Evaluation of Plato's Just City

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

CHATPER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE
AN EVALUATION OF PLATO’S JUST STATE
3.1 THE JUST CITY
3.2 CRITICISMS OF THE JUST CITY
3.3 RELEVANCE OF PLATO’S JUST CITY

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Plato, in his book the Republic proposed an idea of a Just City, which he believes is the best way to solve the issue of injustice in the society. My aim in this paper is to analyse the relevance of the Just City of Plate in our contemporary society. I concluded that; the Just State of Plato is relevant in contemporary society since it helps in solving the issue of corruption, favouritism and the empowerment of women to also rule. Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenological method was used.

KEY TERMS

Plato, Just State, Contemporary Society, Corruption, Philosopher King, Private Property

DEDICATION

To you, my mum Gladys Dibuamah,

my dad Gershon Dzikunu,

my siblings especially my twin brother Wisdom Atsu Dzikunu

my aunty Mrs Florence Demanya,

my late Aunty Miss Patience Enyonam Adzasu

and to all who suffer political injustices

I dedicate this work

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work wouldn’t have seen the light of the day without the love, guidance and mercy of God.

I acknowledge the Comboni Missionaries of the Heart of Jesus, (MCCJ), who gave me the first opportunity in my formation process.

My profound appreciation goes to Rev. Fr. Dr. Joseph Okine-Quartey, who journeyed with me through this work and without whose help and support this work would not have been completed.

Thanks to my Formator, Rev. Fr. Francisco Machado Jose de Sousa, MCCJ. For all his advices, support and love for me since the day I started my journey of Formation.

I wish to express my gratitude to Helena Ayensu, Michael Etsey, Irene Machu and Deladem Demanya who accepted to read through this work. Your corrections and addition were greatly important to this work. God bless you.

My heart felt appreciation to the Rector Very Rev. Fr. Francis Arthur and the entire teaching Staff of the St. Paul’s Catholic Seminary for the knowledge they have impacted in me

Rev. Fr. Hillary Agbenosi cannot be left out. Thanks for the technical advice you gave at the inception of this work.

To my family, friends, confreres and classmates, I say a big thanks.

My final thanks goes to all who in one way or the other encouraged, supported and shared in my dream.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The issue of living a just life in the society is a great desire of all in the world. However, people are denied the access to this just life. In our contemporary society, one needs to give out something in the form of bribe in order to be given the chance to a just life. We also live in a society where those who live a just life are seen as bad and vice versa. One major cause of this is how we are being ruled by those in authority. This is because politicians generally make promises which aim at making the attainment of justice possible. However, upon assuming authority to rule, they tend up to govern with their own selfish motivations. This can be seen not only in the State but also in churches and our schools, where those in authorities tend to abuse those entrusted to their care. This is not a problem only of the present time, but a problem which has existed before the Common Era.

Plato an Ancient Greek Philosopher, in trying to address this issue, develops a theory of the Just City in his famous work The Republic. The Just City of Plato was meant to solve this problem of justice in the Greek Society. In doing this, Plato spoke through the mouth of his teacher Socrates.

Socrates at the beginning refutes the various definitions by Cephalus (who began the argument), Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. After refuting their definitions of justice, he was forced to give a definition of justice. In defining justice; “Socrates uses a lengthy description of what a Just City would look like as a scaffolding for his argument in favour of justice as an ethical guide for individuals” (Connolly & Steil, 2009). Socrates did this in order to defend his position on justice. Plato hence in books IV-VIII, gives a detailed feature of how a Just City would look like. Some of the major features of the Just City includes; the feminist role, marriage and children, communism and rule by the Philosopher King. He also describes the various roles of the leaders and citizens in the City.

In my opinion, the main aim of the Just City is to give the best society where everyone will leave in unity and peace. Plato gave various forms or governances such as timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. For Plato, the best form of rule is the tyranny which is a totalitarian form of governance as against the democratic one of the Greeks.

The Just City appears very difficult to practice. He himself admitted it when asked by Glaucon (471c-473b). Socrates claimed that this will be possible if Philosophers rule as kings and kings rule as philosophers (473c-d). Aside this difficulty which Socrates accepts with the Just City, it is of great importance in our contemporary society. One may ask; why is it of great importance to us today? It is of importance because, it presents us with various ways to make a State Just and well-lived. It also shows how to eradicate corruption which I think is the reason he proposed the Philosopher King not to own property.

The aim of this paper is to give a critical analysis of the Just City of Plato. In doing this I will divide the third chapter will be divided into three broad parts. The first part would look at what the Just City is all about. In this part I would look at the features of the Just City and the rule by the Philosopher King. Socrates has already admitted the difficulty of the existence of the Just City. Hence, in the second part, I would look at some criticisms to the Just City. Finally, in the third part, I will focus on the relevance of the Just City of Plato in our contemporary society. From this, I will look at whether the Just City is relevant to our Contemporary Society.

CHATPER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the Republic, Plato proposes a type of City he thinks is Just. His aim therefore is to help in solving the issue of injustices in the world at his time. He proposes a traditional communist society where there will be a common sharing, common wives and children, the abolishing of the family system, and specialisation amongst others. This review of literatures relates to the problems and solutions associated with the said project of Plato and the relevance of his kind of state in Contemporary Society. The works of Hegel, Strauss, Annas and Klosko will be reviewed in this article.

Hegel in his article The Philosophy of Plato, examines the Just City of Plato. He claims that “Plato’s State is built on ethics rather than on politics or morality” (Hegel, 1870). This is so because of the functions of the legislatures, the defence of the commonwealth against enemies from without and provision for the wants of the individuals. Though all this is ethical, in my opinion, I think the Just City is rather built on politics since it deals with governance and how it can secure a comfortable life for all in the State. Hegel also identifies the problem of exclusion of subjective freedom where one is denied free choice of vocation and the doing away with the ownership of private property. This is true in the State of Plato. However, I think this is going to help in making the City check the fight against the illegal accumulation of wealth and corruption. Hegel also makes an allusion to the elimination of marriage even though the element of the State is family. However is the City to be ruled by the family? No. Rather the family is only going to increase the population in the State.

In examining Plato’s Just State, Strauss argued that the Just State of Plato is not possible since it is against human nature to cease evil (The City and Man, 1964). For Straus, Plato’s concept of the State means, man cannot do away with the problem of evil. For Plato to talk of preventing evil in the State makes it impossible to bring the Just State into reality. He again argues that equality of sexes and absolute communism is also against nature. How can this be against nature? In my views both men and women are capable of doing same things. However, women are still considered as lower to men, hence the conclusion of Strauss. I on the contrary, stand with Plato that the role of women in governance is important, hence must be given equal access to rule in the Just State.

Reflecting on the same issue, Julia Annas in her book, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, claimed that “only Plato’s State is really a city” (Annas, 1981). This is because all the citizens are united in finding harmony between the interests of the city as a whole and their individual interests as members of the same group. She again claimed that, “actual cities are by this test not really cities, because they contain groups that see themselves as having conflicting interests” (Annas, 1981). An example is the conflict between the rich and the poor which leads to disunity among members in the actual city. The removal of nuclear families and the common possession of property according to Annas, are meant to make the city more united. This for her is a necessary requirement for an Ideal State.

Klosko writing on “Implementing the Ideal State” argues that; “though the Philosopher cannot rise to power, he can only hope to influence those who are in power” (Klosko, 1981). In my opinion, Klosko identifies the ill-recognition of the Philosopher. Hence to be able to play a role in bringing the Just State of Plato into reality they can only be chosen as advisers to the rulers. He also suggested that, for the Just City to be made real, political powers must find their way into philosophic hands. Finally, he argued that, though Plato’s radical reform is almost impossible to implement though its value in contemporary society is important. This indicates that, the Plato’s theory of the Just State though difficult to implement, has great impact to make on the Contemporary Society.

In conclusion, the above Literature shows that scholars believe that the Just State of Plato is unachievable in Contemporary Society because it seems unrealistic. However, in contemporary society, there is the need to re-look at the theory of the Just State of Plato because of the injustices and the rise in corruption that abound.

CHAPTER THREE

AN EVALUATION OF PLATO’S JUST STATE

3.1 THE JUST CITY

3.1.2 Features of the Just State

To sketch a Just City, Socrates does not take a currently or previously existing city as his model and offer adjustments. He insists on starting from scratch, reasoning from the causes that would bring a city into being (369a–b). This makes his portrait of a Just City different from the real cities. In this section, my aim is to look at the constituent elements in Plato’s Just State.

Class

Plato believes “a State comes into existence because no individual is self-sufficing, we all have many needs.” Hence, Plato described the State in the light of the individual’s soul. He categorised the soul into three parts: that is the reason, the spirit and the appetitive. According to Stumpf, “Plato identified three activities going on in a person” (Stumpf, 1994). These activities are: awareness of a goal, a drive toward actions and finally a desire for things for the body; which he attributed the reason, spirit and appetite respectively. The function of the reason is seek the true goal of human life and it does so by evaluating things according to their true nature (Stumpf, 1994). The spirit is the part that loves honour and winning (518b). The function of the appetitive part is the desiring part of the soul. It pleasure for things of the body such as food, drink, sex among others. The reason work with and upon spirit and appetite. It is based on this that Plato makes his division of the City.

In the Just State of Plato, there exists three different classes. These are: the farmers and artisan class, the military or auxiliary class and the guardian class. In these classes, each is assigned a particular duty to perform. The class of farmers and artisans is to produce for the auxiliaries and the Guardian. The auxiliaries are to help at war and the guardians are those who are to rule in the State. Plato hence associated the parts of the soul which are the reason, spirit and appetite to the guardian, auxiliaries and the farmers and artisan classes respectively.

Ernest Barker categorised the classes based on their functions as Economic, Military and Philosophic for the farmers, auxiliaries and the guardian classes respectively. The economic factor of the State Barker argued that “the desire for food and warmth and shelter cannot be properly satisfied except by means of common sharing” (Barker, 1977). Why would Barker put up this argument? This I believe he argued because, without common sharing of these basic needs of man, we will always be in want. Since some will be having more than others and this will lead to the State not to be economically fit to be run. Economic factor is again seen in the class of the farmers because their way of life leads to division of labour and specialisation (Barker, 1977). Since each performs the task he is best suited with, then I believe this can be also a reason for the class of farmers to be categorised based on economics.

The military function in the State has to do with the issue of war. This is where the auxiliaries go to fight on behalf of the State. The military function Barker also argued that “the question of specialisation is needed” (Barker, 1977). As one may ask why? In response to this question on specialisation, Barker believes, “there is the need to constitute a well-trained army and this require a specialisation in discharging their duties” (Barker, 1977). In my view, specialisation will help the auxiliaries to attain victory for the State since they end up gaining more knowledge and skills in defending the State. The philosophic function of the State basically is based on the rule by Guardians through the use of wisdom hence philosophy. The guardians class are those Plato gives the power to rule in the State. However, they must be philosophically equipped in order to rule.

Noble lie

In the Republic, Plato talks about the issue of the noble lie (see 414b to 415). The noble lie is in two forms: firstly, the guardians and auxiliaries would be told their education was a dream and in truth they were formed deep within the earth and released with the duty of protecting the city (414d-e).

Secondly, that the gods created them using a mixture of gold in the souls of those who are to rule, silver in the souls of auxiliaries and bronze and iron in the souls of the skilled workers. The noble lie, Plato argued that is to be believed by everybody in the State. (415a-c).

According to Julia Annas “the noble lie is in the interest of unity, citizens are to be brought to accept a story which is avowedly not true” (Annas, 1981). Sheppard is also of the view that; “the purpose of the myth of metal is to instil the belief that each individual’s position in the society is divinely ordained and thereby part of the natural order” (Sheppard, 2009). Hence, the noble lie in the Just State is to help each individual to know what one ought to do in order to bring unity and growth to the State and help bring about checks and balances.

Common Ownership of Property and Wives

One feature of great importance in the Republic is the issue of ownership of private property and wives. Firstly, Socrates believes that in the Just State, the guardians are not to own properties, to live in common with no houses of their own, but rather as if in a camp and if they acquired property, they would soon be divided against the citizens and would bring the city to ruin (416d–417b). According to Plato, property should be owned by the guardians in a way that, that would civilize and humanize them. Habitations and all that belongs to them should be such as would not impair their virtue nor tempt them to prey on other citizens. The guardian should not have private property beyond what is absolutely necessary. Should they obtain homes or lands or monies of their own, they would become housekeepers and husbandmen rather than guardians; they would become enemies and tyrants rather allies of citizens, hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against. They would live their whole lives in terror of internal rather than external enemies. This for Plato is not how the City should be (see 418).

Annas argues that, “this would make the city more of a unity as required by the Ideal City” (Annas, 1981). The Platonic communism has the following implications associated with it. Firstly, personal property will lead to individualism and selfishness where one will be interested in only himself and forget about the other. Secondly, Plato wanted a separation of the economic power and the political power. Fusing the two powers will bring about corruption and mismanagement; since the guardian will or might be more interested in the economic part rather than the political rule. Hence deprive the ruler from ruling wisely.

Plato does not only speak about common ownership of properties but also the common ownership of women and children. (457b-c). However, why would Plato propose this in the Just State? In answering this; Barker argues that “Plato wished the rulers of his Ideal State to be troubled neither by distraction from their work nor by temptation to self-interest” (Barker, 1977). In my view; the common ownership of women and children is to prevent temptation because, since all wives are held in common. Again, the first loyalty of a man is to his wife and children. Hence, if the wife and children of the guardian expect favors from the ruler who is their husband and father, there will be the tendency for the ruler to become corrupt since he will be willing to satisfy the needs of his family. Hence cutting this off, will forestall the danger of corruption. When he does not have enough, he will try to steal from the State to cater for his family and for himself. It is also a means of fighting against class discrimination. Where each have access to all and not to a specific person. Finally, it will help prevent contention between the guardian’s love for the family and the State.

[...]