Plato’s Republic 3: City of Pigs, Army of Dog
Summary
This episode covers the first part of book 2 of Republic. Glaucon and Adeimantus take over the conversation with Socrates and challenge him to prove that it’s good to be good. Glaucon gets wild with a ring of invisibility. The gang builds a utopian city of pigs and meets an army of good-natured dogs.
Credits
Ancient music: Michael Levy
Adeimantus: Rebecca Amzallag
Glaucon: Zachary Amzallag
Transcript
This is a script I worked from when recording this episode. Therefore, it does not conform exactly to what I said on the pod but it’s pretty close. Also, it was not written to be read so there’s definitely some language errors in there. I post them because I thought this would be more useful than no transcript at all.
Today: Why Frodo is a joke, A city of pigs, and an army philosophical dogs. I’m Clif Mark and this is Good in Theory.
Introduction:
What do you do when you meet someone who has absolutely terrible opinions, wants to share them with you… and has no interest in listening to anyone else’s opinion except to shoot it down? We have all been in this situation. And last episode, so was Socrates.
Socrates was just having a nice chat with Polemarchus when Thrasymachus got up and started yelling at him. Thrasymachus is a nihilist and a professional sophist. He did a big show-offy speech about how justice is a lie and how we should all do as much injustice as we can get away with. Thrasymachus doesn’t want to listen or learn. He wants to crush Socrates and show he’s the smartest in the room.
How do you deal with this particular kind of asshole? Socrates knows he’s not going to be able to persuade him, so he settles on humiliating him. He asks Thrasymachus a million leading questions, and makes him contradict himself. And when he does, he rubs it in until Thrasymachus just gives up the conversation to go sulk. If you can’t talk to them, own them.
Today Socrates is facing an entirely different conversational challenge. Assholes are not the only people with bad opinions. How do you deal with people who you think are decent but who are flirting with or considering bad ideas?
You probably know some. And if not, you’re going to meet two today. When Thrasymachus gives up after Socrates owns him, two of the young men at the gathering take over the conversation from Thrasymachus. Glaucon is the guy that Socrates was hanging out with at the beginning of the book. They went to the festival together in Piraeus, where Polemarchus invited them over to the gathering that they now are at. Adeimantus is Glaucon’s older brother and was hanging out with Polemarchus when they all ran into each other. So Socrates already has a relationship with these young men. He knows their family.
Also, fun fact: Adeimantus and Glaucon are Plato’s real-life older brothers. And I just think it’s so cute that the most famous book in Western philosophy is a fantasy conversation that the baby of the family wrote about his big brothers and his teacher.
Anyway, Glaucon and Adeimantus are basically decent boys. Or at least we can hope they’ll turn out that way. But they’ve been listening to people like Thrasymachus and he kind of makes sense to them. They’re just coming of age. They’re still figuring out who they want to be. They’re from the ruling class of Athens. They’re as rich and as posh as they come. So they’re going to have A LOT of opportunity to get away with things. And there’s a path laid out for them. Posh boys are supposed to amass wealth and power… win glory…live the good life, and generally be big shots in the city. That’s what success look like for people in their class. That’s what they’re supposed to want. And because they live in elite circles… they’ll have noticed by now that a lot of people who get all these things in Athens have done it by not-quite-virtuous means. Which poses a bit of a dilemma. Glaucon and Adeimantus want to think of themselves as good people. But they’re also probably wondering whether being too fussy about their morals might interfere with their ambitions.
Thrasymachus has just articulated a strong position on the cynical side of the argument. And Socrates responded with a bunch of technical logical and rhetorical tricks. Thrasymachus gave up, but the boys aren’t satisfied. So they’re going to defend basically the same anti-justice position that Thrasymachus did… and challenge Socrates to defeat it properly. To really make the case for justice.
But they come in with a totally different attitude. Glaucon and Adeimantus seem to genuinely be curious and have open minds. They take up an opposing position to Socrates, but it’s not a debate. They’re playing devil’s advocate. Thrasymachus came to win. The brothers came to learn. And that makes all the difference to how the conversation goes. It only took Socrates half a chapter to own Thrasymachus. But he sees that he might actually get somewhere with Glaucon and Adeimantus, that they are actually open to thinking seriously about justice. So his approach is totally different, and his conversation with them lasts for the rest of the book.
We’re going to pick up the conversation right after Thrasymachus gives up. At this point,
Glaucon jumps in and starts pushing Socrates for more answers. In the dialogue, Zack Amzallag is going to play Glaucon and his real-life sister, Rebecca Amzallag is going to play Adeimantus.
Dialogue 1: Glaucon and Adeimantus’s challenge
5:50
GLAUCON: Socrates, are you trying to convince us that we should be just rather than unjust?
SOCRATES: That’s exactly what I’d like to do.
GLAUCON: Well, you’re not doing it. Just to clarify, are you saying that justice is good in itself, like good health? Or only for it’s consequences: like exercising at the gym or working for money?
SOCRATES: Both. I think that justice is good for the consequences it brings, but I also think that justice is good in itself.
GLAUCON: Well, that’s where most people would say you’re wrong. I think Thrasymachus gave up too early. Do you mind if I try defending his position again, for the sake of argument? Not because I believe it, obviously. But I want to hear you refute it properly.
SOCRATES: You want to keep talking about justice Glaucon? You’re a man after my own heart!
GLAUCON: Ha, ok Socrates. Well, here it is. Nobody chooses justice for itself.
If anyone had their way… they’d go around taking whatever they want and doing whatever they want to whoever they want. It’s just human nature. We like doing injustice.
The problem is that we really hate it when other people do it to us. And that’s why we invented laws and rules and agreements. Everyone gives up the freedom to screw over others to avoid being screwed over themselves. But this is just a second-best compromise. It’s not like people love following the rules. They only do it because they’re afraid of the consequences of breaking them.
And if you want proof, imagine what happens when you give someone the power to do whatever they want without any consequences. Think of the legend of Gyges’ Ring.
In that story… a shepherd finds the ring of invisibility. And the minute he understands his power, he goes to the capital, beds the queen, kills the king, and takes over the city.
And the point of the story isn’t that the shepherd is evil. The story is about what anyone would do if they knew they could get away with it. If you take a man who has never broken a rule in his life, and you give him unlimited power, he’ll act the exact same way as an unjust man. And if somebody DID have a magic ring and never used it for their own advantage, everyone would laugh at him behind his back for being a sucker.
Socrates, if you want to prove to us that justice in itself is better for us than injustice, that it’s not just about consequences, then you have to take reputation out of the equation. Imagine a truly good man. Someone who is always just but unfortunately somehow got a reputation for the opposite. He’ll be treated like a criminal. His fellow citizens will torture him, burn out his eyes, and crucify him. Now imagine a true master of injustice. A man who gets away with everything and maintains a spotless reputation. He’ll run the city. He’ll fuck whoever he wants and be rich and help all his friends and crush his enemies.
Once we take away the consequences of reputation, the life of injustice is better in every way.
So why choose justice?
Adeimantus/Socrates: ideological critique
ADEIMANTUS: And that’s not all! Think about what the people on the other side of the argument say. All of our lives our parents, the poets, priests tell us we should be good. They say being just is hard work and takes self-discipline, but in the long run we’ll be rewarded. And that we should never cheat or take shorts cuts, because that’s the easy way out and eventually we’ll get caught, and we’ll be shamed and punished and hated by the whole city. And, just to be sure they made their point, they throw in some stories about the afterlife. Homer and the other poets say that when the good die, they are led to a giant party in Hades to get drunk for the rest of time, and that bad men are tortured and buried in mud and anything else they can think of.
Do you see my point? Even the people teach us about morality only care about the consequences of being just. Nobody cares about justice for itself. And they prove it everyday. Everyone admires the rich and powerful, even if they know they’re bad people. And if someone is poor and powerless, Socrates, it doesn’t matter how good he is. He’ll be despised and ignored just the same.
GLAUCON: *cough* Socrates! *cough*
ADEIMANTUS: What effect do you think all this has on young people? These people think they are teaching us to be just. But they’re not. They’re only teaching us that we should appear just. When you think about it, they’re saying the same thing as Glaucon and Thrasymachus: that we should lie and cheat and do whatever we can to get ahead.
And that that as long as we get away with it, we’ll be happy.
Now, some might say that these kinds of things are not so easy to get away, so we should play it safe and obey the rules. Well I say that any great achievement takes great effort. So we’ll form secret societies, and hire sophists help us persuade people, and we’ll even use force if that’s what it takes to get our way. And when it comes to the gods and the afterlife… we won’t worry. Because the same poets and priests that try to scare us with stories about Hades also tell us that the gods love sacrifices. That if we give enough to the Gods, they’ll forgive us and love us and curse our enemies. So we’ll do enough injustice to win in this life. And we’ll pay off the gods so we win in the next life too.
Now tell me. If all that is true, what on earth could convince anyone who has any money or brains or family connections to respect justice?Why shouldn’t we laugh when someone tells us to be good?
Socrates, I don’t want you to think that I personally believe all of this.
But nobody, not even you, has ever defended justice except in terms of reputation and prestige and its rewards. Nobody has said what justice is itself. Or what good it does when nobody’s watching. So please, tell us. And leave reputation out of it.
Explainer 1: the Challenge of Glaucon and Adeimantus:
12:48
CLIF MARK: That is the challenge that Plato’s brothers put to Socrates: define justice, and tell us what good it does us.
The brothers are defending the same bad-boy sceptical position as Thrasymachus.
But they also make a point of distancing themselves from it. They’re just playing devil’s advocate. This doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t believe in what they’re arguing at all.
The boys have definitely contemplated this dark position before and Glaucon in particular you get this ambiguity where he is really interested in justice and in being good but also seems pretty excited about what he could do with an invisibility ring.
Still, they’re not sure. And more importantly, they’re not there to PROVE they are right. They’re presenting the argument for consideration and hoping they might learn what there is to be said for all sides. They’re trying to have a conversation, not a debate.
If this is the kind of conversation you want to have, distancing yourself from an argument can be a really useful technique.Saying things like “it could be argued that” or “wouldn’t some people say…” or even “I’m asking for a friend” can make it easier to explore ideas and play around with them. It gives you space to change your mind. Whereas if you fully invest yourself in one position… and say “this is how it is” like Thrasymachus did, then you might feel embarrassed or humiliated if it turns out to be wrong. When you play devil’s advocate, you reduce the consequences of being wrong, and it can be freeing.
Each of the boys has a distinct critique of justice. Glaucon’s argument is about human nature. He says that deep down everyone wants the same thing that the guy in the ring story wants: to fuck the queen, become king and shoplift from the market. That’s just how people are. From his point of view, someone like Frodo Baggins is ridiculous. He has the ring of rings and he has absolutely no fun with it. Only an epic nerd with no imagination could have all that power and be so miserable. Glaucon may be projecting just a little. But still. His argument isn’t crazy. There are a lot of people today that I think assume that if the forces of order slip for just a second people will turn on each other like vicious animals.
Adeimantus is a little more analytical or reflective. Whereas Glaucon argues that there’s no basis in human nature for justice… Adeimantus is saying there’s no basis in Athenian nurture for justice. His argument is about ideology and public messaging. He’s saying that the moral education that Athens is corrupting and actually encourages injustice.
They tell young people that being just is good and admirable. But the stories they use to illustrate that point always make injustice actually look better. Adeimantus backs all of this up with quotes from Homer and Hesiod and other examples.
Obviously, we don’t go by the same myths that Adeimantus did but we could make the same point about media today. When we watch cartoons or movies or read didactic stories, the moral of the story is really often something like “honesty is the best policy” or that “crime doesn’t pay”, that kind of thing.
But what these stories usually show is that the crime does pay. Think how many movies you’ve seen where, at least at in the first half of the movie, the villain is having a great time. Money, excitement, babes everywhere. Maybe even the respect and admiration of others. And the hero is toiling in obscurity, can’t get a break, is misunderstood. Maybe even he’s being held back because he’s TOO honest.
Then the plot happens. And the villain gets exposed and punished. And the hero is finally gets the recognition they deserves. Maybe from society at large… or maybe just from a small but important audience, like a love interest. The moral here isn’t exactly that crime is bad for you. It’s that getting caught is bad for you. Just like being bad is awesome until you get caught, being good is miserable until you get caught. That is, until somebody important notices your hard work and you get the recognition you deserve.
So why not get all the advantages of being a bad guy but pretend to be a good guy? This is Adeimantus and Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates. This question… may just sound selfish. They’re spoiled young men “I can get away with whatever I want. Why should I be good?”
But, I also think there is a more generous interpretation. Most good people have some other reason for being good than rewards and punishments. For example. If you say “wow. You rescued a bunch of schoolchildren from a burning building. Why did you do something so heroic?” A normal good person would say “I was just doing what had to be done. I saw that I could help and I couldn’t let them die in there.” This person is doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. No further justification required. That’s why they’re a good person. If I say “well… rescuing kids from a burning building is CLASSIC headline material, so I was hoping I’d get some publicity to promote my podcast.” I sound like a psychopath because I’m only doing the right thing because of the consequences to myself. Similarly, if the only reason you never break the rules is because you’re afraid of being caught, it’s not necessarily admirable. You may just be a coward. Adeimantus and Glaucon are grown up. They’re confident in their powers, and they’re too proud to be pushed around by threats and bribes. They’re saying “you can’t scare us with kids’ stories anymore” and they’re asking Socrates for a better reason to be good. And the whole rest of the book is Socrates trying to give them one in a very indirect and long-winded kind of way.
Getting back to the dialogue, Glaucon and Adeimantus have given their big speeches. Socrates is going to reluctantly accepts their challenge… and then immediately swerve off on a surprise detour that is going to shape the rest of the book.
Dialogue 2: City-soul analogy, city of pigs.
19:45
SOCRATES: Glaucon, Adeimantus, I’m impressed. For two young men who I know believe in justice, you did an amazing job of defending injustice. In fact, I don’t even know if I can defend justice against that kind of attack. But on the other hand…I can’t just stand here and not even speak up for justice. So I guess I better do my best.
CROWD: yeah, come on Socrates! Do your best. Tell us about justice…. And injustice.. and what benefits they bring…
SOCRATES: Alright!! I’ll do it. But seeing what justice does in the individual soul isn’t easy. So I propose a different approach. I say we construct a hypothetical city, a city in speech. And as it’s coming together, we can try to see what justice and injustice are in the city. And once we see that, then we can come back and see if justice is the same thing in the individual. That should be easier… because cities are bigger than individuals… and things that are written on larger surfaces are easier to read than things written on small objects.Make sense?
ADEIMANTUS: Tons of sense. Go ahead, Socrates.
SOC: Well… it seems to me that cities are based on human needs. We can’t survive on our own, so we live together and share with each other for everyone’s advantage. Does that sound right?
AD: Of course it does.
SOC: We need food and shelter and clothes. So we’ll need a farmer and a builder and a weaver. And do you think we should a shoemaker?
AD: Yeah, that would be good.
SOC: Then your basic city is just four or five guys. And my next question is: should each person in the city do all of those things, or should they specialize in one job?
AD: I think they’ll do better if they focus on one thing.
SOC: Then we’re going to need more than four men. Because the farmer is not going to make his own plough; the weaver is not going to be a shepherd. And, no city has everything in its own territory, so we’ll need merchants to travel to other cities to trade for what we don’t have, and then we’ll need extra production so we’ll have a surplus to trade with.
And if we’re trading by sea we’ll need sailors and shipbuilders, and a market in the city and currency, and vendors to work in the marketplace, and we’ll add some general labourers to do any extra work that’s left over.
What do you think Adeimantus? Is our city complete?
AD: maybe.
SOC: Then let’s look at it. This city is made up of everyone we need to satisfy human needs. So tell me Adeimantus, where are justice and injustice? Where can we find them?
ADEIMANTUS: Uh, I have no idea. Unless, maybe it’s in some sort of need that the people have of each other.
SOC: You know, there may be something to that. Let’s look at how these people will live. I imagine in the summer they’ll work almost naked and barefoot, but they’ll have enough clothes for the winter. And they’ll live on barley cakes and bread served on fresh leaves, and they’ll, lay on beds of reeds covered in flowers and feast and drink wine and after that, they’ll put garlands on their heads and sing to each other about the gods and have sex. And they’ll have no more children than they can afford, so they avoid poverty and war.
GLAUCON: You call that a feast Socrates? You haven’t even given them relishes.
SOC: Good point! Let’s give them relishes. They’ll have salt and olives and cheese, like out in the country. And for desserts, they’ll have figs and chickpeas… and they’ll live peaceful and healthy lives and die in old age, and hand down the same kind of lives to their children.
GL: It sounds like you’re feeding a city of pigs, Socrates.
SOC: Well what kind of meals should we give them, Glaucon?
GL: Regular meals, like we eat today! Is eating cooked food off of tables too much to ask?
SOC: Ahhh, I see. You want to describe the city that’s inflamed with luxury. That’s a good idea, maybe it will help us find justice. Now, I think that the city we just described is the true city… the healthy version. But obviously, that life isn’t enough for some people.
Some people need couches and tables and other furniture, and if they have that, they’ll also want: relishes and perfume and incense, and sex workers and cakes, ALL SORTS OF CAKE. And for a luxurious city, basic houses and clothes won’t be enough.
We’ll need painters and decorators and gold and ivory and embroidery…
GL: Now we’re talking!
SOC: So the city gets bigger. And it’s going to be stuffed with musicians and poets and all their helpers, and teachers and nurses and beauticians, barbers, relish-makers, cooks, and swineherds. If we’re going to eat meat, we’ll need someone to raise the animals.
GLAUCON: yes!
SOC: and if we’re going to live like this, we’ll need more doctors.
GL: Yes we will.
SOC: and if we’re going to have all of that, we’re going to need more land. Because the little bit of land that the simple city needed for barley and beans isn’t going to be enough for all this. Probably we’ll have to cut off a piece of our neighbours’ land. And they’ll probably try to do the same to us, if they’re living the same way.
GL: That’s how it goes, Socrates.
SOC: and the next step will be what Glaucon?
GL: War.
EXPLAINER 2: City of pigs, dogs of war
25:48
CLIF MARK: This section of dialogue is one of the famous sudden left turns in the history of philosophy. Glaucon and Adeimantus were asking Socrates to prove to them that they should be just. And he’s like… “sure… and let’s start by designing an imaginary city from scratch.”
The city-soul analogy… the assumption that justice in the city and justice in the soul are the same is a structuring idea of the whole book… but it’s also odd…AND…it’s not a very good argument on the face of it. We have no reason to believe that justice in a city is going to the same as justice in an individual. Cities and individuals both have congestion. But even if I learn everything about traffic, I won’t necessarily know anything about your sinuses.
This city-soul analogy wouldn’t fly in a debate with a hostile opponent. Thrasymachus would have immediately rejected it. But the boys want to know what Socrates has to say, so they just accept it so they can see where he’s going. This is an important moment in the conversation. You remember in the first episode of this series… I said that the Republic is a like a magic carpet ride through Plato’s mind. When Socrates proposes the analogy between the soul and the city, that’s his “do you trust me?” moment.
Clip from Aladdin
Once the boys accept the proposal, they move immediately from the perspective of the individual to the political perspective, and they introduce the principle of specialization. Each person should only have one job because it’s more efficient. When Socrates introduces this principle, he’s pretty casual about it. It makes a lot of sense that farmers aren’t also builders and shoemakers. No big deal. But one-man one-job is going to be a key premise for the rest of the book and is eventually going to be used to support some much heavier conclusions.
Using the one-man one-job principle, Socrates and the gang build two different hypothetical cities each based on a different premise about the basic purpose of political association.
Adeimantus and Socrates are asking the question: what would society look like if its driving purpose were to co-operate to help us fulfill our basic needs? They list everyone they need to make a simple economy that can sustain human life. Farmers, shoemakers, merchants, and so on. And when they’re done, they have a utopia. Materially speaking, they aren’t rich. They mostly go barefoot and have a very simple diet. But everyone has what they need. There is no war or poverty, and life is just feasting and fucking and singing karaoke with flowers in your hair.
Life seems pretty good, but we don’t stay here for very long. One reason is that it’s hard to see where justice comes into the picture. Following the rules, helping our friends and hurting our enemies, hard work and self-discipline—none of this seems relevant in that world.
Another reason we leave the utopia of human needs is that Glaucon isn’t happy there.
Sitting bare-ass on the floor, eating plain bread for dinner night-after-night isn’t just boring--though it is boring--it’s also almost demeaning to civilized human beings. Glaucon calls it a city of pigs. He wants more for the citizens of their imaginary city. He wants them at least to be able to have a civilized dinner like they do in Athens, and just that simple request totally reshapes the entire city.
Glaucon and Socrates keep the one-man one-job premise, but they change the underlying purpose of the city. In the healthy city, the purpose was to fulfill human needs. In Glaucon’s city of luxury, the purpose of the city is to fulfill unlimited desires for anything the citizens can imagine. Immediately, the city starts expanding: dinner tables lead to: gold ivory meat-eating performing arts, medical doctors. Appetites keeps expanding and they keep adding new people to feed them.
So now we have a contrast. Two very different cities with different purposes. The city based on basic needs is a healthy and harmonious utopia that may never have existed.
The city based on unlimited desires, Socrates calls this city inflamed and feverish and bloated. And the citizens are consuming so much they need to invent doctors to treat their gas. Listeners of this or ANY podcast will be more familiar with life in the city of luxury. Unlike in the healthy city, there’s no natural equilibrium point. Appetites keep expanding and so do the appetites, until they need an army to conquer their neighbours.
You might THINK that this was Socrates’s point. That he raised this whole contrast to demonstrate the evils of luxury and civilization and how everyone should only consume what they need and get back to what really matters and all that. But it’s not. Socrates isn’t that basic. The Republic isn’t Avatar. The reason Socrates introduced the logic of luxury is to explain why you need soldiers. That’s what he wants to talk about. In the last section of dialogue today, we’re going to meet a very important new class of people.
Enter the guardians.
Dialogue 3: Enter the Guardians
SOC: Aha! It looks like we’ve found the origin of war. Well… now our city needs to be bigger by an entire army.
GL: what about the citizens? Can’t they defend themselves?
SOC: Glaucon! Do you think that the art of shoemaking is more important than the art of war?
G: Ha! Definitely not!
SOC: Well, we didn’t let our shoemaker also be a farmer did we? He had to specialize so he could do a good job. Do you anyone can just pick up a spear and know what they’re doing?
GL: No, of course not.
SOC: Since their job is so important, don’t you think that our guardians should be freer than anyone else to train and become experts in war?
GL: They should definitely be experts, Socrates.
SOC: Well, if we want the best soldiers, we need people who are naturally suited to that kind of life. We need young people who are like good hounds… who are fast and strong and have sharp senses.
GL: exactly.
SOCRATES: And most important of all, they need spirit, so they have the courage to face any danger.
GL: Very true, Socrates.
SOC: But if the guardians are strong and fast and spirited, what’s to stop them from attacking each other or the other citizens?
GL: Nothing, I guess.
SOC: Well what’s the point of having an army to protect the city if it’s going to destroy it themselves. We need guardians who are gentle with their own people and fierce with their enemies.
GLAUCON: Well where are we going to find people like that?
SOC: Good question. What about our example from earlier? Pure bred dogs are friendly to people they know and the opposite to strangers.
GL: true, true. There are lots of animals like that.
SOC: And they’re also like philosophers!
GL: What do you mean?
SOC: Well… dogs are like lovers of knowledge because they define friend and enemy by knowledge and ignorance. They’re friendly to people they know and mean to strangers.
GL: True, I never thought of that.
SOC: and if the same is true of men, then we want the guardians of the city to be lovers of wisdom who are spirited, swift and strong.
Explainer: Enter the Guardians
34:00
Clif Mark The arrival of the guardians is another big landmark. You can basically forget about the farmers and weavers and embroiderers and swineherds. They are all one big category of people called “producers” that Socrates and the boys are mostly going to ignore for the rest of the book… so they can talk about the guardians. WHY are they so interested in these guys? Why isn’t being a solider just another job like any other?
There is a really common interpretation that you may hear somewhere which is that lato or Socrates or both are proto-fascists who want a military dictatorship, and that’s why they’re so obsessed with the guardians. I don’t know what their private political opinions were. Still, I think this interpretation is misleading and superficial because these guys have lots of good reasons to talk about the guardians even though they’re not fascists.
First, on a conversational level, focussing on the army is a smart rhetorical move by Socrates. He’s speaking two young aristocrats who expect to take up prominent roles in Athens. As citizens, they’ve already served as soldiers and are proud of it. And they’re NOT the kind of people who work for a living. So they will identify much more with the guardians than with any of the other occupations that have been mentioned. They’re immediately interested in these guys.
But the most important reason to focus on the guardians is philosophical. Only when the guardians arrive that we can start to even talk about justice and ethics. This is why they’re not just another job that is extra-violent. They represent a whole set of philosophical issues. And here’s why: The city of needs and the city of luxury are not really cities. They’re just economies. They’re machines for fulfilling desires. That’s why the question of justice doesn’t arise. In the healthy city, you work till you have enough to eat, then all you think about is making garlands and singing songs. In the luxurious city everyone is totally focussed on fulfilling their spiralling unlimited appetites. The only question we have to ask was whether to hire more dancers or pastry chefs. Which is just the kind of question that economists today like to answer. How to efficiently fulfill desires?
But when you have a bunch of experts in violence, that poses a big question, which is: How do you stop them from exploiting the people they are meant to protect? This is where the question of justice starts to become visible. All that stuff about following rules and helping your friends and self-discipline and stuff only comes into play when some people have the power to screw others over. The guardians have that power. So they are the ones to whom the question of justice is addressed. And this should remind you of the brothers’ initial challenge: why be good when we can get away with being bad?
In the part we just heard, Socrates is responding specifically to Glaucon’s challenge. Remember: Glaucon’s argument was all about human nature. He basically said everyone wants the same things: sex, power, money and nobody would hesitate to screw everyone else over to get what they wanted if they weren’t afraid of the consequences. That’s what the guy in the ring story was like, and that’s the model of human motivation the engine for the city of luxury.
But now he has this class of guardians, and this is a problem. Because anyone who is only motivated by their appetites is just going to exploit their others. So if we want decent protectors, we need humans with different natures. This is where the philosophical dogs come in.
On the surface, “philosophical dogs” may sound silly. But Socrates is introducing the possibility that there are natural motivations beyond appetite. Good dogs can conquer fear because they are spirited and they’re loyal to their friends even when it’s not in their own interest because they’re philosophical. This is a bit of foreshadowing for a three-part model of the soul that Socrates is going to get into in Book 4, But at this point, the important thing is that Socrates is opening Glaucon to the possibility that that humans may not be only driven by appetite. Maybe we’re like dogs, not pigs.
But of course, nature isn’t everything. Adeimantus didn’t say that humans have bad natures, he said they had bad nurtures. That the moral education that they give to young Athenians actually encourages injustice. So next episode, Socrates and Adeimantus take up the question of how to educate guardians to be the best they can be.
Postscript:
39:30
This episode is brought to you by Patreon sponsor David Egan. Thanks David!
As your theory fact for today, I just want to give you a little bit of extra interpretation on a bit of the text that kind of stuck in my head for years before I learned what it was actually about.
When Glaucon is complaining about how the city of pigs sucks, he asks for two things: relish then a dinner set of couches and tables. The reason this passage stuck in my head is because it tickled me that of ALL the things that Glaucon could complain was missing from the city of pigs, he chose relish. I knew he couldn’t be talking about green hot dog sauce, but that’s the only relish I know.
Anyway, it wasn’t until I was researching this podcast that I learned that in Greek cooking, there was a category of food that gave you your sustenance: bread or barley, then there was stuff for flavour, like cheese and olives and onions and this is what he means by relish.Relish is the first step into luxury, but it’s a really small one. Socrates gives olives and onions to the healthy city, and nothing changes.
But when Glaucon wants the people to eat from tables, that disrupts the entire utopian equilibrium. It’s a tipping point into luxury and civilization and decadence. It turns out that in Ancient Greece, reclining on couches to eat from tables was symbolic of civilization. It was how classy Greeks did things, versus foreigners and other uncivilized people.
That’s why the table isn’t just a table. It stands for everything that some people, but not Socrates, might call “the finer things in life.”