Plato’s Republic, Research Paper Example

Book III and IV of Plato’s Republic continue the development of Socrates and his interlocutors’ discourse on the nature of justice and the formation of the ideal city. Book III specifies this development by more closely examining the order of the ideal city, particularly in terms of the structure of the city’s population into three classes. Of particular interest in Book III are the arguments for the ideological basis of this structure through the careful consideration of the roles of education and myth, with the aim of both producing the guardians of the society and maintaining the structure of the society. It is, of course, crucial to note that the proposal of this structure is in fact the result of the interlocutors’ reflections on justice, and thus, their investigation of justice leads to the rigid structure of the ideal city. Book IV can be understood as further re-fining this notion, through a more specific account of justice, particularly the “division of the soul” of the individual that both reflects the classes that compose the city and suggests a definition of justice. In the following essay, we shall summarize the key arguments and concepts of Book III and IV in an attempt to chart the development of the ideas and arguments that lead to Socrates and his interlocutors’ perspectives and conclusions.

We may observe that in Book III one of the key themes is a discussion concerning how to maintain the structure of the city in terms of its class divisions. A significant part of this maintenance is the identification of influences that are considered to be harmful to this very structure. The arguments of Book III, therefore, address the cultivation and preservation of the ideal city structure, which in itself is an argument that reflects the interlocutors’ greater thoughts on key concepts such as the good and justice.

Book III commences by resuming the discussion of the guardians of the city, who are crucial to its formation. One of the key arguments revolves around what sort of information or education the guardians should have to make them the best guardians possible. For example, to develop the bravery of the guardians, it is crucial that they do not fear death. (386b) This introduces the important role of poets in the city and the idea that poets’ productions should be controlled with the aim of the greater benefit of the society in mind, as demonstrated in the interlocutors’ choice to censor, adjust or eliminate lines from Homer. (386c-387d) What is crucial about the arguments in this section is that they anticipate the notion of what the interlocutors consider to be virtuous qualities, and this approach therefore foreshadows some of the greater philosophical concepts that are central to the work such as “What is the Good?” and “What is Justice?” Furthermore, the promotion of such ideas emphasizes that the interlocutors recognize the importance of a specific type of knowledge and rationality that must guide the city’s inhabitants. Positive influences must be cultivated, what is a positive influence is that which is considered to be good and just.

This argument is refined in the consideration of what is necessary for the class structure of the city to be maintained. For example, because of the crucial role the guardians play, the dedication of the guardians to the city is to be emphasized, (412d-e) as is an importance to be given to the selection of guardians themselves. Moreover, not only are the guardians to be dedicated, but the entire populace must also believe in the structure of the city for it to function. This argument is demonstrated in the section on the “Myth of the Metals” (415), in which Socrates notes that a myth must be told to the population in order to justify the regimented class structure of the city. Particularly, the myth of the metals supports the class distinctions according to the presence of gold, silver or bronze in the physical makeup of the population (415a-415e) The structure of the city as ordained by the gods makes the order of the city appear natural and unable to be revoked.  Book III, therefore, clarifies how structure of the city is to be maintained, while offering arguments on potentially corruptive influences on the city and how they may be dealt with. Furthermore, it argues for the importance of a shared myth or ideology that must be believed in by the populace in order for the city to thrive as intended. The arguments in this book place a key role on avoiding corruptive influences, while accenting that the commitment to a shared set of principles is central to the ideal city.

Book IV examines some of the possible negative consequences that may arise from the particular structure that the interlocutors have proposed. Primarily, there is a concern that the populace shall not accept the types of limitations and divisions they have introduced in the city.  For example, the importance the guardians’ play in maintaining the city corresponds to a fairly strict life that they must lead. It is Adeimantus who advances the argument that the city may be prone to collapse, as the guardians would seem not to derive any benefits from their station. (419) Particularly, Adeimantus is concerned about the happiness of the guardians, because part of the role of the ideal city was the notion of a happy city. (419) Socrates argues that such an individual concern goes against the entire notion of the city as they have formulated it until this point. For example, guardians are precisely guardians because they are not selfish or individualistic. (421a) The guardians, therefore, although living a more strict life than the others, will not object to this life to the degree that they understand it is beneficial for the city as a whole (421a). And since the aim of the city is the happiness of the city as a whole, the guardians will understand the discipline of their lifestyle. This argument thus reflects the basic principle of the creation of the ideal city and how it essentially must balance different elements in order to realize its aim.

Book IV further continues with the examination of these structural elements of the city, analyzing, for example, the capability of the city to fight a war (422-423) and the size of the city (424). These clarifications of structural elements, however, lead to the crucial question posed by Socrates in section 427d as to whether this arrangement of the city is conducive to justice or injustice. In other words, the careful argumentation for these structural elements must be refined, in order to determine if the desired goal has been achieved. Particularly, the concern is whether the city embodies the specific virtues the interlocutors have determined to be necessary to the ideal city, such as wisdom, courage, and moderation and justice. (427e) Of particular importance is the question as to what could be considered to be just or unjust in the society. Socrates relies on an argument stating that taking away an individual’s ability to perform tasks that they are suited for can be construed as a definition of injustice. (434a) Accordingly, the classes that constitute the city must be clearly defined, and mixing between the classes must be protected against. (434c-d) This argument, moreover, is important because it repeats the logic behind the notion of creating a just city in order to define justice. To determine justice in the individual, it was necessary to discern justice in a larger thing in order to facilitate the identification of justice. (435d) Hence, the city was chosen to be investigated. (435d) However, to determine if the city is just it was necessary to see if this same justice is present on the individual level. (435d-e) This simultaneous analysis of justice on a macro- and micro-level therefore will give a clearer account of justice (434e-435d). What is important, therefore, is that the justice of the city is reflected in the individual. Since the city that the interlocutors have proposed has three classes, this suggests that the individual possesses three parts to his soul (435d). These three parts correspond to rational, spirited, and appetitive parts (441) It is the balance of these parts of the soul, guided by the rational, that are reflected in the tripartite structure of the city: it precisely such a balance that creates just actions, as Socrates argues that justice is a harmony between these differences. (443d) Hence, the individual and the city must attempt to maintain a harmony between these diverse elements. From this argument Socrates is able to define injustice as the conflict between these parts, or in other words, discord instead of harmony. (444b) In other words, there would be a lack of equilibrium inherent to injustice, for example, that the appetitive part of the soul would determine the actions of the individual. It is precisely this lack of equilibrium that is countered by the division and order of the ideal city.

These arguments set the stage for the subsequent questions to be examined in Book V. After this preliminary definition of justice and injustice has been established, Socrates wishes to discuss whether it is better to act in a just manner or an unjust manner. (445) This question is essentially one of virtue and vice. And as Socrates observes, this question itself points back towards the different type of political organizations of the city, as there are multiple forms of government and multiple forms of vice.

Book III and IV of the Republic thus continue the theme of the constitution of the just city and how this reflects itself in the individual. Above all, the notions developed are that harmony is crucial to the realization of individual and state justice. However, this harmony in essence is difficult to maintain: it must be safeguarded and protected, in order for it to be cultivated and continually realized.