PHL 201 Final: Plato

Thrasymachus’ definition of justice in Republic I

The stronger are those who are ruling society, so Thrasymachus believes that what is just is what is advantageous to society’s rulers. He believes that rulers will not legislate and govern with the common people in mind, but will advantage themselves through their rule. A democratic government would make laws that are advantageous to the many, an oligarchy would make laws advantageous to the few, and a tyranny would make laws advantageous to the one. 

What is the question that Glaucon and Adeimantus pose to Socrates about justice in Republic II? This is the central question of the Republic.

While Socrates is able to refute Thrasymachus’ definition of justice with elenchus, he remains unconvinced because refutation can only convince those who are willing to be convinced. Glaucon and Adeimantus ask Socrates to positively define what justice is, and determine if it is something instrumentally and intrinsically good. Glaucon distinguishes between things that are good for their instruments and not for their own sake (ex: medicine), things that are good for their own sake and not their instruments (ex: pleasure), and things that are both instrumentally and intrinsically good (ex: knowledge). Where is justice placed in those three categories of good? Can it be placed in the intrinsic and instrumental category like we want it to be? 

Explain the story of the Ring of Gyges?

The Ring of Gyges makes its bearer invisible, and corrupts a just man into an unjust man because he realizes there will be no consequences for his just actions. The Ring of Gyges illustrates how justice can be perceived as only consequentially beneficial because the Ring removes consequences. If the only things inhibiting people from acting unjustly are the unpleasant consequences of injustice, then there is no reason for them to act justly given the conditions for consequence are no longer present. The story shows that without the deterrent of consequence, people may be more likely to benefit themselves with injustice than act justly. 

The life of the perfectly unjust and perfectly just man? What is their relevance to the central question of the Republic?

The perfectly unjust man is a tyrant that acts entirely unjustly and has perfected the skill of injustice, so he is never caught. The perfectly just man is a common man who acts entirely justly, but has a reputation for injustice. The perfectly unjust man lives lavishly as a ruler, while the perfectly just man is slandered and tortured for his unjust reputation. Glaucon and Adeimantus ask Socrates to prove that the life of the perfectly just man is more valuable and more worthwhile than the life of the perfectly unjust man. If Socrates is able to prove this, Socrates will establish that there is an intrinsic value to justice because the perfectly just man does not enjoy any of the consequences of justice. 

What is Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul?

Plato believes that the soul is split into three parts. He justifies this belief by claiming that the soul can be in opposite states at the same time, so it must have parts (one unified thing cannot be in opposite states at the same time). The tripartite soul is composed of a rational part, that desires wisdom, a spirited part, that desires honor, and an appetitive part that desires pleasure. 

What is justice at the level of the city?

 The kallipolis is just because of its tripartite structure. The kallipolis is an entirely virtuous society, subsequently being a just society. Socrates uses the kallipolis to discover how justice manifests itself at the larger city level, and uses that answer as a clue for what psychic justice may be. The kallipolis is socially divided into three classes with distinct natures: the money making class, the auxiliary class, and the true guardian class. Each individual is placed in class depending on what their nature is, which is not the same thing as the principle of specialization because two money makers could switch trade and not affect the city’s order of justice. However, Plato argues that if a money maker and true ruler switch roles, then justice will be affected. It is in the nature of a money maker to acquire property, but rulers should not do that. This will cause injustice in the city. 

What is justice at the level of the individual?

Psychic justice follows from a just harmony of the tripartite soul. Plato believes that the rational part should rule over both the spirited and appetitive part, but the spirited part should also somewhat rule over the appetitive part. We are acting justly when our actions follow from this particular ordering of the soul, establishing individual justice not as a property of the actions themselves but as a result of the soul. Morality will lead to rationality, and justice is moral, so a just arrangement of the soul is one that places the rational part above the spirited and appetitive parts.

What is the distinction between knowledge and belief?

Plato believed that knowledge and opinion are both powers of the soul, but are distinct powers because they are set over different things. For Plato, knowledge is set over forms because forms are the universal objects of knowledge that explain why individuals are the way that they are. There is no such thing as false knowledge, so beliefs can’t be a kind of either true or false knowledge. They are in between knowledge and falsity. Belief is set over what is and what is not at the individual level, because individual things can be perceived as both being something and not being it. 

Sun analogy

The sun analogy helps describe what the form of the good is like. The sun is the ultimate source of light in the world that allows for visibility, as the form of the good is the ultimate source of understanding in the intelligible world that allows for knowledge (knowing forms through their relationship to the form of the good). The sun is a visible object as well, just as the form of the good is an object of knowledge as well. All things in the visible world are ontologically dependent on the sun just as all things in the intelligible world are ontologically dependent on the form of the good. 

The divided line

The divided line is another analogy Plato uses in order to explain what the form of the good is like. The line is divided into two unequal halves, with the larger half representing the intelligible world and the smaller half representing the visible world. The intelligible half is unequally divided again, with the smaller half representing thought and the larger half representing understanding. The visible half is also unequally divided, with the smaller half representing imagination and the larger half representing belief. 

Imagination

Smallest segment of the DL: about shadows and reflections of individual things (take those shadows to be the objects themselves): when prisoner is still tied down and looking at the shadows cast by the flame and puppets in the cave.

Belief

larger part of visible world: about the individual things that cast the shadows, still not talking about any forms though (unable to have any knowledge): when the prisoner breaks free and is able to turn around, he sees the fire and the things casting the shadows on the cave wall.

Thought

smaller part of the intelligible world. Using the objects of beliefs (individuals) to discover something about forms (creating a kind of knowledge). Using a specific example to demonstrate something that is true of a universal (what we do when we study a triangle, take that image to find something true of all triangles): when the prisoner is looking at the reflections in the pond outside of the cave. (Republic as a book is operatin at the level of thought). Starts with hypotheses and arrives at a conclusion while assuming a first principle of knowledge, never demonstrates that principle

Understanding

Eliminates the images and only thinking about forms. The largest segment of the divided line. The last thing understanding discovers is the form of the good, which is then used as a first principle of knowledge to confirm all other knowledges: when the prisoner actually sees the things in the visible world and finally is able to look at the sun

The different types of government & their corresponding soul

Aristocratic soul: the most virtuous, ruled by the rational part of the soul so they value virtue and wisdom. Timocratic soul: ruled by a spirited part, so the timocratic soul will seek out honor (more open to art and music: natural auxiliary souls, shouldn’t be in charge of kallipolis). Oligarchic soul: ruled by appetites, but the necessary appetites (those we are unable to resist, will desire money but appear virtuous outwardly). Democratic soul: doesn’t distinguish between necessary and unnecessary appetites → treats all pleasures equally and indulges whatever they want (because they think that the freedom to choose what to indulge in is our greatest good). Tyrannical soul: ruled by unnecessary, unlawful appetites and acts on them. 

Plato’s critique of democracy

Plato believes that democracy is bad for your soul because the democratic soul is ruled by the appetitive part of the soul. Freedom is held to be democracy’s highest good, which is not good for our soul because it allows people to feel free to indulge whatever appetites they wish to indulge in. Indulging appetites will only make the appetitive part of the soul stronger, and will make it harder for people to be ruled by their rational part. Plato believes that people will ultimately be unhappy if they are ruled by their appetites and will not be platonically free (platonic freedom: being ruled by rationality). Plato’s critique of democracy is that democracy is bad for your soul and allows for injustice. 

Plato’s critique of poetry

Plato believes that the artists do not have any knowledge of what they are talking about, and that the arts are more likely to appeal to the non-rational parts of the soul (the emotions and appetites), thus making them stronger and making it more likely that people will do injustice. Exemplifies this through the three beds: the form of the bed, the carpenter who makes actual beds (must know something about the form in order to partially embody it), the artist’s rendering of the bed: based off of an imitation of a form, so it is an imitation of an imitation and tells us nothing about the form of bed.