Plato's Republic Flashcards
on human nature and the soul
For Plato, human nature is composed of three parts of the soul
Reason - loves truth and seeks rational understanding
Spirit - loves honour and defends values; emotional drives
Appetite - loves bodily pleasures and material goods
Each part has its own desires and proper role
argument for human nature and the soul
Republic Book IV
Justice in the soul occurs when “each part does it own work”
reasoning for human nature and the soul
Plato believes disorder and injustice in society mirror disorder in the soul
Harmony in the individual mirror political harmony in the just city
Human beings are naturally hierarchical internally: reason should rule over spirit and appetite
comparison to other thinkers on human nature and the soul
Thucydides: rejects Plato - no soul parts; behaviour driven by fear, honour, and interest without higher rational rule
Aristotle: accepts that rationality should rule but sees reason and desire as capable of harmony, not permanent tension
Hobbes: dismisses internal “higher parts” - only appetites and aversions exist; reason is a servant to passions
Machiavelli: ignores internal soul structure; ambition (spirit) dominates without apology
Hume: reason is a “slave to passions” - the exact opposite of Plato’s hierarchy
on justice
DEFINITION: Justice is each part of the soul and each class of the city doing its proper work and not interfering with the others
In the city:
Rulers (reason) govern
Guardians (spirit) defend
Producers (appetite) provide goods and services
In the soul:
Reason rules
Spirit supports reason
Appetite obeys
argument on justice
“Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own.”
reasoning for justice
Only through natural specialization and hierarchical harming can a stable, flourishing order exist
Justice is not about external actions (contracts, laws) but internal order
comparison to other thinkers on justice
Thucydides: justice is meaningless without power; Plato believes justice is an eternal order accessible to reason
Aristotle: justice involves proportional equality and distribution, not strict fixed roles
Machiavelli: justice is irrelevant if it interferes with survival and power
Hobbes: justice is created by laws made by the sovereign - no natural internal justice
Locke: justice is rooted in natural rights, not psychic harmony
on political order
The ideal city is a reflection of a just soul, ruled by philosopher-kings who understand the good
key features on political order
Strict division of classes
Rulers possess philosophical knowledge (forms)
No private families or wealth among guardians (Book V)
Common education to shape souls toward virtue
argument on political order
Justice arises when the three classes mirror the three parts of the soul, creating internal stability
Only philosopher-kings, who know the eternal forms (especially the form of the good) can rule justly
reasoning on political order
Only knowledge of the good provides true wisdom
Without philosophical understanding, rulers are guided by opinion or appetite, leading to corruption and decay
comparison to other thinkers on political order
Aristotle: Agrees that knowledge matters but believes in practical wisdom (phronēsis), not ideal Forms
Thucydides: Sees no place for philosophical rule; politics is about managing fear and power
Machiavelli: Laughs at the idea of philosopher-rulers; survival and strategic cunning matter more than wisdom
Hobbes: No need for philosophers; the sovereign needs only enough power to maintain peace
Hume: Suspicious of “rationalism”; practical utility and gradual development matter more than ideal rule
Diversity and Decay of Regimes
Diversity, in Plato, is a sign of disorder and leads to the decay of political order
argument on diversity and decay of regimes
Argument (Republic Books VIII-IX)
The ideal city degenerates through internal conflict into
Timocracy (rule by honour-lovers)
Oligarchy (rule by the rich)
Democracy (rule by the many; excessive freedom)
Tyranny (rule by force and fear)
quote to reference for diversity and decay of regimes
“Excess of liberty… seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”
In democracy, all desires are treated equally, leading to chaos, and eventually, the rise of a tyrant promising order
Reasoning for diversity and decay of regimes
Humans are easily corrupted by desire when education fails
Without strong rational leadership, desire dominates, resulting in factionalism and collapse
Comparison to Other Thinkers for diversity and decay of regimes
Aristotle: More accepting of diversity; sees different forms of government as natural responses to social conditions
Thucydides: Agrees that democracy breeds instability and faction, seen in Corcyra
Machiavelli: Sees conflict between classes (people vs. elites) as productive, not necessarily destructive
Hobbes: Believes diversity must be suppressed under sovereign law to prevent collapse
Locke: Allows for limited pluralism, but only under the rule of natural law
Hume: Sees diversity as inevitable and potentially beneficial through commerce and habit
Short Summary of Plato’s Argument Structure
Human Nature: composed of rational, spirited, and appetitive parts
Justice: internal order of the soul and the city
Political Order: achieved through rule by philosopher-kings; destroyed by unchecked desires
Diversity: dangerous unless tightly governed; leads to decay if unmanaged
