The Plato Thread

[vulcanlogician]

As you've said elsewhere, there's a lot to disagree with on the face of it in Republic, with their conception of the ideal State, but to be honest I didn't really think I was in a position to make those sorts of judgments until I'd read the whole thing... in other words I was waiting for the punchline.

I do not endorse this way of reading Plato. Don't wait for the punchline. There really is no keystone to the arch that makes it all better. Plato's vision is problematic in many ways. And I think even Plato realized this.

I recommend disagreeing with Plato (ie. "Socrates") whenever an idea is presented that you don't like. Whenever an interlocutor says "Quite true, Socrates" you should say to yourself, "Is that really true?" And if you disagree, think about WHY you disagree, and follow your own thinking on the matter. Anyway, that's how *I* like to read Plato.

but I need a bit of a refresher because I've been in Aristotle mode for the last few days

Here's a sketch of ideas/analysis for Book 4:

---

Remember what Bel said in the other thread about Plato's city being an allegory for the soul? That's what book 4 is all about. Remember that what we are trying to do is discover what justice is. Plato thinks that by observing how an ideal city functions that we can understand what justice is.

So we have three classes in Plato's ideal city: producers, auxilluries, and guardians. (Actually the auxiliaries are guardians too, but scholars call them auxiliaries to distinguish them from the philosopher class). The guardians are forbidden from owning property of any kind. They share all things in common. Even their wives. As you'll learn in book 5, Plato thinks even women are fit to be philosopher-kings. A very progressive idea, especially for the Greeks who typically thought women were unfit to participate in public life at all.

Anyway, back to the three classes. The guardians are the decision-makers. The auxiliaries are the warriors, and the producers are the workers and wealth-owners. These correspond to different parts of the soul. Plato believed that our souls have three parts, hence the three classes of citizens. You don't have to buy into the idea of an immaterial soul to accept Plato's assessment of things (although Plato himself very much believed in an immaterial soul). You could rather see it as commentary on our "mental life" and attribute the three parts of the soul to brain function. That's what I do. I read Plato through a materialist lens, and I still think much of what he says is on point.

The three parts of the soul are appetite, emotion, and reason. Think about it this way: you know when you get angry about something and (when you look at things logically) you know you shouldn't really be angry. Plato takes that as evidence that our emotional systems are separate from our logical systems. Same with appetite. When you want a cupcake, you feel desire for it. That's independent of your emotions and logic. You can't "think away" your desire to consume a cupcake. And actually, neuroscience kinda backs Plato up. The emotion centers and desire centers work independently of the frontal lobes. But Plato making correct assessments about neuroscience isn't really the point.

The point is, just like in the city, the decision-making in life ought to be relegated to the logical part of your "soul." But also, remember that the goal in Plato's city is to make the whole city happy. The decisions you make in life should be oriented toward making your desirous (or appetitive) part of yourself happy. Your emotional part should also be happy. Letting the logical part of yourself rule is the only way to achieve this. After all, if you are ruled by your emotions or appetites this will eventually lead to unhappiness (at least that's what Plato thinks).

It sounds like you are on the part about the 4 virtues. The analysis of the soul (as I've been giving here) is the second part of book 4.

---