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.”
Though it is correct, that the discussion in "The Republic" starts with the debate about the soul, the comparison of the proper arrangement of the soul with the proper arrangement of the state is not made only for the sake of comparison. The considerations about the state are to be taken seriously, and always have been. The perfect ideal state exists only in heaven, yes, but in this world we make the attempt to approach the ideal as much as possible, in the soul and in the state. See also my other comment here.
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).
Plato's Republic is too often misinterpreted as a proto-totalitarian state, where everybody's life is ruthlessly planned by a central government. I don't think Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy were thinking about Plato. Maybe Sparta, but not Plato.
Hell is the inability to love! Heaven is to love everyone and be loved likewise in return! So wrote Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan the intellectual Atheist the former tormented soul and Aloysha the saintly little brother who loved everyone, especially children, and was loved by everyone in return, the latter.
A rare miss for Plato IMHO. Following Plato’s vision would be the ultimate in top down governance with its architect (Plato) as the ultimate central planner at the top. I’m sure it wouldn’t be my cup of tea. Any system of governance which allows for little or no choice, no new information or change seems antithetical to finding any given persons cultural “fit” and satisfaction in life.
Utopia is often on our minds in that we live in a dystopia, for the most part. In my coffee place in SF (Caffé Trieste), I got into a conversation with a lovely young couple. The fellow was reading Thomas More's Utopia and of course how could I not get into exchange of words when seeing the young go in such a direction, especially when the old themselves rarely go in such a direction. Now maybe that moment in time was utopic in that all were relaxed and filled with curiosity. Utopia is a state of mind. The fellow asked me what should I read next. I said The Bhagavad Gita. It is a way to find one's dharma; finding such is utopia. Once finding dharma, desire, which is an absence, starts to disappear. Is this a paradox?
"Once finding dharma; finding is utopia. Once finding dharma, desire, which is an absence, starts to disappear" Naiedl it! This is the subject matter I myself have been contemplating and writing about. Well said!
Not exactly, not exactly! The description of Plato's ideal state should not be done by using the word "dictate". Because, the philosopher kings do not dictate, they act by persuasion and nudging and manipulating without the citizens noticing the manipulation. And the philosopher kings are real philosophers, therefore they are actually right in everything what they do. And therefore, all are happy. (And you have forgotten, that men and women are equals! Some of the philosopher kings are actually philosopher queens!)
On the other hand, the criticism is fully correct, that such philosophers do not exist. Human beings are imperfect. Plato did not realize this in his dialogue "The Republic". But later on, in his dialogue "The Laws", Plato voices the same criticism, that the ideal state is only good "for gods and children of gods", but not for real human beings, and therefore a second-best state has to be developed (with votings and with checks and balances, very modern for his time!). This is often overlooked.
And another very important aspect is often overlooked: Even in "The Republic", Plato does not talk of a 100% realization of his ideal state, but of an imperfect approach towards the ideal state in this world. Only once you have understood this, you will understand, why Plato says on the one hand side, that such a state exists only in the heavens, and on the other hand side, that an approximation (!) of such a state must have existed in the past, and that he sees fit to demonstrate this.
And only on this basis, you will be able to understand the story of primeval Athens and Atlantis. If you interpret this story with the assumption that primeval Athens is the 100% ideal state, then you have missed an important point. It is not. 99% of all modern scholars have overlooked this.
It's a puzzling book, and who knows what Plato's intentions were. But there is no such thing as a perfect state, nor will there ever be one in which humans rule. As for heaven or hell, that would depend entirely on the circumstances. I can certainly imagine a world in which I would prefer some sort of 'Platonic form' of government to one in which the rulers don’t either know or cannot decide which way is up. Given the state of the world and its human-made and induced existential threats, we may be heading for a situation where, in order to survive, experts have to take the helm; that is, let those who know what's what and aren't influenced by petty partisanship lead us out of the cave, so to speak. The just state will then be one that seeks to save human civilization and preserve it in the most humane way possible. That would be a messed-up world, which I hope will not come to pass. What would freedom mean in a world where there is nothing but?; that is, a world of chaos where anything goes. In such a world, some variation on the theme of a 'perfect' state, might be heaven.
The discussion starts and ends with the soul. Sure, there are some astute observations about traditional (external) governments, but the pattern (paradeigma) laid up in heaven at the end of book 9 is an auto politeia to internalize and live by. The final book 10 continues to be focused on the soul, stating that now that they have identified the different parts of the psyche, this knowledge is an "antidote" (pharmacon) or prophylactic to the potential poison of the imitative arts:
“And truly,” I said, “many other considerations assure me that we were entirely right in our organization of the state, and especially, I think, in the matter of poetry.” “What about it?” he said. “In refusing to admit at all so much of it as is imitative; for that it is certainly not to be received is, I think, [595b] still more plainly apparent now that we have distinguished the several parts of the soul.” “What do you mean?” “Why, between ourselves—for you will not betray me to the tragic poets and all other imitators—that kind of art seems to be a corruption of the mind of all listeners who do not possess, as an antidote a knowledge of its real nature.”
Poets who write edifying stories (like Plato does) will be allowed, but individually we must be on our guard because this is the serious business of protecting our internal government:
[608a] will gladly have the best possible case made out for her goodness and truth, but so long as she is unable to make good her defence we shall chant over to ourselves as we listen the reasons that we have given as a counter-charm to her spell, to preserve us from slipping back into the childish loves of the multitude; for we have come to see that we must not take such poetry seriously as a serious thing that lays hold on truth, but that he who lends an ear to it must be on his guard [608b] fearing for the polity in his soul (auto politeia) and must believe what we have said about poetry.” “By all means,” he said, “I concur.” “Yes, for great is the struggle,” I said, “dear Glaucon, a far greater contest than we think it, that determines whether a man prove good or bad, so that not the lure of honor or wealth or any office, no, nor of poetry either, should incite us to be careless of righteousness and all excellence.”
So the first 2/3 of book 10 is this discussion about imitative poetry, and the last bit is the Myth of Er, an edifying poem that illustrates how internalizing the healthy/just politeia will allow one to live the best possible life regardless of the situation he is born into. Which harkens back to the beginning of book One when Cephalus stated that it isn't money, or age, or where one is born that determines if their life path is smooth or rocky, it is their character, and the rest of the Republic is establishing what a healthy vs. unhealthy character actually is.
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.”
Though it is correct, that the discussion in "The Republic" starts with the debate about the soul, the comparison of the proper arrangement of the soul with the proper arrangement of the state is not made only for the sake of comparison. The considerations about the state are to be taken seriously, and always have been. The perfect ideal state exists only in heaven, yes, but in this world we make the attempt to approach the ideal as much as possible, in the soul and in the state. See also my other comment here.
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).
A utopia in this form would certainly be destroyed by the countries around it that continued to progress.
Plato's Republic is too often misinterpreted as a proto-totalitarian state, where everybody's life is ruthlessly planned by a central government. I don't think Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy were thinking about Plato. Maybe Sparta, but not Plato.
Hell is the inability to love! Heaven is to love everyone and be loved likewise in return! So wrote Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan the intellectual Atheist the former tormented soul and Aloysha the saintly little brother who loved everyone, especially children, and was loved by everyone in return, the latter.
A rare miss for Plato IMHO. Following Plato’s vision would be the ultimate in top down governance with its architect (Plato) as the ultimate central planner at the top. I’m sure it wouldn’t be my cup of tea. Any system of governance which allows for little or no choice, no new information or change seems antithetical to finding any given persons cultural “fit” and satisfaction in life.
Pantisocracy was not intended as a paradise for tailors.
Utopia is often on our minds in that we live in a dystopia, for the most part. In my coffee place in SF (Caffé Trieste), I got into a conversation with a lovely young couple. The fellow was reading Thomas More's Utopia and of course how could I not get into exchange of words when seeing the young go in such a direction, especially when the old themselves rarely go in such a direction. Now maybe that moment in time was utopic in that all were relaxed and filled with curiosity. Utopia is a state of mind. The fellow asked me what should I read next. I said The Bhagavad Gita. It is a way to find one's dharma; finding such is utopia. Once finding dharma, desire, which is an absence, starts to disappear. Is this a paradox?
"Once finding dharma; finding is utopia. Once finding dharma, desire, which is an absence, starts to disappear" Naiedl it! This is the subject matter I myself have been contemplating and writing about. Well said!
Not exactly, not exactly! The description of Plato's ideal state should not be done by using the word "dictate". Because, the philosopher kings do not dictate, they act by persuasion and nudging and manipulating without the citizens noticing the manipulation. And the philosopher kings are real philosophers, therefore they are actually right in everything what they do. And therefore, all are happy. (And you have forgotten, that men and women are equals! Some of the philosopher kings are actually philosopher queens!)
On the other hand, the criticism is fully correct, that such philosophers do not exist. Human beings are imperfect. Plato did not realize this in his dialogue "The Republic". But later on, in his dialogue "The Laws", Plato voices the same criticism, that the ideal state is only good "for gods and children of gods", but not for real human beings, and therefore a second-best state has to be developed (with votings and with checks and balances, very modern for his time!). This is often overlooked.
And another very important aspect is often overlooked: Even in "The Republic", Plato does not talk of a 100% realization of his ideal state, but of an imperfect approach towards the ideal state in this world. Only once you have understood this, you will understand, why Plato says on the one hand side, that such a state exists only in the heavens, and on the other hand side, that an approximation (!) of such a state must have existed in the past, and that he sees fit to demonstrate this.
And only on this basis, you will be able to understand the story of primeval Athens and Atlantis. If you interpret this story with the assumption that primeval Athens is the 100% ideal state, then you have missed an important point. It is not. 99% of all modern scholars have overlooked this.
It's a puzzling book, and who knows what Plato's intentions were. But there is no such thing as a perfect state, nor will there ever be one in which humans rule. As for heaven or hell, that would depend entirely on the circumstances. I can certainly imagine a world in which I would prefer some sort of 'Platonic form' of government to one in which the rulers don’t either know or cannot decide which way is up. Given the state of the world and its human-made and induced existential threats, we may be heading for a situation where, in order to survive, experts have to take the helm; that is, let those who know what's what and aren't influenced by petty partisanship lead us out of the cave, so to speak. The just state will then be one that seeks to save human civilization and preserve it in the most humane way possible. That would be a messed-up world, which I hope will not come to pass. What would freedom mean in a world where there is nothing but?; that is, a world of chaos where anything goes. In such a world, some variation on the theme of a 'perfect' state, might be heaven.
The discussion starts and ends with the soul. Sure, there are some astute observations about traditional (external) governments, but the pattern (paradeigma) laid up in heaven at the end of book 9 is an auto politeia to internalize and live by. The final book 10 continues to be focused on the soul, stating that now that they have identified the different parts of the psyche, this knowledge is an "antidote" (pharmacon) or prophylactic to the potential poison of the imitative arts:
“And truly,” I said, “many other considerations assure me that we were entirely right in our organization of the state, and especially, I think, in the matter of poetry.” “What about it?” he said. “In refusing to admit at all so much of it as is imitative; for that it is certainly not to be received is, I think, [595b] still more plainly apparent now that we have distinguished the several parts of the soul.” “What do you mean?” “Why, between ourselves—for you will not betray me to the tragic poets and all other imitators—that kind of art seems to be a corruption of the mind of all listeners who do not possess, as an antidote a knowledge of its real nature.”
Poets who write edifying stories (like Plato does) will be allowed, but individually we must be on our guard because this is the serious business of protecting our internal government:
[608a] will gladly have the best possible case made out for her goodness and truth, but so long as she is unable to make good her defence we shall chant over to ourselves as we listen the reasons that we have given as a counter-charm to her spell, to preserve us from slipping back into the childish loves of the multitude; for we have come to see that we must not take such poetry seriously as a serious thing that lays hold on truth, but that he who lends an ear to it must be on his guard [608b] fearing for the polity in his soul (auto politeia) and must believe what we have said about poetry.” “By all means,” he said, “I concur.” “Yes, for great is the struggle,” I said, “dear Glaucon, a far greater contest than we think it, that determines whether a man prove good or bad, so that not the lure of honor or wealth or any office, no, nor of poetry either, should incite us to be careless of righteousness and all excellence.”
So the first 2/3 of book 10 is this discussion about imitative poetry, and the last bit is the Myth of Er, an edifying poem that illustrates how internalizing the healthy/just politeia will allow one to live the best possible life regardless of the situation he is born into. Which harkens back to the beginning of book One when Cephalus stated that it isn't money, or age, or where one is born that determines if their life path is smooth or rocky, it is their character, and the rest of the Republic is establishing what a healthy vs. unhealthy character actually is.