Plato's Republic 8: The Philosopher Kings
Summary
This book covers parts of books 5-6 of Plato’s Republic.
Who should rule the city in speech? Philosophers of course! In this episode, Socrates explains his most famous political proposal: philosopher kings. He wants the leaders to be smart and capable and virtuous. And charming and good-looking. Is that too much to ask?
In a democracy, it is. Socrates doesn't just say what good leaders look like he also says why democracies will never have one. Who’s to blame for bad democratic politics? Is it corrupt politicians or an ignorant majority? Yes!
Credits
Adeimantus: Rebecca Amzallag
Glaucon: Zachary Amzallag
Ancient music: Michael Levy
Intro theme: Clayton Tapp
Outro: David Zikovitz
Episode art and editing: Sep
Transcript
Note: this is transcribed using an online transcription service so it’s probably going to have a lot of 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.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
socrates, people, philosophers, philosophy, democracy, crowd, city, bad, corrupt, virtue, big, knowledge, ship, sailors, opinion, students, blame, thought, philosophical, owner
SPEAKERS
Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon, Clif Mark
Clif Mark 00:16
philosopher kings, why you'll never elect a decent president, and how democracy is hurting our children. I'm Clif Mark. And this is good in theory. plus four kings, or Socrates is ideal political leaders. They're not just nerds who love to study all the time. They're brave, virtuous, good looking warriors, who love to study all the time. And the big question is, where do we find them? And how can we recruit them? hereditary monarchy isn't going to work, because that's just a lottery and whatever slides out of the Royal shoot you're stuck with for a generation. But democracy should be better. Because we get to choose, in principle, we could scour the entire realm for the smartest, most capable people with the most integrity and put them in the driver's seat. In a modern democracies, where we have 10s, or even hundreds of millions of citizens to choose from, you'd think that every leader would be a glittering paragon of competence in virtue. And yet, for some reason, when I search my own memory of Democratic leaders, I find that the glittering Paragons are outnumbered by the mediocre, the corrupt the doll, it doesn't seem to me like we're sending our best. Not Where are our philosopher kings? Socrates has an answer. He says, it's not just bad luck, or a corrupt party system or the media. He says that it's the very structure of democratic society that prevents the best people from coming into power. And what's worse, it also prevents the vast majority of us from ever becoming good in the first place. left off last time glaucon was pressing Socrates to explain how his insane family policy would even be possible. And then Socrates swerved off onto a tangent about how the city would wage war and how it would do foreign policy. And that is where we're going to pick up the conversation now.
Socrates 02:50
glaucon that was a great idea about letting the war heroes kiss whoever they want on campaign.
Glaucon 02:55
Thank you, Socrates. So I was wondering, and I was also thinking that
Socrates 03:01
when they're fighting against other Greek cities, I don't think our soldiers should take slaves or loot bodies or lay waste to the territory, do you?
Glaucon 03:11
I guess not. But
Socrates 03:12
Come to think of it. They shouldn't be so harsh with the barbarians either.
Glaucon 03:16
Socrates, stop. We get it. Everything you said about the wives and the children and the army is great. We agree. We don't need any more details. We just need you to tell us how we can actually make it happen.
Socrates 03:30
Wow, I barely escaped two waves of criticism. In here you are throwing me under the biggest wave yet?
Glaucon 03:37
Stop stalling? Is the city we're talking about possible or not? Okay. glaucon.
Socrates 03:43
I'll get to it. But let me ask you this. If a painter paints the most attractive possible, man, but that man doesn't exist in real life, would you say that he's a good painter?
Glaucon 03:55
Yeah, I'd say,
Socrates 03:57
Well remember that? Because we're making a model of the perfect city. And practice never completely matches theory. So let's just be happy if it's possible to run a city. That's something like our model.
Glaucon 04:12
Fair enough, Socrates now, please go ahead.
Socrates 04:15
Well, I can think of one simple change that would help move our cities in the right direction. But I'm afraid that if I say it, I will be completely drowned and ridicule.
Glaucon 04:26
Just one change,
Socrates 04:27
one change.
Glaucon 04:28
So what is it?
Socrates 04:30
Well, I think there will be no end to suffering for our cities, or for humankind, unless either philosophers become kings, or the people who are now kings become philosophers.
Glaucon 04:46
Socrates, you're really asking for it with this one. How are you going to defend yourself when the angry mob shows up at your door?
Socrates 04:53
I would start by explaining exactly who we're talking about. When we say philosophers.
Glaucon 05:00
Good idea. Please go ahead.
Socrates 05:03
Do you remember when we said that when someone loves something, he loves all of it? He can't just love one bit, not another?
Glaucon 05:11
Remind me.
Socrates 05:13
I'm surprised I have to. I thought you of all people would get it cloud Khan. I mean, have you ever seen a single boy in the bloom of youth that you didn't like? dark, pale, pug nose, big nose, whatever. You have something nice to say about every single one of them.
Glaucon 05:32
Okay, Socrates, you got me?
Socrates 05:34
Well, lovers of wisdom, like lovers of boys, are not picky. People with philosophical natures just try to learn everything they can about any subject from a young age.
Glaucon 05:47
Wait a second, what about the people who just run around seeing every performance that gets staged and check out all the different crafts? Are you saying these people are philosophers? No glaucon,
Socrates 06:00
that kind of person. They're just enjoying the sights and sounds, but they aren't grasping what's really there. It's one thing to like pretty things. But that's not the same thing as grasping beauty itself. Every beautiful object takes part in some way, in the form of beauty. And that's what makes it appear beautiful. In this unchanging form of beauty, that is what truly exists. And that is what the philosopher is interested in. Because when you grasp the forms, that's knowledge. Everything else is just like, your opinion, man.
Glaucon 06:40
How do you mean,
Socrates 06:42
let me put it this way, if something doesn't exist at all, can we know anything about it?
Glaucon 06:47
No.
Socrates 06:48
Right. And so when it comes to things that don't exist, we're necessarily ignorant. But on the other hand, these unchanging forms, they are what truly exists. So these, we can have knowledge of, okay, and everything else rolls around in the middle, I'm talking about the things that change and appear differently at different times. We all know that big objects, given the right circumstances can appear small, beautiful things sometimes seem ugly, even our ideas about what beauty is change all the time. And the things that we praise is just sometimes appear
Glaucon 07:26
unjust. You're saying that we can't really have knowledge of anything that changes or ever looks different, or isn't an eternal form? That's right, cloud con,
Socrates 07:37
but we can have opinions and beliefs about them. opinion is more clear than ignorance, but it's still not knowledge. Okay,
Glaucon 07:46
I guess that makes sense. Now, what
Socrates 07:48
I'm saying is that when we use the word, philosopher, we're talking about the people who love knowledge, not just opinion.
Glaucon 07:57
And these are the people you're saying should rule the city.
Socrates 08:00
These guys can see what justice in beauty really are, and use that to guide them when they're making the laws. Other people have no model in their soul to go by. So they're blinded by comparison, who would you pick tool the city?
Glaucon 08:15
Fair enough? I'll grant you that philosophers have more knowledge. But I hate to break it to you sock. Knowledge is in everything. What about experience? What about virtue?
Socrates 08:28
Very good questions. glaucon. We all agree that the main thing about philosophers is that they love the truth. Right? Right. And we can assume that the stronger a person's desire for one thing, the weaker his desires for other things, right? Yes, then it seems to me that anyone who's truly into the pleasures of the mind won't be very interested in the pleasures of the body. That means they'll have the virtue of moderation. They won't be money hungry, because they just don't care about the things that most people want money for.
Glaucon 09:03
That makes sense. Now,
Socrates 09:05
do you think that a person who spends his days contemplating the vast wholeness of time in a reality would think that something as puny as a human life could be very important?
Glaucon 09:16
No, of course not.
Socrates 09:18
And that's how we know our philosophers will be courageous, because if they don't care about a puny human life, they won't fear death. And when someone like this have any reason to go around breaking contracts or being unjust,
Glaucon 09:32
not that I can think of,
Socrates 09:34
and we can also assume that our philosophers are fast learners and have good memories, because otherwise they probably wouldn't enjoy learning that much naturally, and they'll have musical well proportioned souls because this is more closely related to the truth than the opposite. Of course, they will, then we agree that philosophers are necessarily wise and courageous and just in moderate, magnificent and charming Absolutely. well isn't this the kind of person that you want running our city
Glaucon 10:03
who else could we pick?
Clif Mark 10:14
philosophers kings of the city is socrates his most famous political proposal in this section of the dialogue is about explaining who these philosophers are and why they're so great the core definition of philosopher is someone who loves knowledge or wisdom it's easy to remember because it's in the name philleo means love sophia means wisdom so filosofia philosopher is a lover of wisdom or knowledge there are people who just really want to learn everything they're obsessed with seeking the truth now socrates he makes a kind of long and complex argument here about what counts as knowledge what's opinion the forms things that are and things that only kind of are and if all that was slightly hard to follow for you you're not alone in philosophy whenever you hear people start talking about what the definition of is is you know you're in deep water i don't want to say too much about this topic because we're going to come back to it next episode but i want to say enough that it makes sense for right now so my advice is to forget about the forms from it because if you start trying to picture these eternal unchanging things that cannot be pictured and are not visible you're going to get confused and you're going to confuse me i think it's easier to understand if you start with opinion or belief according to socrates what's distinctive about opinion is that even though it seems true it's not always true it looks different in different circumstances so big objects look small in some circumstances heavy objects can seem light and this is also true about more general ideas remember in book one where everyone had a different idea of justice and then socrates would ask a few questions and all of a sudden these ideas would seem contradictory or wrong that means they can't be knowledge they're just opinions knowledge is what you get when you resolve all the changes and contradictions and counter examples and move beyond opinion to see what justice really is so when you're thinking about what people call the theory of the forms instead of trying to grasp what an eternal perfect unimaginable truth is i like to think of it in the negative sense it's just what you get when you move past the changes and contradictions inherent in opinions and this is what philosophers love to do they love to move beyond opinion to get to knowledge and all that knowledge is a big advantage when you're running the city it helps you make better laws but as glaucon points out knowledge isn't everything when you think political leader you want someone who has all sorts of practical abilities and virtues that we don't usually associate with philosophy we want someone who's brave and competent these are supposed to be people of action not just contemplation but socrates says don't worry philosophers have it all they necessarily have all the practical virtues to because they don't care about anything but philosophy they're so busy contemplating the big questions of the universe and the good that they're never tempted to do anything petty are bad so it's a kind of virtue based on apathy that's not your usual picture of virtue but socrates is not your usual guy now the idea of philosopher kings rubs a lot of people the wrong way especially in democracies because they seem to perfect they seem unrealistic and it kind of sounds like a way to justify tyranny by exaggerating the wisdom of the tyrant and i admit that socrates his portrait of philosopher kings is not realistic in the sense that we see a lot of people like this in the real world but i still think it's applicable if we change our perspective a little and bring the idea down to earth because in the end what do we really want and expect from our political leaders i think at a minimum we want them to know what they're doing and be good people and when i think of the idea of philosopher kings it's just kind of a refinement in idealization of that basic demand the philosopher kings maximize the qualities that anyone wants and expects in a leader remember what socrates says about the painter who paints the hottest imaginable guy it's okay if no actual men are That hot, we should just be happy if someone who's something like them comes along. And the same thing goes for political leaders and regimes. On is stoked about the philosopher kings, he's ready to put them in charge. And that's where Adam mantas comes in and pumps the brakes. He's gonna say it's very cute that you convince my little brother that philosophers are superheroes. But Socrates, nobody in Athens is going to believe you. And that's because everyone already has strong opinions about what philosophers are like. And that is that the best philosophers are useless weirdos who wander around talking about the stars in the cosmos. philosophers are worse than useless. They're bad, because they are shady bullshit merchants, aka Sophos, who make money by corrupting the young men of Athens. For the rest of the episode, Socrates is going to try to defend the reputation of philosophy from this charge. And he's going to do it by blaming democracy.
Adeimantus 16:16
Hold on Socrates, you know what people are going to say, don't you? What's that? The same thing? They always say? That you lead them along question by question. And that even though every step seems logical, you somehow always lead them to a ridiculous conclusion. But they're not convinced Socrates. They just feel like you're trapping them with words.
Socrates 16:41
And am I doing that right now?
Adeimantus 16:43
Socrates, you've painted a really nice picture of philosophers. But everyone will say that they know what philosophers are really like, which is that a few of them are just useless, but most of them are actively bad.
Socrates 16:57
And do you believe that adamant is?
Adeimantus 17:00
I don't know, Socrates. That's why I'm asking.
Socrates 17:04
Well, I think it's true.
Adeimantus 17:06
What you do, then why do you want to put philosophers in charge of the city?
Socrates 17:11
Well, to answer that, we'll need an analogy.
Adeimantus 17:15
Of course, we will.
Socrates 17:17
Imagine a ship out of mentors, and the owner of the ship is bigger and stronger than everyone else humble,
Adeimantus 17:23
and I suppose he's a genius who understands sailing and justice and everything else.
Socrates 17:27
No, actually, the owner is short sighted, a bit deaf. And he doesn't know the first thing about sailing. But He's the owner. And he's the strongest. So he gets to choose who pilots the ship. Who does he choose will of course, all the sailors on the ship want to be captain. So they gather around the owner, and they start persuading him and flattering him and doing everything they can to get control of the tiller. And these guys are ruthless. They're fighting with each other, and throwing each other overboard if someone gets ahead of them. And eventually, some of the sailors get the owner drunk, where they give them a drug, and they take over the ship. And from then on, they just help themselves to all the supplies and they're feasting and getting drunk every night.
Adeimantus 18:14
Well, at least they know how to sail.
Socrates 18:16
That's where you're wrong adamant this none of these sailors has ever bothered to learn about how to properly pilot a ship. They think that navigation is just a talent that you're born with. And if anyone ever suggests otherwise, they're ready to cut them to pieces. to them. The whole art of seamanship is just the art of getting chosen as captain. And if anyone's good at that, they call him a genius. He's a brilliant Seaman, and anyone who can't do that, they call him useless. Now, let me ask you, if this is the situation on board the ship, what are the sailors going to think of the true pilot? The person who spent his life studying the winds and stars and seasons, instead of just flattering the owner?
Adeimantus 19:04
Well, they'll probably say he's a useless Stargazer, who is always talking nonsense. And I get what you're saying. The sailors are like our politicians, and the people they call useless are the philosophers.
Socrates 19:16
And you know what? In a situation like this, they're right. philosophers are useless. But you can't blame the philosophers. You should blame the people who won't make use of them.
Adeimantus 19:27
What do you mean?
Socrates 19:28
I mean that if you're sick, you don't expect the doctor to come to your house begging to heal you. And if you need a ruler, you shouldn't expect the people who know how to do it, to come begging for the pleasure of ruling you.
Clif Mark 19:49
This conversation with Adam Mantis, Socrates is defending the reputation of philosophy, but he's also telling us something about how democracy works. He's saying Yeah, philosophers are useless. But don't blame the philosophers blame democracy for not making use of them. That's what the analogy of the ship is all about. Ideally, on a ship, you want a captain who understands navigation. But if you let the big dumb owner decide, aka the people, you're never gonna get one because it sets up a perverse incentive structure, or isn't very perceptive, doesn't know anything about sailing. And that means, even if he's got good intentions, he's gonna have a hard time telling a real expert navigator from a charlatan. And that opens up incentives to manipulate him. So all the ambitious sailors, they start lying to the captain trying to control him and fighting with each other to get control of the ship. And this struggle with each other for power completely absorbs them. They can't look beyond that to what would truly be good for everyone, which is knowing how to pilot a ship. And anyone who does bother to learn about this, they get completely marginalized, they're lucky if the other sailors just ignore him, instead of throwing them overboard for making them look bad. analogy, everyone on the ship loses. The true navigator obviously loses the owner loses his ship in his goods. And even the sailors while they're losing the ship are stuck on a trip where no one knows how to drive. And this is one of the fundamental problems with democracy. According to Socrates, it's structurally unable to recognize and promote the people who should actually be in charge. And that's because the skills for running a country and the skills for winning power are entirely different. Suppose these days to run a country? Well, you would want a good grasp on policy, social science, law, foreign relations, education, economics history. I don't know. There are a million things that would help you run a country well, do you need to win an election, you need to be rich, well connected, likeable, good at marketing, whatever. These are not the same skill sets. And it would be kind of a miracle if someone had both of these skill sets at the very highest level. If you have what it takes to get control of a country, chances are you don't have what it takes to rule it well. Now, if you have democratic egalitarian instincts, then this entire analogy may irritate you. You may be asking why the owner, which represents the people or the majority has to be blind and deaf and ignorant. Is this whole thing just elitist? snobbery? Socrates and the boys are elitist. Socrates thinks politics is a tough skill that takes a lot of study and natural ability. And most people he believes we'll never be capable of being amazing at it. And that seems like a reasonable position to me. But even if you thought that everyone in the world was born with equal ability, intelligence, Socrates, his point about majority rule would still hold. Because in a society where you have a specialized division of labor, everyone is expert in one thing. But that means that they're necessarily not expert in everything else. And that means that when you gather the whole people together, only a minority of people will be experts in any single subject. The majority is always going to be ignorant of any issue at hand. And that's why expertise is such a tricky thing in democracy. Because on the one hand, you get better results if you listen to the experts. But on the other hand, you can't really let the experts choose themselves. But if you're not an expert, it can be really hard to tell real experts apart from the hucksters and manipulators. times it's even harder because the experts have spent all their time becoming experts instead of becoming good at public communications. So they wind up looking like useless out of touch stargazers who are always talking about irrelevant things that nobody cares about. And that is the analogy of the ship. teasers just explained why some philosophers seem useless. And now he's going to go on to the other part of Adam mantises challenge, which is that most philosophers are worse than useless. They're actually bad. What does he mean by bad? Well, when you say the word philosopher, most Athenians would just think of a sophist. They thought that the two were the same thing. So bad because they corrupt their students by teaching them philosophy. And the students are bad because they get corrupted by learning philosophy critiques is going to explain that actually. It's not philosophy that's corrupting the kids. And it's not even this office. It's democracy itself.
Adeimantus 25:22
Good point, Socrates. But what if people say that the real problem isn't that there are a few useless philosophers running around? It's that the majority of people who get involved in philosophy are downright bad.
Socrates 25:36
I'd say they're right about that, too. Let me explain why. If you put any living creature in the right environment, it'll thrive. But if you put it in an environment, that's not meant for it, it'll turn out very badly. And this includes human beings. With the right rearing and education. A philosophical soul is capable of anything. But when they get a bad education, these strong souls do the most harm.
Adeimantus 26:02
Agreed. So are you saying they're being corrupted by their teachers?
Socrates 26:07
Yes, but not how most people think. Most people blame the Sophos for corrupting the youth. But I don't think they do much harm. It's actually the ones who blame this office that are the biggest softest of all. The people can turn men and women and children into anything they like.
Adeimantus 26:27
What are you talking about? Socrates? The people is a sophist.
Socrates 26:31
Yes. Whenever it gathers in the assembly, or in the courts, or theater, or in the armies, anywhere, there's a big crowd cheering and booing and the racket of praise and blame is echoing off the stones. What young heart won't be carried away until he agrees with everything the crowd says. And that's not to mention that the same crowd also likes to exile or execute anyone who disagrees with it.
Adeimantus 26:59
True enough, when you put it that way, I don't see how anyone could get away with going against the majority.
Socrates 27:06
Interesting, you should say that, because that brings up another point about the so called Sophists.
Adeimantus 27:13
What's that?
Socrates 27:14
They're not bringing in any new ideas of their own. They're just listening to the crowd, and then selling its own opinions back to it. The way I see it, the softest is like a beast tamer, he's lived with this giant beast and studied it. He understands the noises it makes, and he's learned what makes it angry and calm. And this is what he calls wisdom. Whatever makes the beast happy. This office calls good and noble. Whatever upsets the beast is bad.
Adeimantus 27:43
I can't believe that these people get hired as teachers. They're just pandering to the masses. You see the same thing in painting and music and politics and everything.
Socrates 27:55
I know. But don't get me wrong, I can understand trying to please a crowd. Sometimes that's just necessary. But when these people start arguing that the popular things that they're making are actually good.
Adeimantus 28:07
It's ridiculous. The majority just can't understand what good really is. They're incapable of being philosophical.
Socrates 28:17
I agree. And if the crowd in this office are against philosophy, what hope is there for a philosopher?
Adeimantus 28:26
Not much, I'd say
Socrates 28:28
it gets worse. Imagine someone who's born with all the gifts, everything that a person would need to become the kind of philosopher we're talking about. A sharp mind, courage, a real magnificent soul. And let's also imagine that this person is tall and handsome and comes from a rich and well connected family. He has everything. What do you think happens to a boy like that?
Adeimantus 28:54
Well, if anyone has a chance of making edit, he does.
Socrates 28:58
Well, Adeimantus. That's where I disagree. You may be surprised to hear that all of the qualities that should make someone into a great philosopher, actually make them even more vulnerable to corruption in a bad environment.
Adeimantus 29:13
How so?
Socrates 29:15
Don't you think that a boy like that would stand out? Don't you think his family and everyone else around him will start flattering him from the day he's born? And tell him you can do anything just hoping to get him on their side?
Adeimantus 29:28
Of course they will. And he'll get all puffed up and start thinking he's ready to rule the world.
Socrates 29:33
Very likely he will. And if by some miracle, you convinced this boy, that if he really wants to be as wise as everyone says he is. He has to buckle down and devote himself to philosophy. What do you think his family in so called friends would do then?
Adeimantus 29:50
They'll probably tell him not to waste his time.
Socrates 29:53
Tell him I think they would do more than that. I think they do everything in their power to keep them away from philosophy. That includes using conspiracies and even public trials to go after the person who's trying to turn him to philosophy.
Adeimantus 30:08
And that's oddly specific. But is this what you meant when you said that the things that seemed like advantages can help corrupt people?
Socrates 30:17
Exactly. It's had the best nature's get ruined, and wind up doing great harm to the city instead of good.
Adeimantus 30:22
Well, if all the best people are stolen away from philosophy, who's left,
Socrates 30:27
who's left are the ones who are giving philosophy a bad name, inferior men with common opinions, who are just trying to get a little prestige from philosophy. The only worthwhile people in the game are in it by lucky coincidence. Like if a young aristocrat had his career interrupted by exile, or if his bad health stops him from going into politics? Or if like me, they have a divine sign.
Adeimantus 30:53
So there are a few who see how good philosophy can be.
Socrates 30:56
Yes, a few. And these people can also see that the money and politics are completely insane. But they don't have any allies. What can they do? a philosopher in a city is like a man in the den of wild beasts. He can't do anything to stop them without being torn apart himself. And the most he can hope for is just to keep his head down and make it through life without getting involved in the terrible things going on around him.
Adeimantus 31:26
Well, that's not bad under the circumstances.
Socrates 31:29
It's not bad. But imagine what you could do in the right environment, if he was in a political regime fit for a philosopher?
Adeimantus 31:38
And what kind of regime is that?
Socrates 31:40
None of them, at least none that exist. That's why philosophical natures always end up twisted and transformed. They're like exotic plants away from their native land.
Adeimantus 31:52
Well, what about the regime that we've been talking about tonight? Is that one fit for philosophers?
Socrates 31:57
I think so. I hope so. Don't you?
Adeimantus 32:01
Well, it's not me, Socrates. I just, I don't think that most people are gonna believe that putting philosophers in charge is the answer.
Socrates 32:10
It matters. You shouldn't be so hard on people. Why wouldn't they believe us? Is it so crazy that the arrangements that seemed good to us might also seem good to other people?
Adeimantus 32:22
But even if they agreed that it sounds good, in theory, it doesn't look easy to pull off?
Socrates 32:29
Easy? Absolutely not. It would be very difficult. But the question is, is it impossible? Isn't it at least possible that one day somewhere, a king's son will be born that has a philosophical soul?
Adeimantus 32:45
Sure, it's, it's possible?
Socrates 32:47
And if that happens, is it absolutely certain that he'll be corrupted?
Adeimantus 32:54
I guess it's not certain but
Socrates 32:56
good, then we agree that our plan for the city is for the best. And at least it's not impossible.
Clif Mark 33:14
It's action. Socrates is responding to all the haters who complain that philosophers corrupt the youth. He says, if you don't like how your kids turned out, don't blame their teachers. Take a look in the mirror. Because the biggest softest of all, the teacher who shapes everyone in the city into anything at once is the people itself, the majority, the crowd, public opinion. And he paints this really evocative image of a crowd cheering and jeering, and the sound is echoing off the stones and all the force of public opinion is being experienced in a direct physical way. And he talks about how the crowd will even exile or execute anyone who resists it. And one of the interesting parts to me is how he names specific contexts where this happens in Athens, the assembly, the courts, the armies, the theater, all the places where citizens would gather and participate in a common activity. When I first read this section of the book, I got it on an intellectual level. I know what social conformity is. And this has always been a big critique of democracy. But I didn't really feel it on a concrete personal level. And I think that's because I'd never experienced the kind of crowd that Socrates was talking about. Because in most countries today, we don't have massive popular assemblies. Our courtrooms and theaters are quiet. Most of us aren't in the army. And the crowds that we do have, like at concerts or sporting events are structured differently in a way that I think is important. tension is usually focused towards the center. performers are upfront under spotlights and the crowds are on the margins in the dark. And you can get We still get carried away in this kind of crowd, but you stay anonymous. It's not like all the public attention in the room is going to get focused on you. Whereas in the Athenian context that Socrates named citizens were supposed to be participating, so they were at least potential objects of attention. Now, I am not a person who thinks that Facebook changed the universe. But I do think that social media and the internet has changed how people experience public opinion of it flying around, it's more immediate. And I think this is important. Find has given most people the sense that they're at least potentially targets of public attention, that, for better or for worse, they may one day go viral. And this sense of attention has an effect. I think for a lot of people, public opinion has started to feel more like the echoing clamor of blame and praise that Socrates talks about in this part of the dialogue. And I think that he would predict that if you spend enough time online, watching where the likes and the faves pile up, and who becomes a star and who gets centered out for blame and humiliation, you'll start thinking like the crowd and acting like the crowd. And it will be a miracle if you retained any mind of your own. Socrates, his big point here is that if you have a problem with how the kids turned out these days, don't go looking for individuals that corrupted them. Look at society as a whole, because it's us as a collective body. That sets the example that each individual learns to follow this office, what about the individuals that everyone blames? I'm the equivalent to Sophos wouldn't be school teachers, there would be slightly more marginal figures who are not promoting the exact traditional ideology of morality. They be the kind of people that other people would look at as kind of dangerous intellectuals or bad influences. My favorite examples was just a couple of years ago when it seemed like the entire media was crapping its pants because they thought that Jordan Peterson, who's self help psychology guy who wrote a book about standing up straight and cleaning your room, that he was converting the young men of America to a white supremacist, patriarchal ideology or something like Socrates is saying, These people are not Pied Pipers. They're beast tamers, and they might be torn apart the second they do something that the beast doesn't like. The real problem in a democracy is the authority of public opinion. That turns all of us into doll conformists, and it purges the few of us who resist see establishes that general point, it gets down to the more personal mechanisms of corruption in democracy. He asks us to imagine what happens to the kids were born with all the talents and abilities and advantages that should let them become philosopher kings. And his answer is that everyone around these kids will flatter them, and use them for their own purposes, and go after anyone who tries to show the gifted youth, the light of philosophy. And there's a personal angle here for Socrates. He had a lot of students who dabbled in philosophy when they were young, and then quit to enter politics or the real world, or whatever you want to call it. Example, of course, is our cubbies. The golden boy who Socrates loved and who everyone in Athens loved me who had this incredible glittering political career, but then broke bad betrayed Athens and totally messed up the city isn't heartbreaking enough for Socrates to watch his favorite students turn bad. He also got blamed for corrupting them and then eventually was executed for Socrates keeps coming back to the metaphor of a plant and its environment. Existing cities, especially democracies, like Athens, are bad environments that twist and change the nature's of the best seeds, and make them turn out badly. What about our democracies? What do we do with our talented youth? I personally have spent a lot of time and fairly high end universities, which are the endpoints of the system that we have for identifying and training young people. So I can tell you where I've seen them go. A lot of them go into finance, a lot of them go into consulting or even to work for big tech firms. And this is especially true at the top end of universities. And a lot of them also go into the professions. med school if they were mathy and law school if they were words. In my last year of teaching in university I had a group of very high achieving university students shout out to the ethics society and law program at Trinity at U of T. There was one week, at the end of the year that I will never forget, when at least four separate students turned up at my office hours within a week, and asked me the exact same question, some variation of Do I have to go to law school? Is there anything else I can do? And these were all really bright students who in my opinion, would be able to succeed in any of the normal options open to people. And I'm not saying that law school is a bad life choice. I'm saying that these students were obviously not dying to be lawyers. It sounded to me, like they were asking what they should do if they wanted to keep on learning about philosophy and ethics and politics and whatever else they were studying, but also could have a reasonable expectation of joining the middle class. And I didn't have much of an answer for them. And that really bummed me out. And I think it would have been Socrates out too, because it strikes me that even today, people who have a philosophical nature still face the same dilemma that Socrates his own students did. They have to choose between pursuing a life of worldly success, joining the Hurly burly competition and the democratic economy, basically, becoming a sailor from the ship analogy, or they can stick with learning and become a useless Stargazer, marginalized, and despised by the rest of society. And that choice will turn most people with any promise away from philosophy. And also means that anyone who decides to study philosophy or English Lit or art history or any knowledge for knowledges sake kind of degree, is going to get asked, What are you going to do with that? Well, Socrates, dreams of a city with a good answer to that question. He wants a city that takes philosophical natures cultivates them to their full potential of wisdom and virtue, honors them, and then uses their talents for the good of the whole city. But how do you do that? How do you make a philosopher King? How do you turn the most promising young people away from the obvious rewards of wealth and power towards the much less obvious rewards of a lifetime of study? All that next time.
Thank you to Zack endlich and Rebecca Android for playing glaucon in it Mantis. Thank you to Michael levy for background music. Thank you to set for editing help, and thank you for listening. If you'd like to support the show, you can find us on Patreon or you can leave us a review on Apple podcasts. We'd really appreciate it and it would help others find the show. See you next time.