Platos Ship and Beast Analogy, Essay Example

Introduction

It is arguable that Plato’s status as a premier philosopher is all the more striking because he is essentially an elitist. More exactly, Plato’s conviction that the philosopher/king is the natural and rightful leader of humanity defies all thought promoting an inherent equality in mankind, and those philosophers who support each human being’s inherent value, if not potential for greatness, are usually the most esteemed.  Here, Plato stands apart, and he applies his impressive mind and logic to deny the idea of democracy in his analogies of the ship and the beast.  To his credit, Plato makes strong arguments, and it is rational to agree with him that certain individuals are possessed of the qualities necessary for good government.  To some extent, it is true that the ship requires an exemplary captain, and that “feeding the beast what it craves” does nothing to improve the nature of the beast, to simplify his analogies.  At the same time, both metaphors of Plato are limited because each presupposes a state of ignorance in the people, just as each takes for granted a virtuous and wise leadership immune to corruption.  These are compelling analogies, but they fail to take into account the crucial elements of change and degree in human beings. Ultimately, Plato’s analogies of the ship and the beast do not defeat the idea of democracy because they are valid only when unchanging and specific types of people are the “crew,” the “beasts,” the “captains,” and the “tamers.”

Discussion

In a very real sense, Plato’s analogy of the ship is basic to virtually any analysis of a group scenario in which leadership is expected or inevitable.  Plato applies the metaphor to the state, of course, but it goes beyond that use.  Essentially, wherever there is a group or a society, there arises a leader and the rest are followers of varying ranks.  Few philosophies or social sciences would take issue with this foundation of human behavior.  Plato’s intent, however, is to employ this framework to demonstrate how what is good for all may be achieved, or rather the framework is used to support his belief in gradations of worth among individuals.  The leader, or ship’s captain, does not take on the role by chance or even by ambition; it is his because he has the qualities necessary to lead the ship well and improve the lives and conditions of the crew.  Then, and importantly, it is his because these qualities do not exist in the sailors. For Plato, the ship’s captain is idealized to nearly a mythic extent.  Virtuous and fit to command the ship, he has one, and only one, objective: to see to the welfare of the sailors, whom Plato blatantly refers to as weaker (20).  This is the personification of virtue, in fact.  This is the captain who is captain by right of being superior in terms of wisdom and a selfless dedication to those under his authority.

With such a captain in place, then, everyone benefits and the idea of a democracy is rendered both unnecessary and actually harmful, for it is inevitable that no member of the weaker crew could perform this role.  Plato goes so far as to project this possibility, in that sailors may seek to overcome the wise captain,  or navigator, in order to further their own ideas of how the ship should be directed.  Consequently, the ship analogy, intended to represent the state, is a solid construction in that it affirms the necessity for knowledge and good to be held as the directing forces, or rulers.  In the confines of the metaphor, the ship’s control must belong to the captain, just as the captain must be superior, if all concerned are to benefit.

The analogy fails, however, precisely because of the limitations defining it, and this is why the idea of a true democracy is not defeated by it.  On one level, Plato relies too completely on distinct types of human beings there is no reason to accept as valid.  Certainly, there are individuals who are wiser and more virtuous than others.  To assume that these same individuals also have the capacity for good leadership, however, is an extreme leap of imagination.  History is replete with examples of wise men and women who lack the abilities or drive to lead, and it is interesting that Plato neglects to mention this leadership requirement.  He seems to assume that virtue must compel the captain to assume that role, but the reality exists that effective leadership itself is not actually created by good intent or a noble being. It is a skill and, while it is best employed in those who are wise and good, the latter may do harm when they do not possess this skill.  Then, and importantly, weaker individuals may exert leadership qualities to such an extent that their flaws are not known, and the people attribute a goodness to them that does not exist.  History also reveals many such “captains,” whose true natures as harmful to the public good are discovered too late.

Connected to these elements of leadership and virtue is another reality ignored by Plato and going to democracy. That is, both virtue and weakness are not fixed qualities of set degrees. It is convenient for Plato to have his ship’s crew each convinced of the rightness of each sailor’s own thinking, just as he requires an inflexible virtue in his captain.  Human beings, in plain terms, do not conform to such absolutes. Even the most virtuous captain may have moments of weakness, or be misguided by an idea of good that is actually contrary to the interests of the ship.  Similarly, it is more than reasonable to suppose that certain sailors have viewpoints more expansive than others, and are better able to perceive how their ideas are truly valid.  More exactly, it is likely that, in the weak crew, there will be those who comprehend that what serves their own interests may serve those of others.  It is this likelihood that then promotes democracy, for a well-designed democracy allows for all these gradations of human quality and ambition.  It is in fact more pragmatic, because it comprehends that levels of wisdom and virtue differ in the public, and that even the most consistently benevolent leader may require some check on his authority because he too is human.

In his analogy of the beast, Plato goes more directly to challenging the concept of democracy.  In his view, and with the people as the beast and the leaders as the tamers, an inevitable and self-defeating cycle is in place.  The needs of the beast actually dictate the type of rule because the tamers can know nothing beyond those needs, and ideas of good and bad lose fundamental meaning: “He uses all these terms in conformity with the great beast’s beliefs – calling the things it enjoys good and the things that anger it bad” (187).  In a sense, Plato sees a democracy as a situation in which appetite reigns supreme, in that it dictates response of spirit and reason; for order to be maintained, the beast’s appetites must be continually appeased, so the democracy is unable to reflect any real quality beyond this.  What is good becomes, not so much lost, but irrelevant, and ignorance must be the condition of the state.  Put another way, Plato conceives of such a government as a perverse situation wherein the ignorant people, or beast, have the true authority because meeting their needs is all that is possible for the leader.

The analogy is compelling in a hypothetical way. It has an attractive core of logic because it follows pathways of action and reaction. Moreover, the metaphor seems valid because it has the pragmatic quality lacking in the analogy of the ship.  More exactly, rather than relying on a perceived weakness in the people, it refers instead to appetites, which are certainly in place in any public.  It also reflects the very realistic element of leaders as being required to address public wants, a component also absent in the ship metaphor..  If the beast analogy may be described as the more cynical of the two – also because there is no idealized captain/ruler within it – it goes more strongly to addressing the darker potentials of government. In essence, ignorance and stagnation must exist because nothing beyond public appetite is addressed, and neither beast nor tamer is enabled to comprehend meaning beyond this.

Where this analogy reveals weakness lies, as with the ship analogy, in Plato’s blatant insistence on fixed values as existing in all concerned.  His theory of the tripartite soul notwithstanding, it is certainly arguable that appetite is not necessarily confined to base wants.  Human beings, in fact, famously have strong desires for elements beyond the primitive, and the fact that populations are driven to construct democracies is evidence of such more elevated ambitions.  Clearly, no democracy is established solely by the efforts of a few individuals intent on creating an equal society; the nature of the government demands full participation from all concerned if it is to be in place at all.  This indicates human drives to accommodate the needs of others beyond the self, and drives that are as powerful as any base appetite. That democracies are flawed in no way lessens this foundational reality, yet Plato overlooks this impetus factor completely.

Then, a democracy incorporates a recognition of that other element of human nature Plato does not acknowledge: the capacity for change.  Given the complex structure of a democracy, evolution is inevitable; laws change because the people come to see injustices not previously known, and this supports how virtue, individual and national, may be a thing achieved, rather than the fixed commodity Plato tends to hold it as being.  The processes may be difficult and democracies may struggle to attain justice, but the point remains that it may occur because ideas of good become known to the people.  This being the case, then, Plato’s analogy of the beast is little more than a simplistic and cynical conception of how societies function, and a weak refutation of the possibilities of a democracy.

Conclusion

Plato’s analytical brilliance is evident in his metaphors of the ship and the beast, as in these he constructs rational arguments emphasizing inherent issues in leadership.  Unfortunately, they also exist as valid only within the parameters necessary for their construction.  The ship metaphor ignores important variables of how leadership is not necessarily linked to virtue, and how gradations of knowledge and virtue are seen in ordinary “sailors.”  Similarly, his beast analogy relies on an idea of human appetite as strictly base, and as the common people as incapable of desiring betterment for others.  Consequently, Plato’s analogies of the ship and the beast do not at all refute the idea of democracy because they are valid only when fixed and specific types of people are the “crew,” the “beasts,” the “captains,” and the “tamers.”

Plato.  Republic.  Trans. C. D. C.  Reeve.  Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004.  Print.