Summary:

This is probably one of the most important chapters. The famous devices of the sun simile, the divided line and the allegory of the cave appear here. The previous chapter described why philosophers are prevented from living up to their potential. Here we see that the process itself of searching for the truth alienates people from society.

Plato puts forward the fundamental principle of his metaphysics: knowledge of goodness. «Knowledge, not belief.» All wisdom, intellect and knowledge are of no use without knowing goodness. Goodnes comes before morality, self-discipline and other qualities. «Goodness is the one intrinsic value, all the rest are instrumental.» Goodness is not pleasure. Everyone desires goodness, it must be identified before any goal can be accomplished.

However, Socrates cannot define goodness. «Adeimantues or Glaucon call him out on criticising others without stating his own position, like Thrasymachus did in chapter 1.» Instead he will explain it with likeness, the Simile of the Sun.

Things are visible while characters/types are intellegible. In order to see things we require light from the sun to illuminate them first. The sun enables sight with its light, but the sun _is_ not the light. Goodness is similar to the sun in that it lets us perceive truth and have knowledge, but it is not truth nor knowledge and not the ability of possessing knowledge. As light and sight comes from the sun, truth and knowledge comes from goodness.

The next device is The Divided Line that separates sight and truth into separate realms of the visible and the intellegible. The visible realm can only deal in belief, while the intellegible realm is knowledge. The visible is divided into two parts, one of likeness where we see shadows and reflections, and one of concrete things. Goodness is what gives people the capacity for knowledge. «Without knowledge we would only be able to conduct our actions based on belief and not knowledge. Truly good acts can only come from knowledge.» As likeness and objects stand to each other in the visible realm, so does the two types of reasoning in the intellegible realm. The first part is methods where one reasons from a starting point to an end point, a deduction of facts to support a conclusion, i.e justification. The second method is the dialectic where instead of reasoning to reach an end point, ideas are continually refined until they can be used as starting points in a framework. The first method is an example of what experts of other branches of knowledge use, while the later is the method of the philosophers. Justification versus refinement. «Justification stands to dialectic as likeness stands to objects in the visual realm.»

The cave allegory: People are held captive in a cave for their entire life. They are shackled so that they cannot move or face away from the wall in front of them. Behind them is a fire in which effigies pass by, projecting their shadows onto the wall. These shadows form the world and culture of the prisoners as it is all they perceive. One prisoner is freed and can see the fire behind them. The firelight hurts his eyes that were habituated to only seeing shadows. The pain discourages him from leaving the shackles and seeing the origin of the shadows. Eventually his eyes recover and he realizes his whole life he has only seen the shadows of the effigies that were passing by the fire. If he was dragged up to the surface he would be in tremendous pain from seeing the sun for the first time and be blinded. Eventually he would acclimatise and see more of reality. The effigies were in turn only derived from the objects on the surface. Being closer to reality would make him happier. But he would be alienated from his fellow prisoners, who based their entire culture around recognizing the shadows on the wall. If the freed prisoner returned to the cave he would be again blinded by the darkness. He would utterly fail at recognizing the shadows and be seen as a fool by the prisoners. If anyone tried to drag the prisoners to the surface by force they would kill them. Those who see the truth are discouraged from involving themselves with public affairs and trying to change the beliefs of society.

The analogy ends with an encouragement to not outright dismiss people who seem confused, they could be descending from a higher clarity and be temporarily unable to interface with the beliefs of lower reality.

The philosopher-king guardians have conflicting natures. Their pursuit of truth makes them aloof and uninterested in the society they must administer. They would personally benefit more from only engaging in truth seeking, but the society is not interested in maximising the happiness of any specific class. They must come down and govern for the benefit of the community. The more truth oriented and reluctant to rule the better fit they are. The guardians will govern out of a sense of duty to their community and fear that someone less competent would govern instead (referencing the compensation for power in chatper 1).

Observations:

Cave Allegory and the divided line:

The progression from shadows to effigies to the sun-lit surface represents the mental progression from conjecture to belief to knowledge. Though I'm unsure where the methodological divide is present in the cave allegory. Present at each transition point is pain. When we critisize our current beliefs we destabilize our worldview and even our sense of self. This discourages us from truly trying to get closer to the truth when its more comforting to believe in things as you always did. Society might not appreciate what we discover that goes against convention and might even be hostile against it. Only someone truly motivated to find the truth can go through the pain the get closer to reality. Thus philosophy is a lonely endeavour as most of society are not motivated strongly to look for the truth despite the pain and discomfort. You become alienated from your culture as the established structures are distant from the reality you see. Finally leaving the cave represents the final mental development of becoming a philosopher. Once the prisoner sees the sun as it really is they can now become truly good and discern the types of the intellegible realm.

Infinite regression of shades and effigies:

How do we know we have actually reached the surface and can know of things as they really are? What if the sun us just another effigy that the prisoner is seeing?

Elitism:

The cave analogy can be critised as being pompous and condescending. A common caricature of someone so full of themselves and their self-perception as being above everyone in their intellect. Though Plato would most likely insist that a real philosopher necessarily must be humble.

Collectivism and individualism:

The translator remarked initially that Ancient Greece and pre-modern societies left much less room for individuals. Socrates explicitly states that his objective is to create a moral society and is not creating the greatest happiness for one class or individual. Individuals in the moral society are restricted in what functions they can perform and what information they can consume. But this chapter breaks the untill now collectivist perspective with the individual experience of seeking the truth. While happiness is a communal objective the truth can only be pursued individually.

Conflict between free will and the unchanging nature of goodness:

I see a conflict in the philosophers quest to assimilate himself with the ultimate reality of goodness and the types. The types are timeless and unchanging, as any perfect (good) thing would not change or degrade. Free will is necessary for goodness in order to choose to do moral acts. Reason and the intellect are so critical to Plato that I cannot imagine him accept goodness without free will. But free will is by itself changing, it necessitates non-determinism and unpredictability and not blindly following necessity. How can a person assimilate themself with goodness when it also requires free will that cannot be timeless and unchanging?

Goodness:

The forms/types are good by necessity of being timeless and unchanging. Thanks to goodness we can gain knowledge of the types and in act on knowledge of goodness instead of the belief of what is good.

Summary:

This chapter has our discussors debate the nature of philosophers and the difference between belief and knowlesge. The guardians need the ability to see things as they really are to guide safeguard their community. However since true philosophers are so rare the feasibility of realising this community becomes very small. Society restricts, corrupts and punishes those who seek the truth as it inevitiably clashes with convention.

It is decided that the moral man they are searching will be living as close as possible to morality, but they will not be a perfect image of it. Things are bound to have less contract with truth than theory. Plato's conception of the world as a derivative of the world of forms which is true reality. Hence thought can come closer to truth than things.

Socrates states that only if rulers become philosophers (or vice versa) can a moral community appear.

Who is a philosopher? Does any branch of knowledge qualify? Lovers of a thing wants all of it they can get. True lovers appreciate the whole rather than a specific aspect. This analogy is applied to distinguish sightseers and seekers of truth. The difference is between those who love beautiful things and those who love beauty itself. The former sense beauty but cannot see the common aspect of the things they love. The former love the impressions of the fallible senses while the latter love reality itself from thought. Belief versus knowledge.

What is the difference between belief and knowledge? Knowledge is the field of the real which belief cannot be. But belief is also not total ignorance and must then lie inbetween. «In Symposium love is characterized as inbetween ignorance and knowledge. Yet love is a search for truth that would mean that belief leads to truth which clashes here.» Both knowledge and belief are human faculties.

Things we describe as beautiful (in belief) are only seen in comparison to others. What is ugly in one context becomes beautiful in another. Then it serves that the things do not actually have these qualities, as they change. This instability comes from belief while what is truly beautiful always is.

The nature of seeing reality is a quality that the guardians need to protect their community in soul and body. «Since philosophers are closer to reality by definition you could say any occupation requires their abilities to fulfill its purpose. The baker needs to see reality as it is to bake the perfect loaf every time in service to their community. Though the demands of metacognition on a societal level does put the guardians a bit closer to the philosophers than most jobs.»

Philosophers love reality as a whole and will despise falsehood, material things like money will have little effect on them. Their broad vision on life makes them unable to fear death.

But why are philosophers so weird and useless currently in society then? Because society corrupts them with lacking or no education. When they show themselves useful they are lead astray with money or other devices which make them focused on the material rather than reality. Society encourages them at every turn to master flattery of society or be punished. Only divine intervention could save a persom from corruption here. «Why was this specifically pointed out? Is there a precedence in ancient greece for miracle philosophers rising out of vile circumstances?» Sophists are flatterers of the crowds.

Education cannot change people's moral character. «Any education or just the education of the sophists. The problem of making people more virtous is a common topic in socratic dialogues.»

Those who do retain their nature as philosophers are either exiled or recluses without influence on society. Few seriously engage with philosophy outside their youth.

Observations:

I think we see here the seeds of elitism and enligthened despotism. The ideas here can clearly be used to justify giving absolute power to a supposed virtous individual to reform society to become more ideal.

Notes:

«I've realized at this point that I have neglected thinking of the mental analogue that the moral society and the three classes represent. One of the reasons I wanted to reread Republic was as the last time I interpeted it too literally.»

Socrates is about to describe the five types of political systems and the ways they are inferior to the moral community's system. Each system also has a corresponding character. But he is interrupted by his discussors wanting him to expand on what he said earlier about the guardians living communal lives where they share living quarters and their wives and children. These ideas are clearly controversial especially in the times of Ancient Greece. Socrates hesitates to explain, fearing the consequences.

The specialisation principle clashes with convention when taken to its greatest extent. Plato and ancient greeks considered women inferior to men in most fields, however Plato takes the radical position that some women can still be fit to join the guardians and must then be educated like the men. Women and men have different natures, but the relevant nature for the guardians is one's innate virtue, not the gender. For example bald men are not disqualified from being carpenters as their bald nature is not relevant. Women will also be admitted to the guardians, though their physical duties will not be as great.

The guardians will not marry but share their women and children with each other. No one will know which children are theirs or who they belong to.

Eugenical principles guides procreation of the community. There will be guidance to make good people breed with other good people. Only in their physical primes will people be allowed to procreate, as it is believed that the state of the parents at conception will influence the children. At birth the children will be handled over to nurses to care for them. The malformed and handicapped will be disposed of. Bad children can come from good couples and good children from bad couples, the filtering will apply to all.

Children will join the guardians on campaigns to gain experience of warfare but not be exposed to unnecessary risk. The guardians will neither loot nor desecrate the corpses of the enemy. Those who distinguish themselves in campaigns will be rewarded. Greeks will not be enslaved and other communities will be encouraged to act in kind.

Observations:

Thrasymachus speaks up a few times this chapter, I wish his character was a bit more acitvely involved.

The admittance of women into the guardians can be interpreted as the necessity to accept good ideas that go against convention and cultural norms. The filtering of good children from bad couples and bad children from good couples extends this concept further, even from good frameworks or origins can bad ideas spring. Likewise that good ideas can spring from what is usually considered bad. Perhaps the Euthydemus dialogue is founded on this concept, that even the ridiculous argument techniques by the sophists can be appreciated.

Plato is not a feminist, though he recognizes competence no matter the background. I think this can be seen in Symposium and Menexenus, perhaps even Meno with the slave.

The mental analogue of warfare is perhaps how one should conduct oneself towards others. The prohibition of looting and desecreation represent how pettiness corrupts oneself. The concern to not enslave Greeks and communicate it to other Greeks can be seen as cooperating with other rational people capable of good, in unity against the bad.

What mental analogy does the lies in the moral society represent? A false construct we tell ourself that is ultimately beneficial. Relying on belief instead of knowledge or truth?

The hunt for morality involves finding it among four qualities in a moral community. «When were the four qualities established? Why this number? Ive forgotten.» Guardianship is the first quality to be identified, the knowledge and wisdom to coordinate the community. The guardians are a very small part of the community, the smallest and will be outnumbered. «No part can be larger than the farmers feeding the rest of the community, but why must the guardians be the absolute smallest? Perhaps because the rarity of virtue would necessarily make it so?»

Some properties ascribed to the communities depend only on the nature of a part where the rest is irrelevant. The cowardice or bravery of a community's warriors defines its bravery, not the bravery of it's bakers. Hence guardianship for the moral community.

The nature of bravery is discussed. It is the ability to hold what ought and ought not to be feared in face with pressure. Pressure can come in the form of pain, pleasure or desire. «Bravery was previously discussed in Protagoras and Laches. Socrates usually holds the view that it is a form of courage, here we see Plato's idea be refined with the tripartite model where courage combines reason and passion.»

Next is self-discipline, the ability to control pleasures and desires. Another name is self-mastery, which is absurd as you cannot be both master and slave over yourself. The moral community has self-discipline as the intelligent and rational control the desires and pleasures of the community.

With three qualities found in a moral community, it is determined that the fourth moral quality is the specialisation principle that has guided the community investigation since the start. Morality is keeping to the task that you excel at to benefit the community (and yourself?). «I think the predecessor to this concept has been apparent throughout the works of Plato so far with the deferal to expertise. In every situation we leave it to the most knowledgeable to decide or act, this has then evolved to the specialisation principle we see here.» The principle is the foundation of the community and is what enables the other qualities. Adherence of the principle in the community is the most important among the auxilliaries and the guardians. If the workers stray from the principle it is not very harmful, but if the guardians of the community do it would be catastrophic. This is immorality.

With morality found in a community it will now be found in a person. The three classes must be here as well. Aspect division of the mind, is there an aspect for each of all things we do and desire or just one?

First Socrates establishes that a thing cannot be in opposing states simultaneously, nor possess opposing qualities. «What about the in-between states we saw in Symposium and Ion?» Things cannot be in motion and at rest, neither can parts of a thing be in at rest and in motion to make the thing itself be in both states.

Desires are identified as an aspect of the mind. And these desires are for things or pleasures themselves only, not for particular things. Thirst is thirst for drink, not for a hot or a good drink. «Desires cannot be inclined to always look for the good, that is why this limit is introduced. Otherwise hedonism could be framed as looking for good.» People can resist desires, then what is it that is going against the desireous part? Rationality for example can go against desire to moderate, i.e self-discipline. Passion is brought up, but is it part of rationality or independent? When our desires take over we can still feel rage or shame when ceeding, this is passion. The three classses of the moral community is used as an argument to keep passion independent like the auxillia.

Morality in a person is upheld by the union of passion and reason where reason leads to control desire. It is cultivated through education of the mind and body as we saw with the guardians education. «Similar to the charioteer with the good horse vs the bad horse in Phaedrus.» The previous absurdity of self-mastery is solved through the partition of the mind into three. Immorality is disorder in the mind where rationality is not in control.

Observations:

I feel like passion has not been developed enough. Where does it come from? Is it only a sense of what is right that is instilled through cultural education?

I wonder what Plato would have said about the experience of the mind. I very much feel like one thing, how does the three part play into the experience of being?

Chapter 5: The Guardians Life And Duties

The community is divided into castes of gold, silver and copper or iron, signifying their levels of virtue. Guardians can only be gold. While people of noble character are being evaluated for the guardians they serve in the auxillia that assists the guardians. Only when mature and proven can they be accepted. Strictly meritocratc, farmers and other lowly professions can have children of gold and guardians children of copper or iron.

A story, a noble lie, tells the community that God made them with various mixes of metals and ruin will fall upon the community if one of copper or iron becomes a guardian.

Many indlugences are denied to the guardians to keep them from corruption. They will live communal lives in shared spaces and are forbidden from owning property or luxury like silver and gold. The lower castes can be permitted some faults, but of the guardians are corrupted the whole community will fall. It is pointed out that the guardians are given responsibility and power without the compensation that Socrates remarked on in chapter 1. Socrates clarifies that the happiness of the community as a whole is prioritized, not any specific class.

Both poverty and affluence must be prevented from afflicting the lower classes that would render them unable to perform their function to the fullest.

Geopolitical perspective: The guardians will be superior fights that can defeat many more their number. The community must be as a large as possible without risking unity. Since they will not fight for silver or gold the guardians will have a diplomatic advantage in securing allies and playing the surrounding communities against each other.

Numerous and strictly formulated laws are not necessary for good people, they will find good solutions.

Observations: Early Plato would definitely have made Pericles as an example of people of golden character having children of iron or copper.

The topic of this dialogue is how the guardians will be educated in body and soul. Starting with the soul, it is discussed what cultural education is appropriate. They will discern the good stories from the bad ones to develop passion in a person.

The idea of scale investigation to understand morality in individuals from a community view is applied to understand small storie from grand ones. The first of defects to prohibit is false representation. The gods in Homers works are portrayed as not being purely good for example. The gods should as an example of morality. «Im a bit confused at the greek idea of moral gods. The popular depictions show them being imperfect, but in the dialogues people generally agree that they gods should be good.» Stories should not show bad thoughts or actions since they might influence the people.

Stories will not be created for the community, only guidelines and principles.

God is good and cannot damage (i.e make things worse). God is not responsible for bad or evil. Tales of god changing forms are prohibited. The form of god must be perfect and changing would imply the form was not perfect or that god would change for the worse. God never lies, but lies can be good for people in some circumstances. Only rulers of the community may lie if necessary, but it will be prohibited for hte rest of the population.

Hades should not be disparaged as by Achilles in the Odyssey. People should not fear it and death, but accept it stoically. Even laughter is an indulgence of emotion and should be prohibited. Self-discipline includes obedience to authority. All stories must exclude mentios of behaviors that lack self-discipline. No stories of buying the favors of the gods with gifts.

Next up is representation. In short, trying to appear like something else is bad as you can never be as good as a thing as the thing itself, i.e it goes against the specilaisation principle. No speaking as if you are someone or something else. No representation will be allowed for the guardians or the community. Perhaps a small amount will be permissible in poetry.

What kinds of music should be allowed is discussed next, such as what harmonies, rhythms and melodies are good for the development of a person. Only modes instilling courage and patience are allowed, the dorian and phrygian modes. At this point it is remarked that the previously indulgent community has become quite disciplined.

All works in the community must be elegant and good. Crude and ugly works will corrupt the people. The people will love beauty and abhor ugliness, though badness and ugliness will be a foreign and unknown thing for them.

The physical education follows, they conclude that the mental and cultural education will already have done much of the work to keep the guardians healthy and in shape.

Lawmakers should be kept away from being in contact with immorality. If they recognize it from experience it is because the badness is inside them. Instead they should only know good and deduce it from reasoning.

The guardians will not train like athletes for strength but for passion. Gentle but passionate as said earlier. Neither too focused on exercise to become brutes nor too studious to become docile.

These balanced guardians will always be needed to balance the community.

Observations:

That god is only responsible for good and not evil is a very interesting divergence from Christian thought.

The unchanging nature of god touches on the immutability of good and the forms.

I wonder where the distinction lies in honoring the gods with sacrifices and bribing them with gifts according to the Greeks.

There is a line saying that comedic actors cannot be good tragic actors and vice verse, but didnt Socrates advocate for writers being able to be good at both plays at the end of Symposium? I suspect this must have been a common topic in Ancient Greece, but my knowledge of the culture is too lacking to see its significance.

The introduction of the book pointed out how our contemporary sense of individualism and freedom did not exist in Ancient Greece. There is little attention put to the individual experience of the community's inhabitants. Goodness is optimised for the community as a whole, the freedom of the individuals is limited to benefit it. The people are limited in what kind of works they can read and experience.

Chapter 3: Fundamentals of Inner Politics

Starts with the idea that we can inspects things on a larger scale in order to understand them in a smaller one. To understand morality for a person we will explore it first in a community. «One common discussion point around Republic is whether the imagined community is intented to be realized or if it just serves as a mental model.»

A human has several needs and cannot be self-sufficient. The community will need multiple people doing different jobs to satisfy the needs of necessary goods and services. The community will need sailors, merchants, stallkeepers to facilitate trade with other communities.

The principle of specialication is introduced where it is agreed that everyone in the community should work on one thing only and that it should be what they are talented at.

The description of the consumption of the community goes from necessities to indulgence. "A community for pigs". Healthy moral community contra indulgence. The indulgent community cannot live of its own land and must grab from its neighbor. If the neighbor is also indulgent then they will want to grab land too, thus indulgence is the cause of war. War necessitates a warrior class, guardians of the community, which will require even more land to be sustained. The specialication principle applies to the guardians as well, protecting the community will be their sole vocation and expertise.

The mentality of the guardians will have to be gentle to their citizens and aggressive to enemies. These two natures are mutually exclusive but it is found in dogs who hate the stranger and love their friends. Since they must learn to tell people apart dogs must be intelligent and lovers of learning. The same applies to the guardians who must also be philosophes. «I feel like anyone can be called a philsopher in this manner. A carpenter must learn to distinguish good and bad wood and is therefore a philosopher for example.»

Observations:

Republic does not start with joining might is right with hedonism, but the union makes it's appearance here. Its clear that Plato holds might is right and hedonism to be connected, given this chapter and Callicles in Gorgias. Then why make Thrasymachus only espouse might is right if the hedonism connection appears later anyways?

«Where did the land for the moral community come from? Why is it only now that it must be grabbed from others? Perhaps its more than just land grabbing, the other communities will be enslaved to provide surplus to the indulgent one.»

Chapter 2: The Challenge To Socrates

Summary: Adiemantus and Glaucon want Socrates to go further in proving the superiority of morality over immorality.

There are 3 categories of things worth pursuing: 1 - Things that are pleasureable without any future negative consequences, such as 2 - Things that are pleasureable and have positive consequences, such as knowledge. 3 - Things that are unpleasant but ultimately good such as medicine or discipline.

Socrates will prove that morality belongs to the second category, it is worth pursuing for its own sake and for its advantages. That is to say morality has both intrinsic and instrumental value.

The conventional view is that morality is a compromise. Everyone would benefit from it but fear being on the recieving end of immorality. Immorality is socially shameful but is individually beneficial. Morality is a compromise and anyone who can be immoral and get away with it ought to.

Adeimantus and Glaucon steelman the case for immorality by putting some key assumptions and restrictions in the investigation: Immorality cannot be hindered by the gods because they are either uninterested, non-existent or can be bought of with the riches gained from immorality. The immoral person is an expert and never makes a mistake that puts them at a disadvantage thus all their immoral actions are unknown to society and they have reputation for being good. The opposite goes for the moral person who gets no benefits of seeming moral and has the lowest reputation.

Discussion:

I really like the dilligence here, after many dialogues criticisng the ideas of others we see Plato put himself to a high standard when advocating for morality. I also appreciate the separation between intrinsic and instrumental value. Too often in discussions around choices or policies will I hear people confuse these two aspects. For example its often said that Thing A is good because of B, but they would not say Thing A would be bad if B was not.

Observatons:

I wonder if Tokien was inspired by the ring of Gyges that turns its wielder invisible, directly or not.

Chapter 1: Convention Under Attack

Characters: Polemarchus, Glaucon, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, Cephallus Thrasymachus was a famous sophist that advocates for a might is right position in this dialogue. There are similarities between him and Callicles in Gorgias, however though Thrasymachus is aggresive he argues in good faith unlike Callicles.

Summary: The dialogue starts with Socrates meeting Polemarchus after witnessing the festival in Piraeus, the harbour of Athens, He convinces him to gather at his house where Socrates starts a discussion with the old man Cephalus. They discuss the experience of old age. Cephalus remarks how many old men will complain about losing many pleasures in life but also tells how glad Sophocles was to be rid of them. Like a slave liberated from a savage master. «This can be likened to the asceticism in Phaedo where philosophers are said to be desiring of death as it will separate them from the treacherous senses of the body and allow their souls to be closer to the truth they are seeking.» First the impact of wealth on whether one enjoys old age is discussed. Cephalus has inherited his wealth and is not that stingy about money. He however aims to leave just as much to his chilren as he received, and not lessen it like those before him. Wealth makes old age easier, but a bad man would never be content even if rich. Cephalus says many old people worry about the consequences of their actions in the afterlife as death approaches. The greatest benefit of wealth is that it allows you to avoid committing immoral actions and thus be less anxious in old age. This is where the question what doing the right thing actually means. The conventional sayings seem insufficient. «Do good to your friends and bad to your enemies.» For example Simonides says one ought to return what is given, but would you return a borrowed weapon to a friend that is not sound of mind?

Cephalus leaves the discussion and leaves it to Polemarchus and Socrates to continue. They continue discussing the meaning of Simonides saying and conclude that good deeds are owed to friends, but what about enemies? To refute this saying Socrates puts forward the expertise subject care concept that is common in Plato's texts. An expert only acts for the best outcome for its subject and to leave it in a better state. Doctors care to heal bodies, captains that voyages will be safe. Moneymaking is a separate skill that these people will most likely employ but its not related to their expertise. He asserts that morality is an expertise and therefore morality cannot guide people to harm others and therefore leave them in a worse state. «It could be contested that morality is an expertise or perhaps that its main subject is to leave the self in a better state and would then not be concerned with the state of others, a very anti-social definition.» The deception of appearances is brought up. Do we owe deeds to those who seem to be friends or those that are true friends? We can have the wrong impression or be deceived by the sense and then do good to enemies and bad to friends. Since moral people cannot harm others it follows that a moral person cannot harm anyone ever to fulfill the principle. «This is a radical position in Ancient Greek society.»

Thrasymachus enters the scene. Thrasymachus attacks not only Socrates position that morality is beneficial but also his methods and mannerisms. He demands that Socrates state his opinion instead of simply asking questions and claiming ignorance. «People in other dialogues have pointed this out, but it is amusing that Thrasymachus does it preemptively.» Thrasymachus is the one that first relates morality to not just laws but governance like democracy and dictatorships and states, that might is right which is why the powerful make the laws. Morality is the advantage of the stronger. Governments are ruled by the strong and it is right to obey them.

Socrates points out that rulers can be mistaken and do decisions that are not in their favour. Would it then be right to obey? «This can be similar to how moral people cannot be allowed to harm anybody since they can be mistaken or deceived.» Thrasymachus points out that we assume that people do not make mistakes in their ideal versions. For example when we speak of doctors as experts of medicine it is given that they do not make mistakes about treating the body. Socrates states again that morality is an expertise and must then care for the best of its subjects only like all the other expertises. «Again, Thrasymachus could challenge that morality is an expertise here.» All expertise strive for perfection and not to make things worse. «What if morality is the expertise of caring for the strong?» Since morality is the advantage of the strong and obeying is right, immorality is the most beneficial for a person. The immoral will always come out on top of the moral that restrict themselves. People have a negative attitude to immorality as they do not want to be on the recieving end. It is a compromise. Socrates states people never want power for its own sake, only for reasons of payment, prestige or fearing someone incompetent could take the power can compel people to take on the responsibility. «Anticipates the philosopher-kings reluctant rule.» The last reason is the most noble, the others are mercenary. Socrates is stumped that Thrasymachus separates good and moral, making immorality good but not right. «Otherwise he could argue that if something is good it cannot actually be immoral.»

Socrates explores the interaction between immoral and moral people to see who actually benefits. Immoral people will always act to be superior to others, while moral people only want to be superior to immoral people. Thrasymachus asserts that immoral people are good and clever, he also agrees that experts are good and clever. But experts will never aim to put themselves above other experts. «Insofar as practitioners of their expertise.» Then immoral people are not good and clever.

The interaction is expanded to communities. Thrasymachus posits that immoral communities are better for dominating and exploiting their neighbors. But their hostility will make them an enemy of everyone while moral communities can trust each other. This hostility causes not just strife among communities but internally as well withing families and in associations. Even immoral people will have internal discord preventing them from making decisions. Finally the gods, as moral beings, will oppose all immoral people and communities.

Finally the purpose of things are discussed. Knives are for cutting etc and worn knives are in a lesser state where they cannot fulfill their purpose. The purpose of the mind is to make optimal decisions and in a worse state it cannot perform. Immorality is a bad state that stops the mind from achieving its purpose while morality enables it.

Observations: Thrasymachus and Callicles are interesting as the two people (that I've read so far) who advocate for a might is right position. Republic differs from Gorgias in that pleasure was already discussed with Cephalus where it was deemed a liberation to be free of them in old age. Thrasymachus does not incorporate hedonism to his position like Callicles.

Like in the Phaedrus, Socrates rarely leaves the urban area of Athens.

The discussion of interaction between moral and immoral people and communities reminds me of game theory and the prisoners dilemma.

Thrasymachus agrees that the gods are moral and would be an enemy of all immoral people. I feel this argument could have been brought up much earlier to discredit his position but its also a uninteresting argument. In the next chapter we see Adeimantus and Glaucon demand morality be discussed without considering the intervention of the gods. They also provide a counter-argument that immorality lets you obtain wealth to perform the rites to please the gods despite your actions, which complements what Cephalus said earlier about wealth making old age more bearable as it allows you to avoid immoral behavior.

More than a year ago i decided to start reading philosophy and bought a copy of Republic. Reading it gave me a perspective not just on philosophy but also on classical works. The much needed context from the note section, the works mentioned by Plato that are now lost to us, the difficulty and ambiguity of the translation, the Greek culture and history preceding Plato, the Socratic Question, the historiography of rediscovering the works of Plato and discerning them from the pseudo-platonica. There are many other subjects to mention and I've only explored the aforementioned at a surface level. Before Plato I also read the works of Homer then later Mythology by Edith Hamilton as well as The Presocratics to give me some prerequisite knowledge to understand the Greek culture at the time. After finishing Republic for the first time I took a break with philosophy until I could finish the last courses of my program and take my exam. Once finished I ritualistically sold my old math books and spent the money on The Complete Works of Plato. After university I got the idea that reading and analysing his works would be a good way to sharpen my writing skills, hence this blog. There is no universal consensus on the order of Plato's dialogues, chronological or pedagogical. So I've taken to different orders and read all (non-Pseduo-Platonic) works that can be put before Republic.

Now it is time to go return to where I started and reread Republic with my much greater knowledge of Plato and Ancient Greece together with my improved analytical ability. I am reading the Oxford edition and will be following the authors argumentative division of the dialogue instead of the traditional division based on scroll length limitations.