Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We return now to where we were at the start of Book 5, when Socrates had finished constructing his perfect city and was going to go on to analyze it when he was diverted by what turned out to be Books 5, 6, and 7, often called the philosophical books.

We saw back in Books 2, 3, and 4 what a just city is. So now we’re going to study the unjust city and with it unjust man, with the eventual goal of proving that it is better to be just than unjust.

While there are as many types of governments as there are cities, they fall, Socrates argues, into four basic categories: what he calls timocracy (a term I understand he invented), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, or despotism. (I consider monarchy to be a form of timocracy; does anybody disagree with this, and want to consider it, perhaps, tyranny?)

So. Do we agree on the broad outlines of his forms of government, and do we agree with his presentation of the reasons each one is imperfect or unjust?

(A side issue that may be worth discussing, when we have worked through our understanding of Plato’s forms of government, is whether what we in the Western World today, and in particular in the United States, more closely follows the form of Plato’s democracy, or his oligarchy. But that’s a diversion, though perhaps an interesting one.)

Socrates makes a very close connection between the degree of virtue in a government and the degree of virtue in the people governed. I've heard that the Greeks regarded one's connection with society as much more important than we modern individualists do. I guess this is an example.

I notice we commonly refer to the metals making up the Noble Lie as gold, silver, and bronze but often where I expect to read bronze, I read various combinations of bronze, iron and brass instead.

[3.415a]. . .yet God in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule mingled gold in their generation, for which reason they are the most precious—but in the helpers silver, and iron or brass in the farmers and other craftsmen.

[8.547a] Hesiod's and our races of gold, silver, bronze and iron. And this intermixture of the iron with the silver and the bronze with the gold. . .

[8.547b] . . .the iron and bronze towards money-making and the acquisition of land and houses and gold and silver, and the other two, the golden and silvern. . .

What is going on with the bronze, iron and brass souls? Are iron and brass distinct subdivisions of bronze, laborers vs. craftsmen, or are they three distinct subdivisions of the third class of souls? Can iron, brass, and bronze interbreed with each other? Is there something to this or is it a phenomenon of translation or a lazy desire for a benign shortcut to describe the Nobel Lie?

Plat. Rep. 8.546b - Plato's number, aka, Plato's marriage number.

I have reviewed a couple of websites on this and this number seems to be 216 because the Pythagorean 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3 = (2(female number?) X 3(male number?))^3 all = 216. However, 216 is not the only candidate.

Whatever this number is, has anyone figured out how it is intended to be used in the timing of reproduction? Is it some unit of time between two dates, a waiting period, or is it somehow like biorhythms or some form of numerology or astrological reading?

Everyman wrote: "Do we agree on the broad outlines of his forms of government, and do we agree with his presentation of the reasons each one is imperfect or unjust?"

Much of it sounds agreeable, but it is too rigid because I find it possible for all of these types of regimes to be judged either just or unjust in the end, except for the tyrant. Benevolent/just dictator, maybe. Benevolent/just tyrant, no. I found S/P identified five types of cities/governments. The first being aristocracy, which S/P called just. The other four regimes are viewed as lesser regimes with progressively lesser amounts of justice. This ranking makes sense as S/P defines each regime, but I think it is possible for all but the tyrannical regime to exist and be as reasonably just as S/P's aristocracy. It is also a matter of perspective and subjective reputation. I am sure there are some that would call Kemal Attaturk a tyrant for his forced reforms, while others would see him as sternly benevolent and progressive.

Everyman wrote: "I consider monarchy to be a form of timocracy; does anybody disagree with this?"

At first I had trouble with just what a timocracy was, but I am finding it useful to think of rule by military dictatorship or a military tribunal, possibly like Rome; Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus, et.al. https://modernplatonist.wordpress.com... Of course a military dictatorship is a path to tyranny that could occur during any of the 4 other regimes which breaks S/P's cycle of regimes. Also, 12 US presidents were generals and several others were in the military and they all worked within in a democratic republic, Washington is probably the most notable for this distinction.

As for monarchies, despite all of the proud pomp, military and military-like ceremony surrounding them which may make them appear timocratic, I have usually viewed them as an artifical aristocracy as Jefferson did:

There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 28 Oct. 1813
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founde...

Plato tells us that the society would be much more logical, just, and happy if we only let him organize everything. That's a common failing of very smart intellectuals.

Roger wrote: "Plato tells us that the society would be much more logical, just, and happy if we only let him organize everything. That's a common failing of very smart intellectuals."

A failing they share with dictators.

Roger wrote: "Plato tells us that the society would be much more logical, just, and happy if we only let him organize everything. That's a common failing of very smart intellectuals."

Tamara wrote: "A failing they share with dictators."

Does our now being informed of this common failing exclude us from the sets of all very smart intellectuals and dictators, or just the subsets of the ones that don't know it yet? :)

I don't think tyrannical dictators would necessarily care, except in a paranoid way. Very smart intellectuals might more legitimately care, but what are they to do about it when the idea that trying to please everyone is generally viewed as a bad idea?

Thinking to have it right and prescribable is a deplorable tendency of all intelligentsia. What distinguishes the truly intelligent is a perpetual reserve, an ongoing bracketing, a fear and trembling, a willful dialectical self-undercutting. The S/P duality, the dramatics of dialogue, a sprinkling of swerves, and the ever backgrounded squashing of the gadfly alleviate some of the thought experiments of the Republic. There are many moments where I would like to spit in the eye of S/P. But those are moments, and moments may amount only to a brief swing out to the periphery of the sphere of discourse. Add to that the relativity required to imagine back to an era where waging war consisted of much more than a crude amassing of dollars for fancy technology and a corollary manipulation of a media-collectivized mass psyche. The drumbeat of war feels like the rhythm of Book 8.

David wrote: "At first I had trouble with just what a timocracy was, but I am finding it useful to think of rule by military dictatorship or a military tribunal, possibly like Rome; Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus, et.al. https://modernplatonist.wordpress.com... Of course a military dictatorship is a path to tyranny that could occur during any of the 4 other regimes which breaks S/P's cycle of regimes. Also, 12 US presidents were generals and several others were in the military and they all worked within in a democratic republic, Washington is probably the most notable for this distinction.
"

When I was reading I looked in the dictionary and saw that it gave two definitions for timocracy:

1:government in which a certain amount of property is necessary for office

2: government in which love of honor is the ruling principle

I had been reading through the section with the first definition in mind, and was completely confused (especially after he gave property assessment as the definition for oligarchy), but given that he views these men as more "spirited" and therefore given to war, the military definition makes so much more sense. Thanks for the link.

Everyman wrote: "(A side issue that may be worth discussing, when we have worked through our understanding of Plato’s forms of government, is whether what we in the Western World today, and in particular in the United States, more closely follows the form of Plato’s democracy, or his oligarchy. But that’s a diversion, though perhaps an interesting one.)
"

I'm not sure that I necessarily understand S's forms of government, but some of his predictions for a democracy were interesting:

*"And as for themselves and their own, aren't their young luxurious and without taste for work of body or of soul, too soft to resist pleasures and pains, and too idle?"

*"And what about this? Isn't the gentleness toward some of the condemned exquisite? Or in such a regime haven't you yet seen men who have been sentenced to death or exile, nonetheless staying and carrying on right in the middle of things; and, as though no one cared or saw, stalking the land like a hero?"

*"To whichever one happens along, as though it were chosen by the lot, he hands over the rule within himself until it is satisfied; and then again to another, dishonoring none but fostering them all on the basis of equality."

*"And there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but calling this life sweet, free, and blessed he follows it throughout."

*"As the teacher upils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers, as well as of their attendants. And, generally, the young copy their elders and compete with them in speeches and deeds while the old come down to the level of the young; imitating the young, they are overflowing with facility and charm, and that;s so that they wont seem to be unpleasant or despotic."

*"Then, summing up all of these things tofether, do you notice how tender they make the citizen's soul, so that if someone proposes anything that smacks in any way of slavery, they are irritated and can't stand it? And they end up, as you well know, by paying no attention to the laws, written or unwritten, in order that they may avoid having any master at all."

*"Too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery, both for private man and city."

*"Therefore, they always get a share, to the extent that the leaders, in taking away the substance of those who have it and distributing it among the people, are able to keep the greatest part for themselves."

*"And therefore, when they see that the people are trying to do them an injustice, not willingly but out of ignorance and because they are deceived by the slanderers (media?), they end up..by becoming truly oligarchs."

Is this America? If it is, though we aren't entirely sure what "good" is, is it bad? If it's bad, could any of these things just as easily occur in other regimes? (Though not, of course, not in S's "perfectly just" aristocracy.)

I wonder if S/P's rigid and cyclical regression of regimes was a result of a bias for Forms and a desire for order?

David wrote: "I notice we commonly refer to the metals making up the Noble Lie as gold, silver, and bronze but often where I expect to read bronze, I read various combinations of bronze, iron and brass instead.
..."

I'm not sure why Shorey translates "brass" for khalkos there. The usual translation is bronze (or copper, but here it must be bronze). There is a different word for brass, which was rare in ancient Greece and almost as valuable as gold.

This whole passage is really interesting because Socrates has to explain how the best state can degenerate. It presumes first that the best state is possible, and then that it is vulnerable to corruption. I would think that the best state would not have this weakness, but apparently it does.... It reminds me again of Herodotus' Histories. Great cities fall and weaker ones rise to greatness.

The mumbo jumbo about the Muses here is also fascinating. I think it's a ruse, but he has to start somewhere. The best state can't just fall on its own, so blame the poets (who are women, by the way.)

The Muses create a generational problem which leads to faction and internal strife. Out of ignorance, the guardians match the wrong men and women, who then produce inferior offspring, who receive inferior educations, who produce even worse children, and the degeneration continues. It's interesting to see how each of the lesser states has a generational component -- each of them has a father-son relationship that illustrates the state's failings.

The crux of the problem seems to be generational in the sense that we are born and live and die, and this is a problem that Plato cannot escape. It occurs to me now that when Socrates makes women equal to men in Book 5 that he might actually be trying to remove women, as women, from the city altogether.

Thomas wrote: "This whole passage is really interesting because Socrates has to explain how the best state can degenerate. It presumes first that the best state is possible, and then that it is vulnerable to corruption. I would think that the best state would not have this weakness, but apparently it does...."

It seems he assumes that once you've reached the top, there's nowhere to go but down. Plus it seems the cycle of regressive regimes has to continue somehow.

Everyman wrote: "(A side issue that may be worth discussing, when we have worked through our understanding of Plato’s forms of government, is whether what we in the Western World today, and in particular in the United States, more closely follows the form of Plato’s democracy, or his oligarchy. But that’s a diversion, though perhaps an interesting one.)"

This is my favorite book (still reading it), because it raises so many interesting questions and issues about our own government. I certainly saw the United States in the description of oligarchy! It's also interesting to consider democracy as a "degenerate" form of government, when we value it so highly. I might argue that what we in the US are living in today is a government that has been in transition for 200 years from democracy to oligarchy. We continue to profess democratic ideals, but de facto we are oligarchic in so many ways. Just to quote a couple of lines that stuck out for me:

"...as each keeps an envious eye on his neighbour, their rivalry infects the great mass of them; and as they go to further lengths in the pursuit of riches, the more they value money and the less they care for virtue" (550).

"...they despise the poor man and promote to power the rich, who wins all their praise and admiration" (551).

And so on... I realize that the direction of movement I'm suggesting is backwards to Plato. He would say the oligarchy degenerates into democracy, and I'm suggesting the opposite. But according to Cornford's commentary, in The Statesman, which came later, "Plato regards even the more lawless type of democracy as superior to oligarchy, though not to timocracy." So maybe we're following the slide he anticipates after all. A depressing thought. I guess ultimately I have more confidence in our democratic form of government than I do in Plato's thinking (see Roger in 7 above), and on that note, I will move forward into my day!

In the 18th century the vote was limited to property-owners. Now it's open to anyone. You could say we've moved from oligarchy to democracy.

"Democracy" was not considered a good thing in the 18th century--it was regarded as mob rule.

Yes, in terms of who gets the vote. But in terms of how things actually operate, we're looking awfully oligarchic, at least as I see it.

Reminds me of an assembly at my husband's school a few years ago. The mayor of New Haven came to speak, and he had the entire assembly of about 700 stand. Then he had them sit down, one by one, as they "lost" their right to vote: women, those who didn't own property, etc. In 17th century New England, membership in the Congregational church was also a requirement. At the end, only two men were left standing.

Seth Benardete (in Socrates' Second Sailing: On Plato's Republic) points out an interesting thing about the section on democracy: the word "demos" never appears in it.

The regression of one regime into another through degenerative primogeniture puts me in mind of the stereotypical rebellious Preacher's Kid. For PK's there seems to be certain stresses and enough other variables well beyond the stereotype to stump the predictability of any outcomes. In fact, the opposite extreme of "angelic goody two-shoes" is another stereotypical expectation. Wouldn't a less stereotypical account be more realistic for S/P's regime changes? Is S/P propagating unfair generalizations?

Wouldn't some solutions to S/P's characterizations be more simply achieved with things like abolishing primogeniture and implementing term limits, although I think the Romans tried these with mixed results.

LOL, I'm a PK. I won't confess which kind. ;)
I must admit, I hadn't read the whole democracy section when I posted above. It almost struck me as satirical, P/S's griping tone: you know those democracies, with all their condemned criminals walking around in public, and people sitting on juries without a legal right just because it strikes their fancy, and this gem: "It will promote to honour anyone who merely calls himself the people's friend." Yup, I recognize that place in all its variety and inconsistency. So, maybe a democracy with oligarchical (?) tendencies is what we have. Not fitting nicely into Plato's stereotypical ideas about the progression/degeneration of regimes, I'd agree.