In what sense does Plato’s account of human nature and the state treat both as organic?
Plato’s conception of the soul is analogous to the state, both organic ( distinct, organized, structured). A rational organism is a thinking subject composed of parts whose relation to the world would be the same as that of an individuals organs to the body [Lovibond]. In Plato’s description of the soul, each part works together for the good, in the same way that in the state, each person works together to constituent the good for the community. Each part of the soul and community are organized in a certain way to attain the good for the individual or the state.
How does Plato relate the corruption of the state to the corruption of human nature?
The state becomes corrupted when it increases in size and this leads to, “ a multitude of occupations none of which is concerned with necessaries” (373b); thus there is a shift towards appetite desires. The three parts of the soul are precisely analogous to the three social classes of the state, conflict between the community leads to anarchy, just as conflict between the three parts of the soul leads to a conflict in the individual, and as a result making the wrong decision. The guardians and auxiliaries (reason and spirit), are the better parts of the soul while craftsmen and workers (appetite), must be kept under control, otherwise there will be conflict. Kenny states that reason should rule, with spirit as its ally, both control appetite.
How do Plato and Glaucon differ with regard to the idea that man is perfectible?
Plato says that if we use the three parts of the soul in the correct way, not allow one desire to over throw another desire, we can achiever harmony and do the right thing which is what ever individual aims at, the good and this is morally good, or perfectibility. Glaucon has a negative interpretation of the human nature, he states that it is natural for men to pursue their own interests regardless of others, but society could not run like that and as a result there is a compromise. It appears that in Glaucon’s opinion we do not act for justice’s sake, thus it is not a morally or virtuous act therefore we can not be perfectible.
What is the connection between Plato’s view of human nature, his account of the simple city and his account of the ideal state?
The human nature is made up of the tripartite soul, the simple city is made up of three types of people who possess their own skills, and the ideal state is “when its three natural constituents were doing their job,” (435b). Justice and morality occur when the three parts of the soul and the three types of people work together to attain the good for the individual and thus the community. Plato states that in the ideal state the guardians must rule, in the same way that reason should rule the soul. Appetite (workers) should be controlled by the guardians (reason) and auxiliaries (spirit). Lovibond states that the spirit is like a psychic standing army, who are intermediary of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ elements but always in principle in service of the better. If the rational part of the soul is dominant we can perceive the goodness, and control our lives, in the same way that guardians protect and rule the state, so that it remains in harmony.
How plausible is Plato’s account of human nature and the state of nature?
It appears plausible because the connection between the properties of the individual are also present in the properties of the state of nature. Plato’s account depends upon the theory of contrariety (436 b-c), which states, “Clearly one and the same thing cannot act or be affected in opposite ways at the same time in the same part of it and in relation to the same objects.” It also takes into account the possibility of internal conflicts, or Plato’s theory of weakness of will which leads to distinguishing different desires and the tripartite soul. It also takes into account conflicting desires in both human nature and the state of nature, which allows for the principle of contrariety to apply. It is usually the case that our ability to use reason to make a decision is far greater than using appetite, but these desires can conflict due to the tripartite soul, which makes weakness of will possible.
However, Plato does not take into account other possibilities such as all members of the state acting morally. The three divisions in the state may act for the good of the state but that does not mean they will always act morally automatically. It does not take into account the possibility of an unjust ruler. Another question that must be asked is, does your ability to reason always lead you to do the moral action? And will you always act on that moral action?
