While reading “The Republic” I couldn’t help thinking about
how the conversation between Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon resembled a mini
utopia. For me, a utopia is all about a society that functions well as a whole,
and that’s what these three men do. Socrates takes hold of the conversation,
and Adeimantus and Glaucon happily go along with everything he says about their
fake society. On the rare occasion that they don’t understand or agree with
Socrates, it just takes another sentence of jargon to put them back on track.
The three men are able to come up with their own Socrates’ own version
of a society to judge because they function well enough together to map out the
aspects of a “luxurious city” (48).
If the men didn’t function collectively, it would have taken a much longer time
to set up a society.
I was also applying Socrates’ ideas for a society to the
three men. Socrates says that the best results come when “each person does one
thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is
released from having to do any others” (45). This notion can be applied to
Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon. Socrates puts all of his thoughts into
building a fake society, and by the end of Book III we are presented with a
society that is completely mapped out with its members, literature, music,
food, protection, etc. If Socrates spoke of other things and took his mind away
from building a society, it wouldn’t be as complete as it is. I agree with his
idea that restricting people to one profession is better than having people do
multiple jobs. Being proficient in one thing is better than knowing a little
about a lot of things. In the same regard, Adeimantus and Glaucon are
consistent in their continual agreement with Socrates. It’s like their singular
profession is to boost Socrates’ ego.
Socrates’ belief that the rulers of a society are the best
of the guardians (89) can also be tweaked to fit the three men. Among the three
men, Socrates is the best at setting up the fake society (that may be because
the other two never really get a chance to talk, but let’s go with it). If that’s
so, shouldn’t he be the ruler of the group of men? I’d argue that he is. Adeimantus
and Glaucon agree with everything Socrates is saying as if he is the master of
how a society is developed. If no one goes against Socrates’ concepts of what a
society is, then he’s the ruler of that fake society.
Applying Socrates’ notions of utopian society to the three
men speaking helped me picture the society more clearly. There were definitely
parts that confused me, like all the chatter about music, but there were also
parts that resonated with me. I think the basis of Socrates’ argument is that a
utopia needs individual people who are willing to perform tasks that benefit the
society as a whole, and that’s something that I agree with completely. Utopia
isn’t about pleasing people, it’s about making people work together cohesively
to form a functioning civilization.
This idea is so fantastically meta! I can't believe I didn't see it. What's always most fun about creating a Utopia is that no one is ever in disagreement. All the "citizens" are merely reflections of the author's personality. Revolution and reform only occur when the author changes his or her mind. Certainly, this is also true with the people in Plato's dialogues. (Except in Book I, where there's a big argument with Thrasymachus).
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I also really like how you draw comparisons between the speakers and the "luxurious city" (or Callipolis in Greek). However, some of the more specific parallels are a bit of a stretch. For instance, in section 412 Socrates states that the guardians must be watched from youth, to ensure objectively who would make the best leader. Obviously, this doesn't apply to Socrates. Also, in section 369 they agree that a state has a minimum of five people; yet, there are only three speakers.
Over all, marvelous observations I think.
Amen. There can't be any disagreement, or there wouldn't be utopia because it requires everyone to be on the same page regardless of if it makes them happy or not. The thing is though, even if you want to disagree with Socrates, it's like you can't argue that he's wrong because he does very plainly lay out this is what it is and this is why it is that way, and what he says makes logical sense. I like that you said the city reflects the people, because the whole of the republic is an analogy for the soul of a person.
ReplyDelete