Summary:

The final chapter. Morality has been proven to make man happier than immorality, even with appearances reversed and the gods silent. Plato now asserts that immorality is punished either in this life or afterwards and that morality is rewarded by the gods in addition to in itself. The myth can be compared to those on Symposium, Gorgias and Phaedrus.

Immortality of the soul:

Like in Phaedo the immortality of the soul must be proven. All things have one thing which causes them to degenerate from good to bad and eventually be destroyed. Immorality has been identified as harming the mind, but it has not been proven to destroy it. Thus the soul must be indestructible since its only affection cannot destroy it. Death does not destroy the mind. The number of souls is constant, as immortal entities cannot deplete or replenish. Incarnation makes the soul tripartite, otherwise it is a unity.

Myth of Er: With immortality of the soul prove, Socrates tells a tale outlining how souls are judged after death for their actions and also outlines a cosmological model. Er, son of Armenius and of Pamphylia went to the afterlife and returned to tell the tale of what happens after death. The souls of the deceased gather at a place with two openings in the earth and two openings in the sky. Judges separate moral souls to the skyward route to the right and immoral souls to the earthward route to the left into the earth. The most exceptionally evil souls are thrown into Tartarus, never to return. Aside from the recently deceased, souls arrrive from the sky and the earth. The first had a wonderful journey, the second is happy to be done with their terrible experience. Crimes in life are punished times ten.

Er arrives at the spindle that holds up the heavens. The spindle holds several whorls, each contained in the next. There are eight in total. Each whorl has different properties such as rotational speed, color etc, many are in relation to other whorls. On each whorl circle stands a Siren singing a note. «Harmony of the spheres.» The spindle serves as a cosmological model. The spindle turns in the lap of Necessity. Around the spindle sits the daughters of Necessity, the Fates: Lachesis, Clotho, Atropos. Lachesis sings the past, Clotho the present and Atropos the future. They each turn turn the whorls.

The souls pick their personal deities. «Ancient Greeks believed that everyone had a personal deity or daimon. Socrates famously would be warned by his daimon and forbidden from entering politics.» The souls also get to pick their next life from a sample. The goodest souls get to pick first, the bader last. However the order everyone will get to pick a life that suits them and will not have to choose one they would't have otherwise. Thus learning to discern good from bad in order to live our life as good as possible is critical to become happy. The choices made by the souls can be surprising. The good souls arriving from the heavens are naive and can pick bad lives such as dictatorships. The bad souls are scarred from their experience and are careful to pick better lives. «It is not enough to be theoretically good, practice is necessary to get experience with goodness. People of good backgrounds can still make good decisions if they are inexperienced with life.» People from various legends pick lives based on their earlier experiences. We see characters from the Illiad and the Oddysey make choices that suit their fates. However the choice of live one can still decide to act good.

Afterwards the souls drink from a river that makes them forget their choices. Some drink whats necessary, others excessively that they forget everything. «Do the souls from the skies drink more than those from the earth or the opposite?»

Observations:

Immortality of the soul:

The argumentation here avoids confronting that the decay and destruction of the soul can be slower than noticeable for us, as brought up in Phaedo. There is also no reason that things cannot have multiple affects that result in their degeneration and that there can only be one. Neither does it address whether the soul is destroyed with the body.

The Greeks used the same word for mind and soul, psukhe. The translation has untill now translated it as mind, but here it takes the form of soul when the discussion goes into the afterlife.

This myth should be exemplary of the poetry that would be permitted in the moral society. Representation is minimal and only goodness is praised. Badness is punished and bad people are led to become better.

What is the significance of the skyward route being to the right and the earthward route to the left? Was the association with left as bad and right as good a concept in Ancient Greece?

The myth of Er has more Pythagorean numerology with the number 10 being featured often.

Summary:

Earlier it was established that represantational poetry must be close to banned from the moral community. This chapter further develeops the case against poetry and representation.

A much harsher tone is employed against poetry this chapter. It is directly harmful to it's audiences, of the irrational and rational parts of people's minds it nourishes the first one. Not only does poetry portray immoral behaviour, but it encourages the audience to lose control and be emotionally overwhelmed. Even good people are vulnerable to these effects, which is why poetry is so harmful.

A craftsmen can create things based on their knowledge while a painter can create any thing without knowledge of them. The creations of the painter are apperances. A joiner can create beds, but not the type of bed. Only God can create a type. There cannot be two of the same type, then they would both just be of a third type. Particulars and universals. The painters creations, representations, are two steps away from reality.

A good poest must understand what they write about. Homer is claimed to be wise in the numerous subjects that his works contain but that would be extraordinary for him to be wise in so many subjects. Is it wisdom or representation? Homer serves as an example of poets to examine. No great accomplishments are ascribed to Homer's expertise. No wars have been won due to his guidance, patients healed nor do any laws claim provenance from him. Poetry is made without knowledge of what it portrays. The works are embellished to flatter the senses of the audience.

The user of a thing has the ultimate knowledge of what makes it good or bad, not the maker. A maker is not intimate with function. «Deeper interpretation of user vs maker?»

Socrates is still open to reconcillation with poetry if it could be proven to be harmless or beneficial. Until then it is restricted to only representing and praising goodness.

Observations:

The previous chapter attacked false pain and pleasure, now false things, representations, are in focus.

I did not expect the Ion dialogue to be so relevant. The attitudes towards in Homer in that dialogue are very relevant to what Plato is arguing against here. Homer was taken to be genuinely wise in the subjects he portrayed in his works.

This is an attack on poetry and Homer, yet Plato clearly holds Homer in high regards as he quotes him constantly. Is there a deeper message on this being a fault of Plato, of compromise, or when logic is taken too far? Does Homer actually have a redeeming attribute? If so then why not tell us? Or perhaps it was only Socrates that quoted Homer frequently, while Plato disproves of him?

Summary:

This chapter finally traces back to the original goal of proving that a person living a moral life is happier than one living an immoral life without consequences.

So far it has been proven that the mentality of the moral community is the best. The most immoral mentality is that of the tyrant which was determined to be the worst. Socrates and his discussors determine that they need an expert on tyrants and decide to pretend to be so. «But did not need one before when commenting on them? What is the significance of "pretending" here? We know Plato had experience with tyrants in Syracuse.»

Like earlier the structure of the dictatorship is reflectd in the dictator. A majority ruled by a minority. Unwilling dictators are more unhappy than willing dictators. «No compensation as in chapter 1.» Wealthy people own plenty of slaves and resemble dictators. Society keeps the slaves from rising up and the rich would be terrified of their servants if they were to act freely. Dictators are terrified of the people they rule over and their paranoia restricts them from truly experiencing all pleasures in the world. The succession of governments and mentalities goes from happiness to unhappiness.

Each mental facultiy has it's own pleasure. The desirous part wants many things, some necessary, some unnecessary. The passionate part wants power, success and fame. The intellectual part wants the truth. For each faculty there is a corresponding person: philosophical, competitive and avaricious. Each type swears their way is the best and disregards the other's pleasures. The intellectual person has the greatest claim to the truth, for only they can access the pleasures of truth and can access the other's pleasures. The competitive person comes second.

The intellectual pleasures are not only the greatest, but they are also the most real. Pain and pleasures are opposites, there is also the intermediate where none is present. Pain from the absence of pleasure. Pleasure from the absence of pain. Remission appears at both and seems to both be painful and pleasant. But things cannot simultaneously have opposing properties. Thereforce these absences are false, or less real. Some pleasures can happen without anticipation or regret at their parting, such as smells or importantly learning. These experiences also give a false perception of the range of experience. Only learning lets one reach the global maximum. What is real is more satisifed from real pleasures. Knowledge is being and is more real pleasure, while the becoming pleasures of food and sex are less real.

Socrates proves how much more miserable the tyrant is with esoteric mathematics again.

Law is to cultivate passion and temper desire in the populace.

Observation:

Minds have a tripartite strucutre, the cities they compose also has a tripartite structure. Does everything on every scale have a tripartite structure, meaning panpsychism? What are minds evem? Why are they? Maybe Timaeus will answer.

Weak argumentation around philosophers having superior pleasures. Other mentalities can use reason to for their purposes and also discover knowledge.

The argumentation around philosophers having exclusive access to their pleasure is a bit weak. The avaricious and competitive people can certainly use reason to attain their pleasures and therefore encounter the pleasures of learning.

This chapter explains how the moral society will, with enough time, decay and stray from it's principles of goodness. There are 4 modes of government that follow in degeneration, each with a corresponding person and mentality.

Moral community declines eventually, 4 succesive forms of governments explained. Each government also has a corresponding mentality in their people. First comes timocracy then follows oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. The succession of society follows the divided line while the people of each government mode follow developments in the tripartite mental model.

The starting point is the furthest right of the line with aristocracy having real knowledge and is in the category of "Being". Reason is the supreme ruler of this society and together with Passion it controls the Desirous part.

The timocracy, now without true knowledge and instead based on thought that while closer to the truth than belief is methodologicaly flawed. Passion now rules alone but Desire is still controlled. Reason is present but not supreme.

Oligarchy is where "Being" is left behind for "Becoming", society is now based on "Belief" of what goodness. Wealth had become the greatest objective of society, but Desire is still controlled so that no desire can jeopardize the accumulation of wealth. Desire is now in control but order is still present.

Democracy is where "conjecture" is the guiding principle of society. Ideas and thoughts are freely exchanged and flowing with no order to separate or guide them. Desire is in control and goes from one pursuit to the next.

Tyranny is another stage of "Becoming", I can't give it it's own spot on the divided line as previously, it shares "Conjecture" with Democracy. Desire here is fully enthralled with one single desire above all others and will expend any resource to satisfy it.

Timocracy:

The aristocracy is the most stable and least changing government, but everything in our world decays eventually. Earlier chapters established that the guardians must be united in reason foremost, the other castes are less significant in terms of preserving the community. The downfall occurs within the gold and silver caste.

The likely culprit will be the auxilliaries introducing children of inferior quality. Socrates backs it up mathematically, but it is incomprehensible without substantial background knowledge. Feedback makes each generation further inferior and the mental and cultural studies become neglected. The metals will mix and the level of guardianship declines. Private ownership is introduced and the communal aspect of the guardians ceases. People no longer limit themselves to their function and needs, specialization ceases. Passionate people come to rule instead of complex characters, war becomes the focus of the community. The governments of Crete and Sparta are purported to have this form, militaristic and more concerneted with honor than wealth.

Money will be hoarded but not spent openly as the people still put up the façade of following the moral education they were forced to learn.

The timocracy person will be eager for status and glory. They focus more on physical exercise and neglect cultural studies, but are not dismissive of culture. Though good by nature, those around them will taint their soul, urging them to pursure status. Torn between reason and desire, they let passion steer them.

Oligarchy:

After timarchy follows oligarchy. The transition occurs as the pursuit of wealth overtakes the ambition and competition of the timarchy. Goodness finally leaves the community as wealth is prized above it and all others. Meritocracy is further eroded as only those with enough wealth can hold political positions. The unity of the previous government is gone as society is bitterly divided between rich and poor. The rulers are few ("oli") and terrified of arming the poor, weakening the military prowess of the community. The few good people that remain in the community are ridiculed for not pursuing wealth.

The meek die in poverty while the bad steal and rob themselves wealth. The oligarchic person is formed from the instability of the timarchy. Scarred after losing everthing in a failed ambition scheme, they hoard wealth and property. Reason and passion only serve to gain further wealth, not for goodness. All desires does not serve wealth accumulation are repressd. But this is not true self-control, when wealth is not threatened their most evil desires are unleashed, such as when spending other's money.

Democracy:

From oligarchy follows democracy. The rich ruling class is weak and few, eventually the poor will overwhelm them. Where wealth previously guided and restricted society now any form of desire is free to manifest. There is a grand diversity of thoughts and ideas in the society. Plenty of short term pleasures. Translator notes that democracy in Athens was much more restrictive than Plato portrays it here. External vs internal influence. The ideas and desires that best flatters the population succeeds.

The democratic person is born of the oligarchic mindset and starts with control of their desires for the purpose of moneymaking. The desires that are necessary for wealth are allowed while those that deplete wealth are repressed. Drones are a category of people in this society that are completely controlled by their desires, criminals for example. The transition to democracy occurs as the oligarchic person is lured by the drones to embrace the other desires.

Tyranny:

The final state after democracy is tyranny. All structures break down in equality. The oligarchy excluded criminal drones from seeking wealth solely, but in democracy they are free to be elected into power. The masses enlist champions to rob the rich, causing internal strife. Eventually the champions become dictators. The absolute rule of one desire above others, without any reason or passion or the restraint of the oligarchy. The dictator provokes warfare to make their leadership necessary. The people are taxed to poverty to make them unable to resist. « Mental equivalent of war? Strife that prevents you from introspection». The more unpopular the dictator is the harsher the repression becomes. The worst of the drones are enlisted to serve them.

Good people leave the rational faculties awake when sleeping instead of indulging in the lawlessness of dreams. Passionate and desirous parts are passive. Everyone has terrible desires, some just have better control of themselves.

The tyrannic person abandons the egalitarian freedom of democracy for one single desire. Everything is expended for the desire. Once resources run out they resort to depravity to sustain it. If these people gain critical mass they will infest and corrupt any society.

Observations:

Goodness and the circular structure of Plato's metaphysics:

There is a circular or recursive structure in Plato's idea of goodness. The good society is governed by the silver and gold races that make sure the people are good and ordered. The guardians represent reason, the auxilliaries passion while the iron and bronze races are necessary desires that must be regulated. The people in these races themselves also have the tripartite mental model of reason, passion and desire. The guardians mental model is ruled by reason with the assistance of passion to control desire. Establishing self-control, the guardians then take part in society control of itself, which also controls the guardians. Self-control to control society that controls them.

Goodness as a concept permeates every layer and structure of the world. The good city is good as its own internal structure follows goodness to establish goodness in the people who can then establish goodness in the city.

Plato emphasized that nental cultivation cannot be forced like physical education, but must be voluntary. Republic, with its layers of meaning under the dialogue, can only be understood by those willining to dissect it and really thinking about what is presented to them on multiple levels and not just at face value. The message is buried to encourage the reader to use their own reasoning skills. I think there is a parallel with how Socrates discusses how external influence grows on the modes of governments as it descends from aristocracy. Tyrrants prop themselves up with foreign mercenaries and can infest other societies. The aristocracy is a closed society that prohibits foreign influence, but as it becomes more open the greater the potential for external malign influence. But goodness cannot be forced upon a society? Is this an advantage of badness that gives degeneration an advantage over regeneration?

The philosophers that leave the cave eventually return to establish order and goodness. They ascend to the world of being, but then return to the world of becoming with their knowledge of goodness to establish order. Goodness demands a call to action to improve the world and not stay in the lofty realm of being. Though Plato is disenchanted with engaging with politics.

There are plenty of explanations for degeneration, the aristocracy declines from eventually having children at the wrong time, but what explanation is there for regeneration? The odds are stacked against goodness, only if raised properly can a person's nature and mental constitution reflect it, but they can still fall to the influence of others. Is it simply unexplained that every now and then people of good enough nature appear to change things for the better? Decline is the focus since we start from the most possibly good. There is some hinting of the small chance of a philosopher rising out of the badness of the world and establishing the imagined moral society. I wonder how this influenced Abrahamic thought. Everything decays but also strives to return to goodness?

Passion is our innate sense of justice and goodness, but without knowledge of them and is more like "thought" of goodness.

What is the mental equivalent of the golden caste having births out of order? That eventually even a sound mind can slip up and permit bad thoughts to fester?

Goodville - Kalliopolis

In Phaedo desires are connected with the body and the material world while the mind seeks knowledge, but here we dont see a purely material vs immaterial distinction in regards to desire. Though we could still categorize desires as becoming versus the reason of being, but isnt that the same as a material vs immaterial distinction?

Curiously Socrates remarks that in democracy structure breaks down that men and women get on equal standing (not a thing in Athenian democracy), but we already accepted women as potential guardians earlier. Perhaps the distinction is that Plato recognized that women can be great, but men and women in general are not equal. Good people are equal, not genders.

Summary:

This chapter gets into greater detail on the education of the guardians such as what activites and studies will bring desired qualities in them. What subjects will arouse their curiosity and taste for the truth? The physical and cultural education mentioned earlier is not enough.

Math is identified as crucial for war and a field that stimulates intellect. The most important things for stimulating intellectual curiosity is not when things are clear but actually when they are contradictory. If a thing is found to simultaneously hold two opposing qualities, then it encourages you to further think about what these qualities really are and improve your understanding.

The discussion yield five subjects that the prospective guardians must study: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music and dialectic. The first two subjects are beneficial as anything pertaining with math leads one to ponder timeless truths. We cannot make true circle in reality, but we can think about perfectly round ones. Music is specifically of the intellectual kind where you think about ratios and harmony, not the kind where you depend on your ears to solely. Dialectic is the most important subject as it teaches one systematically understand things and not take things for granted. However it will be the last subject that the students take on as it can lead to them questioning their moral codes and engaging in sport to tear down arguments for entertainement. Dialectic is critical for understanding goodness and separating good from bad. Reiteration of the necessary unity of physical and mental education. Students must excell at both and not focus on one. Physical education can be forced upon a person and be beneficial, but mental education will not have the same effect if not done willingly.

The levels of understanding like the divided line returns. In order of reliability there is knowledge, thought, confidence and conjecture.

Confidence and conjecture can be likened respectively to seeing objects themselves and seeing shadows and reflections of them. In common parlance and other dialogues the term "experts in fields of knowledge" has been used, i.e experts in medicine and so on. But this is incorrect as only philosophers can possess knowledge through dialectic. But belief is not the correct attribution, Socrates decides to call it "thought" as it is more reliable and closer to the truth than belief, but not knowledge. Knowledge and thought constitute intellect and "is concerned with real being". Confidence and conjecture form belief and "is concerned with becoming".

The chapter ends with speculation on how the community could be practically realized. If genuine philosophers could seize power and expel all the adults they could start from a blank slate with the children. Not very probable to occur.

Education programme of the guardians (after finishing the cultural and physical education earlier at around 17):

2-3 years of physical exercise solely. Mental studies while young.

At 20 years of age the brightest must systematize the subjects they learned while young.

At 30 years a further selection is made for those that will start studying dialect.

Then 5 years of dialectic follows.

15 years of practical experience, then if they have not been lacking and lived up to the demands, they enter the guardians truly and will alternate between administration and philosophy.

Observations:

Being and Becoming; The concept of being represents what is and does not change, including the forms and our knowledge of them. The realm of the forms is the realm of being. static, unchanging. Originates in Parmenides. The concept of becoming represents what constantly changes. The visible world that we perceive through our senses shifts and changes. Originates in Heraclitus. From other discussions I have learned that being and becoming are assigned respectively to Parmenides and Heraclitus, in opposition to each other. Im a bit irritated that the translators notes and introduction did not tell me, but ChatGPT tells me that the metaphysics of Plato can be seen as a reconcillation and synthesis of these two worldviews. The changing becoming of Heraclitus occupies the visible world of belief while the static being of Parmenides occupies the intellegible world of forms and knowledge I will need to revisit Parmenides, Zeno and Heraclitus after Republic.

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.