The Use of the Philosopher

We all know that Socrates is a philosopher, but as he attempts to find out what justice is, and what a just city looks like, how does the philosopher fit in? In what ways would a philosopher be beneficial to this hypothetical society?

The main interaction in Book I takes place when Socrates is debating with Thrasymachus over whether or not it benefits an individual to be just, regardless of the rewards one would possibly receive. Thrasymachus initially states that justice is simply the advantage of the stronger, and the stronger thus has every right to take advantage of those who are weak. He soon changes from this definition of justice, saying that it actually is injustice, but that being unjust is much more advantageous to an individual than being just. As Socrates uses reason to try and prove that justice is beneficial both to the individual and a society, Thrasymachus uses persuasion, which is often emotional, to try and prove his point that injustice serves the individual much better. It is easy for us to view this as philosophy versus rhetoric, or reason versus power. It is much easier to sympathize with Socrates simply by looking at this distinction, and also because we are reading a book written primarily about him, with an initial assumption that he is right. It would be much easier to be persuaded by rhetoric if we were present and able to be impacted emotionally. We still must ask ourselves if the use of philosophy can really lead us to the correct answer.

Thrasymachus leaves and no one, especially Socrates, seems to be satisfied with the conclusions (or lack thereof). Glaucon and Adeimantus both believe that it is good for an individual if he or she is just without reward, but they would like to be convinced as to why this is. They give Socrates a thorough argument for injustice, and want him to prove them wrong. They then go about looking at justice taking place on a larger scale than individuals, that is, a city, in order to see it more easily. They construct a small city in which every individual does his or her own part to help, such as farming, making clothing, etc. The individuals are specialized in their own tasks, allowing for the perfect practice of each one. The city thus has all of its basic needs taken care of, and the people are comfortable and live well, with no issues arising. This being said, Glaucon is not satisfied, because the people all live comfortably, but without any sort of delicacies. They then must add things that must be done to meet these new needs, and more people to take care of them. Because they now need more things, they must go outside of their borders in order to get some of these things. This causes the need for trading with other people, and because they no longer simply desire the things they need for survival and comfort, sometimes the things they desire take priority over the things they need. This also means that some people will receive less than others. This, combined with the desire for things that other cities have, causes unrest inside and outside of the city. The city must then have people to build up an army and be able to both invade other lands and protect itself. This leads Socrates to claim that there will be need for guardians. He says that the guardians will need to be able to distinguish from those who are friends and those who are enemies. The guardian would need to have knowledge of such things, and therefore would need to be a lover of learning. Socrates claims then that the guardian must be philosophic, in addition to "spirited, swift, and strong" (376c). The definition of a philosopher is a lover of wisdom.

Therefore, the philosopher is the person who is knowledgeable and educated enough to make the right decisions in a city's time of crisis. This fits right into Socrates' belief that a city should be ruled by a group of individuals who are strong and wise in practicing reason (philosopher kings). This leads us to question, though, if the city had not gone down the path of additional desires beyond necessity (from the "true city" to the "feverish city"), would the philosopher be necessary at all? Without disorder and disagreements, does the philosopher have a place in the city? In the true city, where every need is met and every individual does his or her own part, is every person a philosopher due to a great understanding of what is just, or does justice come into play at all? I would argue that in such a city, the people are not doing their part because they are wise and know what is right and what is wrong, but rather because that is all they know. They realize that if they do what they are specialized at doing, and if everyone else does the same, there will be no problems. They have never been faced with issues of inequality, nor had the desire to. Therefore they have no sense of what is right and wrong, just of the way in which they do things, which happens to work. This being said, we should keep this question in mind: is philosophy only useful in situations of unrest?

Advantage and Reason

In the first book of the Republic, Socrates explores the definition of justice within the context of the political community. The problem we seem to be wrestling with in class is the degree to which this definition is limited to such a context. It has been said that Socrates represents the Philosopher (or reason) while his opponents represent tyranny. Before we more closely consider the concept of "advantage" as it relates to Socrates and Thrasymachus, I think it is important for us to understand Socrates' motivations for entering into such a conversation with Thrasymachus. Plato does a good job of masking Socrates' intentions throughout most of the dialogue, as his interlocutors become frustrated with their discussion, and Socrates' lack of commitment.

In the beginning of the Republic we see a clear conflict between force and persuasion, as Polemarchus orders Socrates and Glaucon to stay in the city. They ultimately decide to stay, but only after having been persuaded to do so. This tension seems to have important implications for the rest of the book. Later on, as Socrates converses with Thrasymachus, he articulates the just person's reluctance to rule, as "the good aren't willing to rule for the sake of money or honor" (347b). This reluctance seems to mirror Socrates' reluctance to stay in the city at the beginning of the dialogue. The just person, or the philosopher, as we may understand, rules only out of the fear of instead being ruled by someone who is unjust. In the same way, we can understand Socrates to be entering into the conversation only out of a commitment to the power of reason and persuasion.

In the second book Socrates shifts roles from deliberator to teacher, as he discusses justice now with Glaucon and Adeimantus. The two young men have close ties with the tyrants, and represent potential future leaders. Though he begins with a familiar sort of noncommitment, it seems important to Socrates to inculcate a particular commitment to justice in the young men. Considering this together with Socrates' discussion with Thrasymachus, it seems like Socrates has indeed reluctantly entered the political sphere, though not as the aforementioned just man. Rather than assert himself as the just ruler out of fear of the tyranny of Thrasymachus, Socrates attempts to serve justice while escaping the dreaded political life.

With all of this considered, I would argue that Socrates does seek to establish the advantage of reason, yet in a particular and important way. Socrates does not establish himself as the reluctant ruler in this discussion, but instead fights for reason over power without appeals to his own legitimacy as ruler. Socrates does what ultimately leads to his execution, and inculcates the future rulers with a commitment to reason and justice.