PLATO The REPUBLIC HUMAN NATURE COMPREHENSION ESSAY 2 James Bell p01664492 Write a summary of the main topics discussed in the republic; pages 149 - 156 This section of the Republic concerns the philosopher rulers. Plato outlines his reasons for believing that philosophers should be entrusted with the running of the state in his discussion of Socrates and Glaucon. Plato had a vision of a ideal city and society; the Kallipolis. This city would be a utopia where all the people cooperated towards a common welfare. However Glaucon challenges Socrates to fulfil an earlier promise to demonstrate how such a city could come about. Socrates had avoided this question as what he had to say would be very scandalous, as philosophers were not that well thought of in Athenian society. Socrates replies to Glaucons challenge by saying that such a city as he had described it will only come about if Philosophers become kings or kings become Philosophers. Glaucon is understandably taken aback by this, and charges Socrates to explain himself before he is laughed down. Socrates explains that the philosopher rulers would be people trained to be to rule from a very early age, and would also have knowledge of the form of the good. Socrates was very much against anyone having the right to rule (and considered democracy to be one of the weakest methods of ruling), this was because he considered only philosophers and philosophers rulers to have the knowledge and intelligence to be able to rule effective. He explains this by showing Glaucon the difference between knowledge, ignorance and opinion. Socrates say that an art lover, who has seen many beautiful things has only an opinion of beauty. This is because all the man sees are imperfect sensible reflections of the form; beauty. What Socrates meant by this, is that a form is a perfect image or pattern tat all things are said to relate to, in some degree. An easy to understand example could be of bees. There are many types of bee, small ones, fat ones, etc; and yet all bee's have a bee'ness about them, something in them that makes us see a bee. This something, or pattern of a bee is the form of a bee. A philosopher ruler does not see beautiful things, rather the for of beauty that hey relate to. Socrates, now moves the discussion to a epistemological talk about the nature of knowledge, by making Glaucon admit that the philosopher loves truth as a whole. (Lit.Greek. Philo - To love, Sophia - Wisdom.) That is to say that the philosopher loves the truth as a whole, not just some of its parts. Socrates says that ignorance is something which is entirely unknown, and inversely knowledge is something which is known entirely. By this Socrates is saying that both knowledge (episteme) and ignorance (eikasia) are separate and singular. So the man who knows nothing of beauty is ignorant and therefore living under illusion of the form of beauty. However the man who has knowledge of the form of beauty, has grasped the truth and sees beauty clearly. Between these two extremes is the man knows the sensible particulars that reflect beauty, but has no grasp of the form of beauty, he can be said to have an opinion of the beautiful. He is living in either incomplete knowledge or a hazy idea of what is beautiful. Therefore opinion is between knowledge and ignorance, and can be seen as a stage which must be passed though to obtain the truth, ie. the forms. With this conclusion Socrates seeks to show that only the philosopher king sees reality as it really is (what the Japanese call Zanshin; clarity of vision). Socrates is suggesting that what is known though intellectual pursuits, is known better than more sensible or practical knowledge. The philosopher king would have knowledge of the forms and thereby the best to rule. Glaucon agrees with Socrates definitions that the philosophers alone have knowledge, and therefore are the best to rule. Possible objections to Socrates arguments could be as follows: i) Plato suggests alot about the mental and psychological make-up of his Philosopher rules, however he leaves his descriptions of the lower classes with more explanation to be desired, this society could not work unless all people work together so why leave out the "designing" of the lower classes to the level of the philosopher kings? ii) Power corrupts, and total power corrupts totally. These Philosopher kings have total power, even with their upbringing what is to stop them using their advanced intellect to overthrow the society? Who guards the guards? iii) Socrates state wit absolute power has been called the precursor of Totalitarianism, this method of ruling has never been known to be successful. However a counter argument to this is that Socrates philosopher rulers do not wish to rule for their own ends, more for the good of the people. They wish a state of non-conflict, not iron fisted control. The section after this involves a more full discussion into my point about the prejudice against the philosophic nature in Athenian society. Pages 280-292 Penguin classic edition.