Tyrannical Hell or Harmonious Utopia?
Plato’s Vision of an Ideal State
Dear Classical Wisdom Reader,
Clearly, I have Utopia on my mind... A pun (of all things) made by none other than Sir Thomas More, this week’s member’s in-depth article explored the idea of the ideal place, found (or rather not found) in another time or place.
The sheer task of asking what exactly is a utopia is eye-opening. How do we conceive of this faraway thing? What does it look like? Is it ever a possibility? A truely imaginative exercise and one I highly recommend, is to sit down (perhaps even with a glass or two of wine?) and contemplate for yourself what you would consider a Utopia.
I venture that if you were to share your vision it would certainly not be the same as your neighbors, your partners, your children or parents...it would be highly personal.
Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of Utopias is that, well, they aren’t the same for everyone. Of course this realization has a lot of implications... especially when it comes to governance, when we imagine an ideal state, or happily submit to others to organize one for us.
One man’s heaven can be another one’s hell...
So while in my last email we explored how Aristophanes, the prince of comedy, described a Utopia (and how comically it could never come to be), today we’ll delve into Plato’s hugely influential concept of the perfect place.
His version has had no end of impact throughout history... for better or for worse. Read on to discover the great philosopher’s ideal and decide for yourself: Is it a Tyrannical Hell or Harmonious Utopia?
Put your responses in the comments section and let’s continue this ‘great conversation’ together, shall we?
Enjoy!
Kind Regards,
Anya Leonard
Founder and Director
Classical Wisdom and Classical Wisdom
P.S. Having a solid foundation in understanding Plato (along with Aristotle) is absolutely essential for comprehending later philosophies like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Cynicism.
Indeed, there was no great Greek or Roman philosopher who would not have been familiar with Plato’s ideas and would have either built upon or reacted against his theories... In the words of Alfred North Whitehead, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
As such, we’ll take a little time to make sure you (as well as our Classical Wisdom Kids) are familiar with the man, his works and his legacy... with next week’s Classical Wisdom Litterae Magazine, dedicated to Plato.
If you are a member, watch your inbox! If you are not, take this moment to subscribe to enjoy all our resources, like next Wednesday’s magazine and this week’s ebook.
Tyrannical Hell or Harmonious Utopia?
By Jacob Bell
Imagine this… You are born into a political and social structure which has three classes. The class you are born into depends upon your lineage and will determine the career you have for your entire life. This structure is upheld by a noble lie which is embedded into each citizen of the city-state.
The lie claims that each citizen, being a creation god, has within him or her one of three metals. Those endowed with gold during creation are part of the ruling class. Those with silver are part of the warrior class. Those with bronze are part of the craftsmen and farming class.
Now, it is possible for someone of the gold demarcation to beget a child of silver or bronze status, and it is also possible, but rare, for someone of the lower classes to beget a child of higher status. It is also possible, but difficult, for someone to move up the classes during their lifetime.
Men and women receive the same education, and both are capable of ascending to the highest class, because in this society, the soul is more important than the structure of one’s body.
A plan of eugenics is established, and a careful strategy which seeks to breed the best with the best is enforced. Children are raised collectively and according to political and social dictation.
The silver and gold classes are not allowed to marry or have a private family. They are also not allowed to obtain private property or wealth. They are sustained on what is necessary and nothing more.
The bronze class is allowed more in the way of material goods. They receive the biggest portion of their work as farmers and craftsmen, but they have no say in how the city is run. Rules and law come from the top down.
Education is rigid and includes both academic studies and athletics. What one is allowed to read is dictated by the ruling class; mass censorship is put into practice. They will tell you which poetry you can read, and they will destroy the rest. They will rewrite the works of great poets, allowing only the poetry that encourages moral behavior. The so-called immoral and amoral works are destroyed.
Say goodbye to much of Homer…
The city-state is closed off to immigration, and travel is discouraged. Everything must be closed off if this delicate and fragile political structure is to exist. Once so-called real knowledge is established, it must be permanent and unchanging. Once the myths are in place, they must be permanent and unquestionable. Questioning the structure of this society and attempting to enact change are both viewed with contempt.
Before we continue, let’s reflect on the city-state outlined above, and ask ourselves if this is a society that we would like to live in. Further, let us ask ourselves if this city-state sounds more like a harmonious utopia or a tyrannical hell…
Got your answers locked in?
As some of you might have already guessed, the city-state outlined above comes from the dialogue titled the Republic. This political and social structure is, for Plato, the ideal state.
Now, I can only speak for myself here – but I’m not much of a fan…
I value freedom and autonomy as a living-breathing individual, this city-state sounds extremely oppressive and tyrannical. I don’t think anyone should dictate what I read, and to establish a city-state on a foundation of self-recognized lies sounds altogether insane.
Although the gold-ruling class is to be comprised of philosopher-kings, I don’t think much philosophizing will be going on. If knowledge is set in stone, there is no room for creative or original thinking.
I think that the ruling-class would be more like computers. They are taught a very specific mode of thinking, and mathematics is of the utmost importance to their education. They would be programmed for certain thought patterns, and they would be instructed to perpetuate the noble lies.
Plato’s vision for a harmonious state – for a utopia – is just that, a vision. It is part of his theory of forms, which is to say, not a part of this world.
In the same dialogue, Plato wants to claim that if his theory of forms – his ideals – cannot be realized in this world, it is because something is wrong with the world that we find ourselves in.
Plato denigrates this world for the transcendent world of forms; he refuses to accept this life. He wants to exist free of the human condition; free of body, desire, and sensation. He wishes to exist as a disembodied soul.
In trying to free himself and his peers from the illusions of this world, he unwittingly stumbles further into a fictional realm.
As much as he hated the thought, Plato was human, and even the most recognized and decorated philosophers are wrong about some things.
Tyrannical Hell or Harmonious Utopia? I believe the answer is....neither! This is the “mis-take” of the Republic (Politeia, constitution) that many have made over the years, starting with Aristotle (though I think his mis-representation was intentional, a straw-man he could knock-down and replace with his own school and writings). The Republic is not about traditional government (of a city-state or country), it is about our internal government (our psyche and the habits that determine our character). The "ideal city” is a parable or analogy or “spoken symbol”…
At 487e we find this part of the discussion:
Adeimantus: “How, then,” he replied, “can it be right to say that our cities will never be freed from their evils until the philosophers, whom we admit to be useless to them, become their rulers?”
Socrates: “Your question,” I said, “requires an answer expressed in a comparison or parable (eikonos legomenēs ).”
Ad: “And you,” he said, “of course, are not accustomed to speak in comparisons!”
Soc: “So,” said I, “you are making fun of me after driving me into such an impasse of argument.
Socrates is being “made fun of” because he (or his character) is constantly speaking in comparisons, using huponoiai (under meanings) or eikonen legein (spoken symbols). At 487e he is about to compare the government of a city to a ship, the famous “Ship of State” analogy. But this is just one of many throughout the work. The entire dialogue is a parable made up of many parables and spoken symbols. Its goal is not to discover how to build a Utopia on earth, but how each person can improve their internal constitution (politeia) or character or psyche…
Republic 472c-d:
A pattern, then,” said I, “was what we wanted when we were inquiring into the nature of ideal justice and asking what would be the character of the perfectly just man, supposing him to exist, and, likewise, in regard to injustice and the completely unjust man. We wished to fix our eyes upon them as types and models, so that whatever we discerned in them of happiness or the reverse would necessarily apply to ourselves [472d] in the sense that whosoever is likest them will have the allotment most like to theirs. Our purpose was not to demonstrate the possibility of the realization of these ideals.”
So not a Utopia (unless its an Internal Utopia) and I daresay not a Tyrannical Hell...
Republic 591e to 592b:
“He will rather,” I said, “keep his eyes fixed on the constitution (Politeia) in his soul, and taking care and watching lest he disturb anything there either by excess or deficiency of wealth, will so steer his course and add to or detract from his wealth on this principle, so far as may be.” “Precisely so,” he said. “And in the matter of honors and office too this will be his guiding principle: [592a] He will gladly take part in and enjoy those which he thinks will make him a better man, but in public and private life he will shun those that may overthrow the established habit of his soul.” “Then, if that is his chief concern,” he said, “he will not willingly take part in politics.” “Yes, by the dog,” said I, “in his own city he certainly will, yet perhaps not in the city of his birth, except in some providential conjuncture.” “I understand,” he said; “you mean the city whose establishment we have described, the city whose home is in the ideal; [592b] for I think that it can be found nowhere on earth.” “Well,” said I, “perhaps there is a pattern of it laid up in heaven for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen. But it makes no difference whether it exists now or ever will come into being. The politics of this city only will be his and of none other.”
It seems one could write dozens of essays like this one on the Republic. To me the finest piece of literature ever penned.
This question of Hell or utopia is certainly front of mind reading through this institutional impossibility. But for me, the question of utopia or hell is actually the key lesson, among so many, in the Republic. This is what Socrates is trying to teach Glaucon: pure reasoning is not good enough (computers are not good enough); our reasoning must be motivated by the good (order and unity) not (disorder and fragmentation).