The Cities of Plato and Socrates

2008

The search for the concept of justice in a multitude of forms has been the highlight of Platonic thoughts and scholarship. According to ancient and classical Greek jurisprudence, Socrates had made it the focus of his arguments to seek the quintessence of justice and after his death, that task became the raison d'être of Plato, the most renowned among the Socratic disciples. The creation of the ideal state based on the hallmark of justice was the Socratic dream, which Plato sought to achieve and substantiate in his own manner of arguments, characterized with an amalgamation of logical precision and philosophical brilliance. He traced the contours of complexities of the roles of the individuals and groups of citizens, created the allegory of the Cave in an erudite attempt to emphasize the necessity for virtues and by means of his Theory of Forms and Theory of Souls, laid down the framework of which on which the ideal city-state should rest. The paper also describes the modification made by Aristotle in Platonic theories and the manner in which the said theories have been subjected to changes in course of time. The paper concludes with the author's interpretation of Plato's primary and secondary goals in penning creations such as the Republic, degree of success attained by him in course of his quest and the criticisms leveled against his approach by contemporary and later scholars.

Plato, 2022

This paper argues that the dialogical dynamic gives important information on the importance of, and the hierarchy between, the reasons illustrated in favour of justice in Plato's Republic. Despite his interlocutors' request to focus exclusively on the effect of justice in and by itself, Socrates indicates that the description of the consequences of justice included in Book 10 (608c2-621d3) is an integral part of his defence, and that some of these consequences, the rewards assigned by the gods in the afterlife, are more important than both the other consequences of justice and the benefit of justice in and by itself.

's political philosophy is the first critical theoretical analysis of political life. It is probably at the heart of Plato's philosophy: his most complete and well-known book, the Republic, is centered on the fundamental political topic of justice. Plato considers the best and most practicable kinds of administration (in the Republic and Laws), the breadth of political knowledge or "science" (in the Statesman), and the correct approach to evaluate forms of governance such as democracy and oligarchy, among other political topics. Furthermore, Plato's understanding of politics extends beyond what is presented in these three dialogues. The Gorgias deal with justice, the Apology with Socrates' trial and conviction, and the Crito with law observance. Furthermore, Plato's discussion of politics is broader than what we generally include in political studies in the early twenty-first century. It addresses issues such as the relationship between political life and philosophical research, the meaning of character virtues and how they relate to politics, and the aspects and capacities of the human soul. As a result, a

This is an uncorrected pre-publication version of one chapter of my Book "Knowledge and Truth in Plato". Please use the published version and cite by the page numbers in that book.

In this paper I challenge the widespread idea that Plato (or Socrates) proposes a definition of justice in the Republic. I consider what it would be for a term like "justice" to be univocal across the two different domains that Plato considers, the state and the soul, and argue that he does not think that there needs to be a common definition. I explore how Socrates can deliver knowledge of what justice is, by describing an imaginary city in action, without ever giving or receiving anything like a definition. And I consider and reject two famous challenges that have supposed that there is something wrong with Plato's method and with the analogical reasoning it employs.

2017

Plato's <em>Republic, </em>as the dialogue is known in English, is a classic, perhaps <em>the </em>classic investigation of the reasons why human beings form political communities —or "cities" in his terms. In the <em>Republic</em> Socrates inquires into the origins of the city in order to discover what justice "writ big" is. But in the process of constructing his "city"—or, actually, "cities"—" in speech," Socrates does not offer us a definition of justice so much as he shows us the reasons why no actual city is ever apt to be perfectly just. From Plato's <em>Republic </em>we thus understand why justice is difficult, if not impossible to achieve for communities, but may be a virtue of private individuals.

Forthcoming, 2023

Plato is not the author of the first political writings that have come down to us. Even in classical Greece he was preceded by such authors as Herodotus and Isocrates. Nevertheless, he can be considered the “father” of political philosophy, in that he tries to apply a higher standard—justice—to the experience and the political theory of statesmen and citizens, previously presented by rhetoricians and sophists as morally indifferent. Today it seems evident to us that justice should be the principle used in organizing a political society and that, if a society is too unjust, then it should be reformed through political means: either peacefully through legislation, or even through a violent revolution which turns everything upside down. From Plato we have inherited the idea that justice is something we should aspire to. The central theme of classical philosophy is the development of a doctrine of “the best regime,” which in essence means the most just regime. There is, however, a chasm between ancient and modern political doctrines. The “best regime”, for the ancients, doesn’t seem to be an ideal to be achieved, but rather a sort of “mental experience” which reveals the limits of what can be expected in political life. The goal of this experience is, according to Cicero, to make apparent the principles of political life, and not to give birth to an actual, real city. According to this interpretation, the most beautiful city, Calpollis—which Socrates proposes in the Republic and which raises countless objections from his interlocutors—isn’t a likely scenario, and perhaps not even a possible one. Socrates’ companions, among them Plato’s elder brothers, even ask themselves whether such a city would be desirable. The most famous of Plato’s dialogues should, therefore, be interpreted more like a comedy, rather than a sort of intellectual debate which seeks to find principles for an actual society. Pascal stated that the work wasn’t to be seen as a serious one, but rather a sort of demonstration through a reduction to the absurd. For the ancients, the best regime might not be contrary to nature, but it is extremely unlikely to be achieved. Justice is a virtue of the soul, but the systematic implementation of this standard in the city will always reveal itself to be paradoxical, in light of the ridiculous consequences that would result, such as the abolition of the family and of private property, the purging of the main Hellenic cultural works, the abolition of poetry, and a government by “philosophers”, who can’t even find their way around the public square (meaning that they lack practical experience). Even if their projects were implemented, they would meet so much resistance that it would be necessary to ban all persons older than ten years from the city. The conclusion seems to be that it is not possible to formulate a theory of justice which stipulates the best political institutions and the best laws, without relying to a great extent on the virtue of the citizenry. This perspective strikes us as alien, and it is almost incomprehensible that Plato wouldn’t at least try to put the conjectures of his characters into practice. The traditional view of the Republic in the twentieth century, on the contrary, is that Plato seriously proposes a reign by philosophers, equality between men and women in the military and in public life, shared property, and a communist totalitarian state, or at least a kind of kibbutz avant la lettre, which takes children from the family to ensure social equality. It is said, moreover, that in Plato’s opinion, philosophers should be the counselors of princes, prepared to manipulate the crowds with noble lies. To understand Plato’s political teachings, we are required to read his works as dialogues, in their dramatic context, detecting irony, and without assuming that Plato agrees with what Socrates says to his interlocutors. Whichever way we interpret him, it is undeniable that no political theory since Plato has been able to dispense with the notions of justice and of an “ideal” political regime, one “in accordance with our prayers”—and it was Plato who placed these notions at the heart of political philosophy.

History of Political Thought, 2015

Plato’s interest in the concept of justice is pronounced and familiar. So too is his antagonism towards classical Athenian democracy. This paper connects the two by locating Plato’s transcendental conceptualization of justice as a direct response to the inter-subjective construction of justice in Athens’ democratic courts. The paper comprises four sections. The first identifies Athens’ popular courts as Plato’s primary institutional target when criticizing democracy. The second examines the difference between the concepts “to dikaion” and “dikaiosynē” and considers the special importance of this distinction in Plato’s Republic. The third examines how “to dikaion” was decided in the popular courts in Athens, and the fourth casts Plato’s treatment of this concept as an intervention against the conceptualization of what is right suggested by these practices. I draw special attention to an affinity between Plato’s approach and the alternative Athenian conception of right advanced in its homicide courts, in which context the gods were thought to be especially interested. I suggest that Plato’s distinctive contribution to the theorization of justice can be understood as an attempt to extend the conception of “to dikaion” advanced in Athens’ homicide courts to cover the field of right in general--with significant consequences for the history of political thought.