Plato and The Republic

[xorbie]

(As with my thread on Nietzsche, please consider that I am a neophyte with regards to much of this)

Plato's Republic is his vision for a great government that would rule with justice, fairness etc

But Plato also holds the philosophical position of the dicotemy between form and idea. The question is: is his idea of the Republic simply another "idea" that is perfect in theory but ultimately foiled by reality? Or is it acheivable? Also, if you think his vision of governmnet just blows, feel free to make a case. I happen to like it a lot.

[student738]

But then again who wouldn't like the idea if he or she were one of the philosopher-elite and could convince himself or herself both that he or she should be and that those who are not, should not be.

Not having the text in front of me (and not having read it for some time now), Plato doesn't seem to allow for one to move beyond the boundaries of his or her place in society, or even acknowledge that some might want to, or further that some would be successful in doing so if permitted to pursue this goal. He seems to believe that each person is best fitted for a certain role, and that this general role does not change from birth to death.

I imagine that this would be quite disagreeable to the modern person living in a democratic society, as well it should be.

I suspect that many of us would say, "Even if my having the freedom to move or to pursue moving out of the place in society I was born into will prevent our society from being as "perfect" or as "advanced" as it might otherwise be, this is not a freedom that I will or should consider sacrificing."

If not by the freedom to pursue a better life for yourself, for your children, and for those you care about -- the freedom to move beyond the social and economic situation you were born into -- what is it that can drive a human being to pursue excellence, whether farmer or philosopher-elite?

Perhaps nothing save a shared religion, or a shared ethics, but such things do not exist now, and surely must be "educated" into the young and enforced in the old (as Plato suggests).

Will we all become state-socialists?

[boneyard bill]

xorbie asks:

The question is: is his idea of the Republic simply another "idea" that is perfect in theory but ultimately foiled by reality? Or is it acheivable? Also, if you think his vision of governmnet just blows, feel free to make a case. I happen to like it a lot.

Plato's vision certainly hasn't come to reality in many of the specific ways that he outlined. But he wasn't proposing a theory of government in quite the same way as Aristotle with his mixed system or Montesquieu with his balance of powers.

His vision was basically ethical. He was proposing a government where the rulers based their decisions on what was good for the polity as a whole, and not on special interests, or the fashion of the moment, or the selfish interests of individuals. This is still the model that we hold out as the ideal even though we don't often succeed very well in practice. But who, before Plato, even thought of government in that way? That is his lasting achievement.

[xorbie]

student:

The point of the Republic is that it is not like a modern democratic government. People would not have to move between one role and another. There would be no unnecessary class differences to overcome. Also, keep in mind that Plato (at least I believe it was him and not Aristotle) believed that beyond a certain amount of money, any additional income will only decrease overall happiness.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by xorbie
(As with my thread on Nietzsche, please consider that I am a neophyte with regards to much of this)

Plato's Republic is his vision for a great government that would rule with justice, fairness etc

But Plato also holds the philosophical position of the dicotemy between form and idea. The question is: is his idea of the Republic simply another "idea" that is perfect in theory but ultimately foiled by reality? Or is it acheivable? Also, if you think his vision of governmnet just blows, feel free to make a case. I happen to like it a lot.

First, there are several places where he indicates that he is talking about something he believes is achievable, though difficult to achieve. Second, he has numerous practical suggestions for dealing with real problems. For example, he says that those who rule should not know who their children are, because people commonly are prejudiced in favor of their children, and rulers who know who their children are will be likely to promote their children to high positions in the state, even if they are unworthy of such positions. (See Book V.)

This brings us to something Student 738 claimed about people being stuck in their class; see Book III, 415c to find where Plato says that people will be promoted or demoted according to abilities.

As for wealth, only the lowest of the three classes would be allowed to possess riches, as money tends to corrupt those in power (witness the effects of bribes—er, "campaign contributions"—on our political leaders).

Probably the most serious problem with his vision of an ideal state is that it depends heavily on the rulers not being corrupt, and, of course, there can be no perfect safeguards to keep that from happening. True, the 'next generation' of rulers is selected by the current rulers (who are supposedly not corrupt), but it is always possible to make mistakes regarding such things, and since the rulers have such absolute power over the masses, a corrupt government is a very bad problem. With our corrupt government in the U.S., at least we have the three divisions of government to help keep the other crooks in check, as well as at least the theoretical possibility of electing an honest politician (though in fact liars are preferred by the masses; pretty lies rather than harsh truths get one elected in the U.S.).

With Plato's Republic, there are no three divisions of government, so there is no one to stop the rulers from doing horrible things. In the U.S., the legislative and judicial branches can keep the executive in check, though lately they have just been kissing executive ass.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by xorbie
(As with my thread on Nietzsche, please consider that I am a neophyte with regards to much of this)

Plato's Republic is his vision for a great government that would rule with justice, fairness etc

But Plato also holds the philosophical position of the dicotemy between form and idea. The question is: is his idea of the Republic simply another "idea" that is perfect in theory but ultimately foiled by reality? Or is it acheivable? Also, if you think his vision of governmnet just blows, feel free to make a case. I happen to like it a lot.

There have been many critics of Plato's Republic, Karl Popper among them, who have pointed out the internal inconsistencies that are explicit and implicit to his vision of the political structure of society. Jacques Derrida has taken another approach in which he confronts and analyzes what is implied in what Plato leaves unsaid with the place of women in his “perfect” Republic being just one example.

First, for anyone who has read the republic in full it becomes obvious that Plato invokes the exact same things that he condemns in the Republic and elsewhere. A prime example can be found in his idea of social hierarchy which he sets up on the foundation of the myth of the metals. It is somewhat ironic that Plato would choose such a means of explanation considering his sustained attacks on superstition and myth that pervades much of his work. The fact that he seemed forced to employ myth himself seems to suggest that his theory of Forms couldn’t be used as justification for the authoritarian system of government that he was proposing.

That is not to say that his work is without merit either. Obviously the originality and depth of the Republic has been extremely influential in the evolution of Western societies. And I can hardly find a more powerful example of the value of philosophical thought than his Allegory of the Cave in Book VII of the Republic. That said, I would disagree that Plato’s idea, or any other social theorist for that matter, could be seen as “perfect in theory”. I doubt that Plato would even claim such a position for it himself, despite the relish that he seemed to take in the defense of his ideas. By comparison I have always thought that Aristotle’s model based on philosopher kings was more realistic, although probably much more difficult to implement, based on the fact that his system seems far less controlling and is not based on the promulgation of myth. Has anyone else thought about the pros and cons of each, if so I would be interested on what others have to say on the subject .

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by exnihilo
... A prime example can be found in his idea of social hierarchy which he sets up on the foundation of the myth of the metals. It is somewhat ironic that Plato would choose such a means of explanation considering his sustained attacks on superstition and myth that pervades much of his work. The fact that he seemed forced to employ myth himself seems to suggest that his theory of Forms couldn’t be used as justification for the authoritarian system of government that he was proposing.

...

Plato thought that most people were too stupid to comprehend the true reasons for things, thus myths were needed to "justify" his system to the masses.

[xorbie]

exnihilo:

Huh? You seem to be making two distinct arguments. You argue that the Repulbic is imperfect because of human imperfections, and then argue that the idea itself is flawed. I personally believe that the idea itself is perfect, but as is said, the devil is in the details. Basically, how can you acheive it. It is all about forms and ideas... how can you craft a republic and philosopher kings out of societies made of imperfect humans.

Maybe I am just way off...

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by xorbie
exnihilo:

Huh? You seem to be making two distinct arguments. You argue that the Repulbic is imperfect because of human imperfections, and then argue that the idea itself is flawed. I personally believe that the idea itself is perfect, but as is said, the devil is in the details. Basically, how can you acheive it. It is all about forms and ideas... how can you craft a republic and philosopher kings out of societies made of imperfect humans.

Maybe I am just way off...

It is a very fascist form of government, in which minute details of people's lives are controlled. Now, if the people running this hypothetical government were "perfect", maybe that would not be so bad. But in reality, it would probably be a very oppressive and nasty place to live.

You might want to concentrate on his severe censorship of the arts to get some ideas on this, as well as his selective breeding program.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by xorbie
exnihilo:

Huh? You seem to be making two distinct arguments. You argue that the Repulbic is imperfect because of human imperfections, and then argue that the idea itself is flawed. I personally believe that the idea itself is perfect, but as is said, the devil is in the details. Basically, how can you acheive it. It is all about forms and ideas... how can you craft a republic and philosopher kings out of societies made of imperfect humans.

Maybe I am just way off...

I think Pyrrho has already hit on my main objection. I do not see the republic as perfect by any means and the objections I raised are just a few that have been posed, whether or not they are different is beside the point. Systems can be bad for numerous reasons, I don't see the problem in listing the two most troubling.

Popper's critique is the strongest in terms of anticipating the effects the realization of the Republic, which is the same point that Pyrrho raised. Popper argued rather convincingly in The Open Society and its Enemies that the Republic presupposes an authoritarian dictatorship: Fascist form of government. Based on all the control and mythological justification inherent in the system I tend to agree.

I am wondering why you would say that it is "perfect in theory" by the same logic one could also say that christianity is a perfect religion in theory, which it obviously isn't. But then that would require the clarification of what is meant by perfection.

Be that as it may it is hard to see how the republic is perfect for anyone other than the few put in the position of control and privilege. For women and minorities the republic would represent a nightmare all too common to the history of the Western world.

As for Aristotle I am not arguing for that either, I am just saying that it is more plausible because he doesnt rely upon the the intricate structure and relationship between Form and being that Plato does.

Hope that clarifies my previous post.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by exnihilo
I think Pyrrho has already hit on my main objection. I do not see the republic as perfect by any means and the objections I raised are just a few that have been posed, whether or not they are different is beside the point. Systems can be bad for numerous reasons, I don't see the problem in listing the two most troubling.

Popper's critique is the strongest in terms of anticipating the effects the realization of the Republic, which is the same point that Pyrrho raised. Popper argued rather convincingly in The Open Society and its Enemies that the Republic presupposes an authoritarian dictatorship: Fascist form of government. Based on all the control and mythological justification inherent in the system I tend to agree.

I am wondering why you would say that it is "perfect in theory" by the same logic one could also say that christianity is a perfect religion in theory, which it obviously isn't. But then that would require the clarification of what is meant by perfection.

Be that as it may it is hard to see how the republic is perfect for anyone other than the few put in the position of control and privilege. For women and minorities the republic would represent a nightmare all too common to the history of the Western world.

...

I was more or less with you until you came to the position of women and minorities. Plato advocated equality for women in the Republic (Book V), which was unusual for his day, to put it mildly. Furthermore, his arguments regarding what makes someone fit for a particular job (in his discussion on the position of women) directly imply that race is not a consideration for position within the Republic. If the leaders of his government came even close to following these directions from Plato, the position of women and minorities would be, relative to the others within the country, vastly better in the Republic than in virtually every country that has ever existed.

Now, it may be that those in charge may deviate from what Plato directed (as there would be nothing to stop them, with their near absolute power), but it would not be following his directions.

[xorbie]

Well I knew very little about the Republic, so thank you for eluminating some of the intricacies. I think I shall read up more on it.