in any given situation, you have a good idea of who's on your side, and who isn't. And in general, I think that being a team player, helping your personal friends, your city, your country, your family and so on, is considered the good guy thing to do. And on the other hand, people who betray their teams are traitors, rascals and scoundrels of the worst kind. People frown on betrayal.
And all of this is just to say that I think that Polemarchus's "help your friends" theory of justice - even if it's hard on the ears the first time you hear it - I think it's something that most people then and now believe in on some level. And if you don't, if the principle of loyalty has no pull on your heart whatsoever, then you're a lousy friend and don't have kids.
But what about the "harming enemies" part? This, I think, is where some people get uncomfortable, and it brings us to Socrates's cross examination of Polemarchus. Harming people isn't very nice. And Socrates eventually says you shouldn't do it. But that's what he ends with.
When Socrates starts questioning Polemarchus, he goes fast. He's just chucking out argument after argument. I didn't even include all of them. But basically, the conversation with Polemarchus is meant to show that the idea of loyalty, that Polemarchus feels is the essence of justice, contradicts a whole bunch of equally believable moral ideas.
First, there's the idea of following the rules, like not lying and stealing. If all you care about is helping the team, then why not lie and steal to do it? Loyalty contradicts the idea of following the rules. And Polemarchus doesn't like that.
Next, Socrates shows that following the loyalty principle may cause you to harm good, innocent people, in those cases where your enemies happen to be good people. But this argument isn't just about harming innocent people. It's about the more general idea that people deserve help or harm depending on whether they're good or bad. You could call this the merit principle. And if you believe in the merit principle, then basing your decisions to help or harm people based on whether they're your friends or not, looks bad. It looks like favoritism or nepotism. So merit and loyalty contradict each other as well.
That's three ideas of what justice is: loyalty, merit, following the rules. They're all in tension with each other. But Socrates doesn't stop there. He throws one more idea of justice into the mix, and he suggests that maybe it's never just to harm anyone, good or bad, because you'll only make them worse by harming them. And this new idea, it contradicts the loyalty principle, and it contradicts the merit principle that he just used. So at this point in the conversation, there's all these really common ideas about what justice is flying around, and they all seem to make sense on their own. But they also all contradict each other.
And this is that turning point I was talking about earlier, where the people talking to Socrates realize that their current thinking doesn't make sense. It's a moment of confusion, or bafflement. And it's that point where either they start to hate Socrates for making them feel stupid. Or they decide to push further and try to do some philosophy to figure out what is the truth.
Polemarchus is a bit of a pushover. He agrees with almost everything Socrates says, but he's game. He and Socrates are about to start trying to find a whole new definition of justice, that hopefully won't be contradictory. But they get interrupted by the third interlocutor of Book One. Next episode, we're going to meet Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus is a sophist and a nihilist, and he is the most radical challenge that Socrates has to face in Book One.
Clif 31:07
Today, I'd like to give a special thanks to Andy Fleming for playing Cephalus, Elliott Chambers for playing Polemarchus, and to Nadège Hilaric for marrying Elliott last Friday. Congratulations, Nadège and Elliott on your marital hattrick. Also, all the fantastic music that Socrates and the gang are listening to at Polemarchus's house, it's by a musician called Michael Levy. Michael is a composer who's based in the UK, who plays ancient-style music and has kindly let us use his music for the pod. Today, we were playing tunes from his album The Ancient Greek Tortoise Shell Lyre, and you can find that album on his website, ancientlyre.com.
Clif 31:54
And I'd like to close today by connecting the action of the Republic to what we've already learned about the history of Athens. The Republic was published decades after the end of the war with Sparta and the reign of the 30 Tyrants and the conflict between Oligarchs and Democrats, and the execution of Socrates. But the story takes place before all that, before Athens lost, and maybe even before the first Oligarchic coup. And that means, if you're an ancient Athenian reading this when it was published, you know what's coming. And you know, what's going to happen to the characters.
Right now, they're all at Polemarchus's house. They're having a good time, drinking wine, talking politics, going to festivals. They're doing some pretty off-the-wall speculation and being quite critical of democracy. And the reader, they know that all these theoretical issues that are fun in theory that the characters are talking about, are about to become the basis of a really awful civil conflict. And it's a conflict that not all of the characters will survive.
You know that I think that Socrates was executed at least partly because people suspected him of having Oligarchic affiliations. But the host of the party, his friends, Polemarchus and the family, they were on the Democratic side. Cephalus died before the Oligarchic 30 Tyrants took over, but his family, his three sons, who are all characters in The Republic, they were involved in the Democratic resistance. Polemarchus wound up getting executed by the 30 Oligarchs. And his brother Lysias helped chase them out of Athens and eventually helped to prosecute his brother's killers. And the book is also set in Piraeus, which was a stronghold for the Democratic resistance movement. So for the ancient Athenian reader, and now for you, the shadow of these terrible political events to come hangs over the good times of The Republic.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai