UNIT 3 PLATO: JUSTICE⁎ Flashcards
3.2 Perspectives on Justice before Plato
3.2.1 Traditional View
3.2.2 Radical View
3.2.3 Pragmatic View
Efficient Pointer Summary
Pythagoras’ View on Justice: Justice equals equality and harmony, symbolized by square numbers.
Traditional View:
Cephalus: Justice is truthfulness and repaying debts.
Polemarchus: Justice is giving each person their due, helping friends and harming enemies.
Socrates’ critique: Both views have inconsistencies and may lead to immoral acts.
Radical View:
Thrasymachus: Justice is the interest of the stronger, or might is right.
Socrates’ response: The powerful often make laws that harm themselves, and true rulers act for the well-being of their subjects.
Pragmatic View:
Glaucon and Adeimantus: Justice arises from fear and necessity (like social contract theory).
Socrates’ critique: Justice is an innate quality of the soul, not a social contract.
Mnemonics with Initials:
Pythagoras’ View on Justice
Traditional View:
Cephalus and Polemarchus
Socrates’ Critique
Radical View:
Thrasymachus
Socrates’ Response
Pragmatic View:
Glaucon and Adeimantus
Socrates’ Critique
Mnemonic: “PVJ TV CP S CV TV T S RV T S RV PV GA S C”
Main 500-word Answer:
Introduction
Before Plato, several ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers offered various interpretations of justice. Plato’s dialogues in The Republic critique and expand upon these ideas, presenting a philosophical journey to define justice. Some of the key perspectives on justice before Plato were provided by Pythagoras, Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and others.
Body
- Pythagoras’ View on Justice
Pythagoras believed in the power of numbers and saw justice as equivalent to harmony. He used square numbers as symbols of justice, seeing them as perfect because they are made up of equal parts. For Pythagoras, justice was synonymous with equality. In this view, a just state is one where equality is preserved.
This concept aligns with Plato’s own ideas about the importance of harmony in the state. However, Plato would later go on to redefine justice in terms of the balance of the soul and the proper roles of its parts.
- Traditional View of Justice
The traditional view of justice, as expressed by Cephalus and Polemarchus, is primarily based on honesty and reciprocity.
Cephalus defines justice as speaking the truth and paying back what is owed. However, Socrates challenges this view by presenting a scenario where returning a weapon to a mad friend would be unjust, even though it would fulfill the debt.
Polemarchus, Cephalus’ son, continues the argument, claiming that justice is about doing good to friends and harming enemies. However, Socrates critiques this by showing that helping friends could involve immoral actions like stealing, and harming enemies might involve misjudgment. Thus, the rule of “helping friends and harming enemies” is flawed, as it may not lead to true justice.
- Radical View of Justice
Thrasymachus, a Sophist, provides a radical view of justice, defining it as the interest of the stronger or might is right. In his view, those in power create laws that serve their own self-interest, and the strong define what is just.
Socrates counters this by arguing that the powerful often make mistakes in the laws they create, which can end up harming themselves. Just as a doctor serves the health of his patients and a shoemaker serves the needs of his customers, a ruler should act in the best interest of his people.
Socrates argues that true rulers govern for the well-being of their subjects, and might is not necessarily right.
- Pragmatic View of Justice
Glaucon and Adeimantus, Plato’s brothers, offer a pragmatic view, resembling the social contract theory. They argue that justice arises out of fear and necessity. In their view, people agree to behave justly because they want to avoid the harm of living in a state of injustice.
Socrates criticizes this view, arguing that justice is an innate quality of the soul and not something based on external forces. According to Socrates, justice is not just an artificial virtue that arises from a social contract but is part of the soul’s natural harmony.
Conclusion
Plato’s Republic offers a rich exploration of the different perspectives on justice, critiquing the traditional, radical, and pragmatic views. From Pythagoras’ concept of equality and harmony to Thrasymachus’ might is right, and Glaucon and Adeimantus’ social contract theory, each view contributes to Plato’s own evolving theory of justice. Plato moves beyond these views, emphasizing the idea that justice is innate, defined by the balance of the soul, and essential to a harmonious society.
3.2.1 Traditional View
Efficient Pointer Summary
Cephalus’ View:
Justice is truthfulness, honesty, and paying back debts.
Socrates’ critique: Returning a weapon to a mad friend is unjust. In some cases, honesty may cause harm, and it is better to conceal the truth.
Polemarchus’ View:
Justice is giving each person their due (helping friends, harming enemies).
Socrates’ critique: Helping friends can involve immoral actions (e.g., stealing or lying), and one can misjudge friends and enemies.
Conclusion: The idea that justice is helping friends and harming enemies is flawed, as it can lead to immorality.
Mnemonics:
Cephalus’ View: Truth, Honesty, Debts
Socrates’ Critique: Mad Friend, Harmful Truth
Polemarchus’ View: Due, Friends, Enemies
Socrates’ Critique: Immoral Acts, Misjudgments, Flawed Rule
Main 500-Word Answer:
Introduction
In The Republic, Plato explores various definitions of justice through dialogues, beginning with Cephalus and his son Polemarchus. Their traditional views on justice are challenged by Socrates, who deconstructs their definitions, showing that they are not sufficient for understanding true justice.
Body
- Cephalus’ Definition of Justice
When Socrates asks Cephalus, an elderly and wealthy man, about his understanding of justice, Cephalus responds that justice consists of truthfulness, honesty, and paying back debts. For Cephalus, justice is about fulfilling obligations—speaking the truth and giving back what one owes.
Socrates’ Critique: Socrates challenges this view by presenting a scenario where a friend, who has lent you a weapon, goes mad. In this case, returning the weapon to the friend would be unjust, as the friend is no longer capable of making rational decisions. Additionally, Socrates points out that in some situations, honesty and speaking the truth may cause harm. For example, revealing a painful truth to someone in distress may do more harm than good. In these instances, it might be more just to conceal the truth.
Conclusion: Socrates suggests that the view of justice as simply telling the truth and paying debts is too simplistic and cannot cover all situations where justice is at stake.
- Polemarchus’ Definition of Justice
Polemarchus, Cephalus’ son, takes over the argument after his father gives up. He defines justice as giving each person their due—which he interprets as helping friends and harming enemies. According to this definition, justice is a form of reciprocity: we do good to those who do good to us and harm those who wrong us.
Socrates’ Critique: Socrates again challenges this idea. He argues that helping friends can sometimes involve immoral actions, such as lying or stealing, if these actions benefit the friend. Additionally, Socrates points out that one might misjudge who is a true friend or enemy. What if someone mistakenly considers a person a friend and helps them inappropriately, or harms an innocent person they believe to be an enemy? This would make the individual unjust.
Socrates further argues that true justice is about excellence and virtue, and that hurting others, even if they are considered enemies, is not just. He contends that justice should not be about vengeance or harm but about promoting virtue in the soul, which leads to the flourishing of all people.
- Conclusion
Polemarchus’ definition, like Cephalus’, is ultimately flawed. Socrates deconstructs it by showing that justice cannot simply be about doing what we think is right for our friends or harming enemies. True justice involves more than just fulfilling obligations or seeking retribution. It requires a deeper understanding of virtue, excellence, and the well-being of the soul.
These initial perspectives, although insightful, fail to fully capture the complexity of justice. Plato will go on to provide a more comprehensive theory of justice that emphasizes harmony and balance within both the individual and the state.
By critiquing these traditional views, Socrates prepares the ground for a more nuanced exploration of justice that will eventually lead to Plato’s ideal vision of a just society.
3..2.2 RADICAL VIEW
Efficient Pointer Summary
Thrasymachus’ Radical View:
Justice is defined as the interest of the stronger party (or might is right).
This perspective aligns with political realism, where power defines right.
Socrates’ Critique:
Even the powerful make mistakes and create laws that harm their own interests, showing that power does not always align with the common good.
The proper aim of rulers, like a physician or shoemaker, should be the well-being of others (subjects or customers).
The role of the statesman is to govern in the interest of the people, not in self-interest.
Mnemonics:
Thrasymachus’ Radical View: Might is Right
Socrates’ Critique: Powerful Make Mistakes, Self-Interest Violates Good
Statesman: Physician, Shoemaker, Well-being
Main 500-Word Answer:
Introduction
In The Republic, Plato presents a radical view of justice through Thrasymachus, a Sophist who challenges the traditional notions of justice put forth by Socrates. Thrasymachus, an influential teacher of rhetoric, defines justice as the interest of the stronger party, often summarized as “might is right.” This view aligns with political realism, which emphasizes the role of power and self-interest in political affairs.
Body
- Thrasymachus’ Radical View of Justice
According to Thrasymachus, justice is not an inherent moral virtue but a tool used by the powerful to serve their own self-interest. He argues that rulers and governments create laws that benefit themselves, and these laws are then enforced as the “justice” of the state. This view, often described as “might is right,” suggests that justice is merely the will of the stronger party, imposed through power and authority.
Thrasymachus’ view can be understood in the context of political realism, which focuses on the ways in which political power operates in the real world, where leaders and rulers often prioritize their own advantage over the common good. In this view, justice is not a universal or ethical principle but a construct that serves those who hold power.
- Socrates’ Response to Thrasymachus
Socrates challenges Thrasymachus’ view by pointing out that even the powerful make mistakes and create laws that can ultimately harm their own interests. He argues that laws made by the powerful may sometimes be flawed and not always serve the true interests of the rulers or the state.
Socrates draws an analogy between the ruler and a physician, arguing that just as the physician’s goal is to treat the patient’s ailments (not to serve their own interest), the statesman’s primary duty should be to care for the well-being of the people, not to rule for personal gain. He compares this to the work of a shoemaker, whose job is to make good shoes for their customers, not for themselves.
Socrates contends that the exercise of power by rulers should be oriented toward the welfare of the citizens, not the enhancement of the rulers’ own power. Therefore, a true statesman, unlike a tyrant, does not seek to dominate others but works for the good of the common people.
- Conclusion
The radical view of justice presented by Thrasymachus challenges traditional notions by suggesting that justice is simply a reflection of power dynamics. However, Socrates refutes this idea, arguing that true justice is about serving others and ensuring the well-being of the community. He emphasizes that rulers, like physicians or shoemakers, should focus on the common good rather than using their power for personal gain.
This exchange between Thrasymachus and Socrates reveals a fundamental conflict in political philosophy: whether justice is an abstract, moral principle that transcends power, or whether it is merely the imposition of will by those in positions of strength. Plato’s dialogue ultimately rejects Thrasymachus’ radical view, advocating for a more ethical and altruistic conception of justice.
3.2.3 Pragmatic View
Efficient Pointer Summary
Pragmatic View by Glaucon and Adeimantus:
Justice arises from fear and the necessity of the weaker.
Social contract theory: People agree not to commit injustice or suffer it in return, driven by the need to avoid chaos (state of nature).
Justice is seen as an agreement enforced by law.
Socrates’ Critique:
Socrates rejects this view, arguing that justice is not artificial or a product of contracts.
Justice is an innate quality of the soul and conscience, existing independently of external factors or agreements.
Mnemonics:
Glaucon & Adeimantus: Justice = Fear + Necessity (Social Contract)
Socrates: Justice = Innate Soul + Conscience (Not a contract)
Main 500-Word Answer:
Introduction
The pragmatic view of justice is presented by Glaucon and Adeimantus, Plato’s brothers, who argue that justice emerges from the fear and necessity of the weaker parties in society. This view is closely aligned with the ideas of social contract theorists such as Hobbes, who believed that in order to escape the state of nature, characterized by rampant injustice and chaos, individuals make a mutual agreement to behave justly and to avoid being wronged or wronging others.
Body
- Glaucon and Adeimantus’ Pragmatic View
According to Glaucon and Adeimantus, justice is not inherently virtuous but a pragmatic agreement created by the needs of individuals who wish to avoid the suffering that comes with living in a lawless state. In the absence of law, people commit injustices freely because they are not bound by any rules, and those who are weaker are often victims.
They argue that in order to escape this chaotic existence, individuals collectively agree to form a social contract, a system in which everyone agrees to not commit injustice or be a victim of it. This agreement is driven by fear of being wronged, and the necessity of maintaining social order.
Justice, therefore, is seen as a product of this social contract, an imposed virtue created not by moral reasoning but by the fear of disorder and the instinct to protect oneself from harm. According to this view, people abide by laws because they want to avoid the consequences of injustice, rather than out of any inherent moral obligation.
- Socrates’ Critique of the Pragmatic View
Socrates, however, refutes this idea of justice as a mere artificial virtue constructed by a social contract. He argues that justice is not the result of an agreement or fear, but rather an innate characteristic of the human soul. Socrates believes that justice is a natural virtue that exists independently of external forces like laws or social agreements.
He contends that justice is deeply embedded in the soul and arises from the individual’s conscience, a fundamental aspect of human nature. Unlike the pragmatic view, which sees justice as an external imposition, Socrates believes that true justice is part of the inner moral fabric of an individual and reflects the proper order of the soul.
For Socrates, justice does not require any external recognition or contractual obligation to exist. It is a virtue that exists independently and is rooted in the person’s inner moral compass, which guides them to act justly regardless of the laws or agreements made by society.
- Conclusion
The pragmatic view offered by Glaucon and Adeimantus presents justice as a response to fear and the necessity to maintain order, much like the social contract theorists. In this view, justice is an agreement created to avoid the chaos of injustice.
Socrates, however, offers a deeper and more profound view, arguing that justice is an innate quality of the soul, and its existence is independent of external factors like social contracts or laws. For Socrates, justice is not imposed from outside but is inherent in the nature of the human being, making it a timeless and universal virtue.
3.3 Plato’s Concept of Justice
3.3.1 Three Classes and Three Souls
3.3.2 Communist Principles
3.3.2.1 Communism of Plato and Marx: A Comparison
3.3.3 Justice at Individual and State Level
3.3.4 Critical Assessment
Efficient Pointer Summary
Plato’s Concept of Justice:
Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues (along with wisdom, courage, and temperance) and represents order and harmony in society.
Justice is morally based and reflects individuals doing their duty based on capabilities, not legal systems.
Justice is inherent in the soul, ensuring balance between reason, spirit, and appetite.
Justice as harmony in the state, with each class performing their specialized role without interference.
Three Classes in Plato’s State:
- Rulers: Possess wisdom to govern.
- Auxiliaries: Warriors with courage to defend the state.
- Artisans: Economic producers, with temperance.
Each class has a virtue corresponding to their function. Wisdom, courage, and temperance maintain societal harmony.
Education: A key element for shaping just individuals and rulers.
The Noble Lie: Plato’s myth of metals (gold, silver, brass) to justify class divisions and maintain order.
Communism of the Ruling Class:
Rulers must avoid personal attachments (family, property) to prevent corruption.
Children raised by the state to ensure loyalty to the collective good.
Criticism:
Excessive Regimentation: Plato’s state may suppress individuality, creating a tyrannical control.
Inconsistencies: Plato doubts his own Socratic ideal that virtue equals knowledge, yet worries rulers may become corrupt.
Elitism: Political decisions concentrated in the hands of a few, undermining democratic principles.
Noble Lie: Contradicts the idea that justice equals truth, as the lie is a form of injustice.
Lack of Participatory Citizenship: Individuals serve the state rather than realizing their own potential.
Mnemonics:
Plato’s Concept of Justice: Morality & Ethics > Law.
Noble Lie: Metals divide Classes = Harmony.
Rulers (Wisdom), Auxiliaries (Courage), Artisans (Temperance).
Main 500-Word Answer:
Introduction
Plato’s theory of justice is central to his philosophy, where it is depicted not as a legal framework, but as an intrinsic moral virtue vital for societal harmony. Justice, according to Plato, is one of the four cardinal virtues, alongside wisdom, courage, and temperance. It represents the order and balance in the individual and the state, where each performs their proper role. Plato’s conception of justice is based on morality and ethics rather than legal obligations, and it reflects the overall harmony of society.
The Structure of Plato’s State: Three Classes and Three Souls
Plato’s ideal state is structured around three classes, each corresponding to a distinct function in society:
- Rulers (Philosophers): Rulers possess wisdom, enabling them to govern wisely. Their role is to make decisions in the best interest of the entire state.
- Auxiliaries (Soldiers/Guardians): This class is tasked with the defense of the state, and they embody courage in protecting the state and maintaining order.
- Artisans (Producers): The economic backbone of the state, the artisans must possess temperance, ensuring they fulfill their duties without overstepping their designated role in society.
Each class reflects a virtue corresponding to its function, ensuring societal harmony. Plato also argues that education is key to shaping individuals and rulers, as it leads to a moral transformation of the soul. A person’s abilities, determined through education, dictate which class they belong to. This ensures that individuals contribute effectively to the common good based on their natural capabilities.
The Noble Lie and Communism of the Ruling Class
To maintain order, Plato introduces the concept of the noble lie, wherein the rulers propagate the myth that people are born with different levels of metal in their souls (gold, silver, or brass). This lie is meant to justify class divisions and prevent social unrest. The noble lie encourages people to accept their roles as naturally suited to their talents, ensuring that individuals perform their duties without desire to alter their social standing.
Plato also proposes a communist system for the rulers, where private property and family life are abolished. Rulers live communally to avoid personal attachments that could corrupt their judgment and allegiance to the state. This radical approach ensures that rulers are focused solely on the common good, rather than personal gain.
Criticisms and Assessment
Plato’s concept of justice has faced several criticisms:
- Excessive Regimentation: Plato’s emphasis on order and harmony could lead to an overly controlled society, stifling individuality and personal freedom.
- Inconsistencies: While Plato champions the idea that virtue equals knowledge, he expresses concern that rulers, even with wisdom, may become corrupt. This raises doubts about his own premises.
- Elitism: The concentration of political power in the hands of a few philosopher-kings contradicts democratic ideals. Plato’s ideal state can be seen as elitist, undermining the autonomy and participation of ordinary citizens.
- The Noble Lie: Plato’s use of the noble lie undermines the core idea that justice is based on truth and knowledge, as the lie is inherently unjust.
- Lack of Participatory Citizenship: Plato’s society is more focused on the collective well-being rather than individual freedoms, treating individuals as tools for the state’s success.
In conclusion, while Plato’s ideal state presents a vision of justice as harmony and balance, it also faces substantial challenges regarding individual autonomy, governance, and ethical consistency.
3.3.1 Three Classes and Three Souls
Efficient Pointer Summary:
State’s Nature: Plato’s state is natural; humans need each other for survival.
Self-sufficiency: Achieved through division of labor in three key functions.
Three Functions of the State:
- Production
- Protection (Defense)
- Statesmanship (Ruling)
Justice: Results from functional specialization, ensuring harmony, happiness, and individual well-being.
Three Classes:
- Rulers: Make policy decisions, embody wisdom.
- Auxiliaries: Defend the state, embody courage.
- Artisans: Perform economic function, embody temperance.
Virtue and Division of Labor: Each class shows a specific virtue, with rulers possessing the highest.
Knowledge of Forms: Rulers have wisdom to see the Forms (transcendental ideals like justice).
Education: Plato’s system combines Athenian creativity and Spartan civic training.
Distributive Justice: Justice is giving each individual what they are due based on capabilities.
Noble Lie: Myth of metals to maintain harmony and functional specialization.
Merit-based Society: Selection of rulers based on capabilities, not birth.
Mnemonics with Initials:
State’s Nature
Self-sufficiency
Three Functions of the State
Justice
Three Classes
Rulers
Auxiliaries
Artisans
Virtue and Division of Labor
Knowledge of Forms
Education
Distributive Justice
Noble Lie
Merit-based Society
Mnemonic: “Silly Scientists Teach Juicy Theories: Rulers And Auxiliaries Are Virtuous Knowledgeable Experts Designing New Methods”
Main Answer:
Introduction
Plato’s Republic outlines the nature of justice in a state, emphasizing the interconnectedness of individuals.
He posits that a state’s self-sufficiency comes from division of labor.
Justice in a state arises from individuals performing specialized roles that align with their inherent abilities.
Body
- State’s Nature & Self-Sufficiency
State’s Nature: The state is seen as a natural entity because individuals are not self-sufficient. They depend on each other for survival, both physically and mentally.
Self-sufficiency: Achieved through division of labor, where each individual has a specific role, which enables the state to function effectively.
- Three Functions of the State
Plato identifies three essential roles within a state that lead to its success:
- Production: Economic functions performed by artisans.
- Protection (Defense): Provided by the auxiliaries, the warrior class.
- Statesmanship (Ruling): Managed by the rulers, who make decisions and govern.
- Justice and Functional Specialization
Justice in Plato’s state arises when each class performs its role efficiently, without overstepping its bounds.
Functional specialization ensures not only the common good but also individual happiness and well-being. There is harmony between what individuals do, what they receive, and their psychological state.
- Three Classes and Their Virtues
Plato divides society into three classes, each with its own virtue:
- Rulers: The governing class with wisdom, tasked with making informed policy decisions.
- Auxiliaries: The warrior class, who protect the state, possessing the virtue of courage.
- Artisans: The economic class, involved in producing goods and services, with the virtue of temperance (self-control).
- Virtue and the Division of Labor
Division of labor leads to a division of virtue, where each class embodies a distinct moral attribute:
Rulers: Complete virtue due to their wisdom.
Auxiliaries: Incomplete virtue, with courage but lacking wisdom.
Artisans: Incomplete virtue, with temperance but lacking wisdom and courage.
The idea of virtue is linked to knowledge of the Forms—perfect, transcendental ideals like justice, beauty, and courage.
- Knowledge of Forms
Plato argues that the Forms exist in a transcendental realm, and only the rulers possess the wisdom to perceive these ideals.
The rulers use their knowledge to ensure that justice in the state mirrors the ideal Form of justice.
- Education
Plato’s system of education is central to his vision of justice. It combines:
Athenian creativity: Focused on individual excellence.
Spartan civic training: Focused on communal values.
Education is the tool for moral reform and the transformation of the soul, ensuring individuals can perform their roles in society.
- Distributive Justice
Plato’s justice is distributive, meaning that individuals receive what they are due based on their abilities and roles.
Individuals are trained and assigned roles according to their natural abilities, ensuring they contribute responsibly to society.
- Noble Lie
Plato suggests a “noble lie”—a myth that claims all people are born with different metallic components:
Gold for rulers.
Silver for auxiliaries.
Brass for artisans.
This myth serves to:
Foster unity and a sense of belonging to a common family.
Ensure individuals accept their place in society based on their inherent qualities.
- Merit-based Society
Plato envisions a society based on merit, not birth. The rulers are selected based on their capabilities, not their lineage.
Any child, regardless of sex or class, could become a ruler if they show the necessary skills and philosophical understanding.
Conclusion
Plato’s vision of justice is deeply tied to functional specialization and a merit-based society.
Justice in his ideal state is not just about fairness but about ensuring that each person performs their proper role in society, leading to harmony, well-being, and the common good.
Through education, knowledge of Forms, and the noble lie, Plato sought to create a just society where individuals thrive within their natural capabilities.
3.3.2 Communist Principles
Efficient Pointer Summary:
Plato’s Communism: Aimed at eliminating personal desires from rulers, advocating for communal living and shared responsibilities.
Abolishment of Private Property: Rulers must not own property or have families to avoid nepotism, factionalism, and corruption.
Common Good: Rulers should act in the interest of the common good, not personal gains.
Rulers’ Lifestyle: Rulers live communally, with basic needs provided by artisans, and children raised in state-run nurseries.
Focus on the Ruling Class: Plato’s communism applies only to the rulers, not the entire population.
Plato vs. Marx:
Plato: Ascetic, applied only to rulers, focused on property and family.
Marx: Universal, aimed at abolishing class distinctions and establishing a classless society.
Plato’s Goal: To maintain class hierarchy and harmony.
Marx’s Goal: To create a classless, stateless society.
Mnemonics with Initials:
Plato’s Communism
Abolishment of Private Property
Common Good
Rulers’ Lifestyle
Focus on Ruling Class
Plato vs. Marx
Ascetic (Plato)
Universal (Marx)
Property & Family (Plato)
Means of Production (Marx)
Goals (Plato vs. Marx)
Mnemonic: “Plato Always Chooses Rulers For Peace and Unity: Goals Are Different”
Main Answer:
Introduction
Plato’s communism seeks to eliminate personal desires and material attachments among the ruling class.
The goal is to ensure that rulers prioritize the common good over personal wealth and family ties.
This concept contrasts with later ideas of Marxian communism, where the focus is on universal equality and the abolition of private property across all classes.
Body
- Plato’s Communism
Plato proposes a communal lifestyle for the ruling class, which he believes will prevent personal desires from interfering with their responsibility to the state.
The ruling class will not have private property or families. This is intended to avoid nepotism, favouritism, and factionalism, which could disrupt their commitment to the common good.
- Abolishment of Private Property and Family for Rulers
Rulers’ needs (food, clothing) are provided by the artisan class, ensuring that rulers do not become attached to material wealth.
Families are abolished for rulers to prevent favoritism. Children are raised by the state in nurseries, where they will not know their biological parents. This ensures that they view the state as their true family.
- Promotion of the Common Good
Rulers are expected to serve the common good, rather than advancing their own personal interests.
This system of communal living ensures that the ruling class is detached from material concerns and focused entirely on the welfare of the state.
- Focus on the Ruling Class
Plato’s communism is limited to the ruling elite and does not apply to the majority of the population. The majority continues to live in their traditional family and property structures.
This approach reinforces class hierarchy, with rulers maintaining a higher, more powerful status, while other classes continue their respective roles.
- Comparison with Marx’s Communism
Plato’s Communism:
Plato’s vision is ascetic and focused on preventing the ruling class from accumulating wealth or personal attachments.
Known as koinonia (fellowship or communion), Plato’s communism does not aim to create a classless society but instead ensures that the ruling class remains pure and focused on governance.
Marx’s Communism:
Marx advocates for a universal communism, aiming to abolish class distinctions and private property across all levels of society, with the ultimate goal of a classless and stateless society.
Marx’s communism focuses on the means of production, seeking to distribute wealth and control of resources across the population.
- Goals of Plato vs. Marx
Plato’s goal with communism is to maintain class hierarchy in the state while ensuring harmony within the ruling class.
Marx’s goal, by contrast, is to destroy class distinctions entirely, creating a society where everyone is equal and no longer divided by social classes or economic power.
Conclusion
Plato’s communism is designed specifically for the ruling class to eliminate their desires for personal gain, creating a state focused solely on the common good.
While Plato’s system maintains class hierarchy, Marx’s universal communism seeks to abolish all classes and establish equality for all.
Though the two philosophers share a focus on communal living, their approaches and ultimate goals differ significantly. Plato’s model upholds the state’s structure, while Marx envisions a society where no such distinctions exist.
3.3.3 Justice at Individual and State Level
Efficient Pointer Summary:
Just Individual: Wisdom (philosophic element) rules the soul, ensuring harmony between reason, spirit, and appetite.
Harmony in Soul: A just individual minds their own business, performs their duty, and doesn’t interfere with others.
Unjust Individual: When passions and desires rule over reason, causing imbalance in the soul.
Justice at State Level: Justice exists when each class maintains its role, ensuring harmony between virtues in society.
Subordination of Artisans: Plato suggests artisans should accept subordination, but is unsure of its permanence.
Use of Force: Plato considers using force and persuasion to maintain the ideal state, raising concerns about happiness.
Decline of the Ideal State: States disintegrate as they reflect imperfect reality. The fall begins with the ruling class’s corruption.
Stages of Decline:
Timocracy: Rule by auxiliaries, honor over wisdom.
Oligarchy: Rule by a few wealthy.
Democracy: Rule by many.
Impact of Social Environment: Corruption of the state leads to corruption in individuals.
Mnemonics with Initials:
Just Individual
Harmony in Soul
Unjust Individual
Justice at State Level
Subordination of Artisans
Use of Force
Decline of Ideal State
Stages of Decline:
Timocracy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Social Environment Impact
Mnemonic: “Just Harmony Under Justice, Subordination and Use Decline Socially”
Main Answer:
Introduction
Plato argues that justice exists both in the individual and the state.
At the individual level, justice is a matter of internal harmony, with wisdom guiding the soul.
At the state level, justice arises when each class fulfills its appropriate role, creating harmony between different virtues.
Body
- Justice in the Individual
A just individual has a soul in harmony, where reason (wisdom) rules the spirit and appetite.
Justice is realized when an individual does their own job without interference, taking only their fair share.
Socrates defines justice as minding one’s own business and not interfering with others.
In an unjust individual, the soul’s division of labor breaks down, allowing passions and desires to dominate over reason.
- Justice at the State Level
Justice in the state occurs when each class (rulers, auxiliaries, artisans) maintains its designated function.
The classes’ respective virtues—wisdom for rulers, courage for auxiliaries, and temperance for artisans—work in harmony to sustain the state’s justice.
Plato is uncertain about how long the artisans would remain submissive to the ruling class and worries that this subordination may not be permanent.
Plato proposes force and persuasion to maintain order, but this raises concerns about the state’s happiness and the potential for conflict.
- Decline of the Ideal State
Plato suggests that the ideal state is inherently fragile because it is a human institution, reflecting an imperfect reality.
The decline of the state begins with the ruling class, as their attraction to property and wealth undermines the guiding role of wisdom.
The rulers’ desires shift from reason to passions, leading to the downfall of the state.
The corruption of the ruling class sets off a process of social degeneration, where the virtues that once defined the state are replaced by base desires.
- Stages of Decline
Timocracy: The first stage of decline, where the auxiliaries (warriors) take over, prioritizing honor over wisdom.
Oligarchy: The next stage, where a few wealthy individuals rule, and the state becomes governed by the rich.
Democracy: The final stage of decline, where the state transitions to rule by many, leading to instability and potential chaos.
- Impact of Social Environment
Plato argues that human beings are deeply influenced by their social environment.
If the state is corrupted, individuals within it will inevitably become corrupt as well, reflecting the state’s moral decay.
Conclusion
Plato’s vision of justice involves a harmonious balance of reason, spirit, and appetite at the individual level, and a well-ordered state where each class fulfills its role.
While justice at the individual level is straightforward, the state faces challenges, especially regarding the artisans’ subordination and the use of force.
Plato recognizes the inevitable decline of the state as rulers become corrupted, moving through the stages of timocracy, oligarchy, and democracy.
The key to maintaining a just state lies in ensuring that wisdom governs both the individual and the state, resisting the forces of greed, desire, and corruption.
3.3.4 Critical Assessment
Of Plato’s Concept of justice
Analyze some of the limitations of Plato’s concept of justice
Efficient Pointer Summary:
Excessive Regimentation: Plato’s idea of justice implies overregulation, diminishing privacy and individuality.
Emotional Bonding: Abolishing family life to prevent selfishness undermines emotional connections.
Control vs. Tyranny: The control Plato suggests approaches tyranny, blurring the lines between freedom and repression.
Inconsistency in Division of Labour: Concerns about rulers being corrupted contradict Plato’s belief in virtuous rulers.
Elitism: Plato’s political theory is elitist, with decisions made by a small, wise ruling class, undermining democracy.
Karl Popper’s Criticism: Popper sees Plato’s ideas as promoting unchecked sovereignty, resembling totalitarian ideologies.
Citizenship: Plato’s idea of citizenship is non-participatory, prioritizing obedience over individual freedom.
Unity vs. Diversity: Plato’s focus on strict unity is criticized by Aristotle for disregarding diversity.
Non-Enforceability of Justice: Plato’s justice, based on self-control, is not enforceable, making it prone to violation.
The Noble Lie: Nietzsche criticizes the noble lie in Plato’s theory, arguing it contradicts the idea of justice being tied to truth.
Mnemonics with Initials:
Excessive Regimentation
Emotional Bonding
Control vs. Tyranny
Inconsistency in Division of Labour
Elitism
Karl Popper’s Criticism
Citizenship
Unity vs. Diversity
Non-Enforceability of Justice
The Noble Lie
Mnemonic: “Every Emotion Causes Inconsistent Elitism, Karl Critiques Citizenship, Unity Neglects Truth”
Main Answer:
Introduction
Plato’s concept of justice has been widely criticized for several reasons.
His ideal state and ideas on justice are often seen as overly rigid and elitist, with certain inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine their practical applicability.
Body
- Excessive Regimentation and the Loss of Individuality
Plato’s state imposes excessive regimentation, limiting privacy and individuality.
To prevent the selfishness and corruption associated with family ties, Plato abolished family life for the rulers.
This leads to less emotional bonding between individuals, and Plato values order and harmony over personal emotions and passions.
Critics argue that this control, while aiming for a harmonious state, can result in a form of tyranny, where the boundaries between liberation and repression become blurred.
- Inconsistencies in the Division of Labour
Plato’s system for dividing society into classes with specific roles is contradictory.
Despite extensive education for rulers, Plato still worries about the potential for rulers to become corrupt. This raises a question: if virtue is knowledge, how could rulers act unjustly? Plato casts doubt on the Socratic idea that virtue cannot be corrupted by temptation.
This inconsistency challenges Plato’s notion that wisdom alone ensures just rule.
- Elitism and Anti-Democratic Ideas
Plato’s political theory is elitist, as it places political power in the hands of a few philosophical rulers.
Plato believed that most people were incapable of making important decisions, which undermines the democratic principles that were central to Athenian society.
Karl Popper criticized Plato for promoting the unchecked sovereignty of the ruling class, which leads to a lack of accountability.
Plato’s ideas about eugenics, censorship, and the noble lie are compared to modern totalitarian ideologies, such as Nazism and Stalinism, making Plato’s ideal state seem more like a dictatorship than a democratic society.
- Non-Participatory Citizenship
Plato’s concept of citizenship is non-participatory, as individuals are expected to be obedient to the state rather than actively contributing to decision-making processes.
The individual in Plato’s state exists for the state, not for their own personal fulfillment. The state uses individuals as a means to an end, reducing them to mere instruments of the collective good.
- Unity vs. Diversity
Plato’s vision of the state prioritizes unity over diversity. He insists on a strict singleness in the state, rejecting the idea that diversity and multiple perspectives are important.
Aristotle critiqued this view, arguing that a state should foster harmony through the integration of diverse elements rather than imposing uniformity.
- Non-Enforceability of Justice
Plato’s concept of justice, rooted in ethical and moral principles, is difficult to enforce.
It relies on self-control and individual moral responsibility, which makes it prone to violation when individuals act in their self-interest.
The ideal of justice as self-regulation, therefore, becomes vulnerable in practice, as it depends on the willingness of individuals to act justly.
- The Noble Lie and Its Contradiction
Friedrich Nietzsche and other critics argue that Plato’s use of the “noble lie” undermines his theory of justice.
Plato asserts that justice is knowledge, yet he proposes a lie to maintain social order, which creates a contradiction between truth and justice.
The noble lie, while serving to maintain order, is an act of injustice that undermines the core values Plato claims to uphold.
Critics argue that Plato’s reliance on deception highlights the limitations of truth in political reform, revealing the fragility of his ideal state.
Conclusion
Plato’s concept of justice is powerful in its idealism but problematic when examined critically.
His approach to control, elitism, non-participatory citizenship, and the use of deception in governance raises significant concerns about the practical application of his ideas.
While Plato offers valuable insights into the nature of justice and the structure of the state, his theory’s inherent contradictions and idealized assumptions render it difficult to apply in real-world scenarios.
3.4 Plato and Indian Political Thinkers
3.4.1 Plato and Kautilya
3.4.2 Socrates, Plato and Gandhi
Efficient Pointer Summary:
Plato and Kautilya: Both believed in elite rule, hierarchical structures, and contempt for the common man.
State Ruling by Elites: Both thinkers favored rule by learned elites, not democracy.
Contempt for Common Man: Plato viewed the common man as driven by appetites, while Kautilya saw him as inconsistent.
Hierarchy and Functional Specialization: Plato’s three classes and Kautilya’s caste system both emphasize social hierarchy and specialization.
Conquest of Senses: Plato’s concept of virtue aligns with Kautilya’s notion of conquering the senses (indriyajayah).
Ruler Class: Both thinkers preferred military rulers, with Plato’s ruler being a Kshatriya, similar to Kautilya’s Kshatriya king.
Differences: Plato merged ruling with intellectual activity for the aristocrats, while Kautilya assigned intellectual tasks to Brahmins and ruling to Kshatriya kings.
Political vs. Intellectual: Kautilya was more focused on practical politics and diplomacy, unlike Plato, who concentrated on philosophy.
Socrates, Plato, and Gandhi:
Gandhi’s Influence by Socrates: Gandhi admired Socrates’ sense of self-sacrifice and duty.
Plato’s Influence on Gandhi: Gandhi translated Plato’s Apology and shared similar idealistic views on the role of ethics and duty in politics.
Ethics in Politics: Both Plato and Gandhi believed politics should be deeply intertwined with ethics, emphasizing duties over rights.
Mnemonics with Initials:
State Ruling by Elites
Contempt for Common Man
Hierarchy and Functional Specialization
Conquest of Senses
Ruler Class
Differences in Roles
Political vs. Intellectual
Mnemonic: “Some Clever Humans Conquer, Rulers Differ Politically.”
Main Answer:
Introduction
Comparing Plato and Kautilya reveals both similarities and differences in their political ideologies.
Socrates influenced both Plato and Gandhi, who shared similar views on the relationship between ethics and politics. Gandhi’s work shows how philosophical ideas can inspire practical political action, blending duty and sacrifice.
Body
- Plato and Kautilya: Similarities
Both Plato and Kautilya emphasized elite rule and rejected the idea of a democratic society.
Plato believed the state should be ruled by the learned and elite, whereas Kautilya also viewed rule as the prerogative of a select few.
Contempt for the Common Man:
Plato’s view of the common man as a bundle of appetites parallels Kautilya’s description of the common man as inconsistent and unsteady.
Social Hierarchy and Functional Specialization:
Plato’s three classes (rulers, auxiliaries, artisans) align with Kautilya’s caste system, which both thinkers use to maintain social order and specialization.
Conquest of Senses:
Both Plato and Kautilya promote the idea of self-mastery. Plato’s virtue centers around conquering internal desires, akin to Kautilya’s indriyajayah (conquest of the senses).
Ruler Class:
Plato’s rulers, idealized as philosopher kings, resemble Kautilya’s Kshatriya kings. Both thinkers prefer military figures as rulers, advocating for a warrior-elite in governance.
- Differences between Plato and Kautilya
Role of the Ruling Elite:
Plato saw aristocrats as both rulers and intellectuals, blending both functions in the elite.
Kautilya, however, advocated for Brahmins to handle intellectual tasks while leaving ruling to Kshatriya kings.
Practical Politics vs. Philosophical Idealism:
Plato’s work largely centers on philosophical ideals, particularly in his Republic.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, by contrast, is focused more on practical politics, including diplomacy, foreign policy, and statecraft.
- Socrates, Plato, and Gandhi
Gandhi’s admiration for Socrates:
Gandhi was deeply influenced by Socrates’ sense of duty and self-sacrifice.
During his time in South Africa, Gandhi identified with Socrates’ conviction in facing trials and death for his principles.
Plato’s Influence on Gandhi:
Gandhi translated Plato’s Apology into Gujarati in 1908, reflecting his admiration for Socrates’ philosophical defense of ethics.
Like Plato, Gandhi was an idealist in his approach to politics and emphasized the inseparability of ethics and politics.
Duty over Rights:
Both Plato and Gandhi believed that in a just society, individuals should focus more on their duties rather than personal rights, which aligns with their ethical approach to governance.
Conclusion
Plato and Kautilya, though originating from different cultures, shared common ideas on elite governance, hierarchical social structures, and the importance of self-mastery. However, their views diverged on role specialization within governance, with Plato merging roles and Kautilya separating them.
Socrates’ influence on both Plato and Gandhi, particularly in the realms of ethics and duty, led to similar idealistic views in politics, emphasizing the moral responsibility of rulers and citizens alike.
