BOOK VI: THE PHILOSOPHER KING Socrates begins this book by expressing his regret that the main topic of discussion-"discerning the differences between the just and the unjust life"- limits the depth of his remarks on the differences between the philosophic and nonphilosophic life. Nevertheless, the discussions here are devoted to explaining the nature of philosophers and philosophy. Five aspects of philosopher kings and their special kind of knowledge are explored: 1. the attributes of true philosophers; 2. why philosophers are considered bad sorts; 3. the possibility of philosopher kings; 4. the Idea of the Good; and 5. the Divided Line. ATTRIBUTES OF TRUE PHILOSOPHERS (484a-487a) Why should philosophers be kings? Answering this question, Socrates says, is the next logical step in theoretically establishing a regime for the good state. Socrates has already defined philosophers as those people who are capable of understanding eternal and unchanging truths. This definition, however, suggests impractical theory-weavers who lack the interest and common sense to govern a state. The rulers' task is to guard the laws and pursuits of society. Are philosophers suited to such a task? People whose task is to keep watch over things, Socrates argues, must have keen sight. Who has keener sight than those who have knowledge of the reality of things, of what things really are? Philosophers, by definition, have the keenest sight into reality. Glaucon agrees, but says that rulers need other qualities in addition to intellectual vision. His remark prompts Socrates to list the characteristics of true philosophers. True philosophers are educated from earliest childhood, as are all guardians, to act in accordance with the four excellences of human nature: wisdom, moderation, courage, and justice. But because they are endowed with an unusually fine native disposition (recall the Myth of the Metals where mother earth fashions rulers with veins of gold), their ways of displaying the four virtues are different in quality from the average guardian. Wisdom is revealed by their unflagging love of truth and by their continual demonstration of the spirit of truthfulness; moderation by their disregard of physical pleasures and by their immense delight in intellectual pleasures; courage by their understanding that death is inconsequential because they know that the essence of things, including human souls, is eternal; and justice by their lack of concern over petty matters, their integrity, and their understanding of the "wholeness in all things human and divine." Additionally, true philosophers are gentle, friendly, have good memories and, in general, are simply good people to be around and have around. WHY PHILOSOPHERS ARE CONSIDERED BAD SORTS (487b-497a) Adeimantus interrupts the discussion to accuse philosophers of misleading people who are inexperienced in "the game of question and answer." He voices the common man's suspicions of philosophers. Aren't philosophers more concerned with winning arguments than with reaching true conclusions? Don't they employ their superior powers of speech to distort the facts? Are the majority simply cranks and rascals? Unlike what you may expect, Socrates agrees with Adeimantus' charges. Most people called philosophers are corrupt, he says, and those who aren't are, at present, useless to society. But there are good reasons for this deplorable situation. Socrates explains the reasons for the bad reputation of philosophers in two ways: 1. in the Parable of the Ship of State he shows why philosophers are considered useless (488a-489c); and 2. he discusses the ways in which potential philosophers become corrupted by the state (489d-497a). 1. The Parable of the Ship of State is the first of several images to come. Socrates uses images to help his audience understand complex ideas. In this image the state is compared to a ship. The captain represents the people of the state. Like the multitude of people, the captain is big and strong but somewhat deaf, shortsighted, and with little knowledge of navigation, of how to govern a ship. The sailors, who represent the
ambitious politicians of a democratic state, perpetually fight for control over the helm. Sometimes a sailor gains control by killing another sailor, sometimes by casting another into the sea. This struggle for power seems to be an end in itself. Among the sailors there is a "true pilot" who understands the art of navigation and who should be the ruler of the ship. But the true pilot is not interested in the political quarrels, and so is ignored. He is considered an idle stargazer (after all, to navigate well a pilot must know the stars) and useless to the political ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
ambitious politicians of a democratic state, perpetually fight for control over the helm. Sometimes a sailor gains control by killing another sailor, sometimes by casting another into the sea. This struggle for power seems to be an end in itself. Among the sailors there is a "true pilot" who understands the art of navigation and who should be the ruler of the ship. But the true pilot is not interested in the political quarrels, and so is ignored. He is considered an idle stargazer (after all, to navigate well a pilot must know the stars) and useless to the political intrigues of the sailors. Socrates compares the true pilot to the philosopher. The philosopher is at present useless to society. But this fault, says Socrates, lies not with the philosopher; it lies with the public's attitude toward the role of philosophers and toward the democratic process. Socrates says that the people should ask the man who knows how to govern to be the ruler. Doctors don't knock on people's doors to see if they are sick; the sick go to doctors for help. Likewise, philosophers can help the state to become healthy, but first the people must realize their need for knowledgeable rulers. NOTE: The purpose of this parable is to create an image of a society (Athens) caught up in the game of political struggle. Such a society does not perceive its need for true guidance, and hence the philosophers helplessly watch the fray without being able to make any changes. Because of their wisdom and moral character, philosophers cannot enter the political arena, filled as it is with deceit, undignified begging for power, and instances of outrageous inhumanity. Because philosophers are not political contenders, and because they concentrate on universal truths rather than the popular issue of the moment, they are perceived by the public as useless. 2. "True pilots" of the state are few in number. But the state is not without many gifted young men who are potential philosophers. Why do the majority become corrupted and turn away from philosophy? One reason, according to Socrates, is that the virtues themselves often corrupt the young. Adeimantus wants an explanation for this paradoxical answer. How can such good things as bravery and sobriety be the cause of bad things? Socrates compares gifted young men to healthy seeds that are deprived of the proper climate and nutrition for growth. The best natures, he says, fare worse under poor environmental conditions than do inferior natures. The greater an individual's talents, the more susceptible he is to the influences of a bad education. Great crimes are committed by great minds. Again, the fault lies not with philosophy. Socrates says that it lies within the values of an unjust society. In the public gathering places young people learn about the things of which their city approves and disapproves. And, naturally, they aspire to attain the honors bestowed on those who please the public. They adopt the values and practices of the city in order to acquire wealth and power. In the process they are diverted from seeking knowledge and are seduced into attending to appearances and opinion. The perpetuation of false values, Socrates argues, is pervasive throughout society. No one group can be singled out for censure. The sophists merely teach young men the ways of succeeding in society-how to cater to public desires and how to flatter the collective ego. The poets and dramatists also seek public approval. Unfortunately, what the public wants and what it needs are two different things. The people are charmed by the appearances of beauty and have no interest in understanding beauty itself. Socrates concludes, "Philosophy, then, the love of wisdom, is impossible for the multitude." Arrogance is another corrupting factor. The public adores handsome, intelligent young men. And it has great expectations for their eventual political success. This adoration, coupled with the pride of being well born in a great city, fills the souls of young men with "unbounded ambitious hopes" and causes them to be "haughty of mien and stuffed with empty pride and void of sense." After being exposed to a wealth of corrupting influences, can gifted young men continue to love wisdom, to philosophize? They may pretend to seek knowledge, but in fact, Socrates says, they are, in a most cunning fashion, passing off opinion as truth and thereby bringing the greatest harm to society. The keenest minds are most susceptible to greatest corruption. Can anyone be saved from society's corrupting influence? Can true philosophers emerge? Socrates uses himself as a case in point. He (and a few other good men) have been blessed with an incorruptible nature and with insight into the madness of the masses. The value of this blessing, however, is mixed: In the present society (Athens), the true philosopher is like "a man who has fallen among wild beasts." He is not only unable to benefit society, he is also likely to meet an untimely end at the hands of the savage horde. The best the philosopher can do is to withdraw from the political arena, keep quiet, and attempt to save his own soul. THE POSSIBILITY OF PHILOSOPHER KINGS (497a- 502c) In this section Plato returns to the third wave of paradox: only a philosopher king can save the state from itself and from the corrupters it has engendered. It will take only one true philosopher to turn the state toward wisdom. (Could Plato be referring to himself?) Socrates tells Adeimantus that a backward educational system is one reason why the present Athenian government is headed down the path of destruction. Athenian youth, he says, are introduced to philosophy at a time when they have neither the intellectual maturity nor the life experiences to make use of it. As a result, when they are older they think they know all there is to know about philosophy and so never again approach the discipline. This curriculum is the opposite of how schooling should proceed. The education of the young, Socrates says, should focus on physical training. Then, once the body is ready to support rigorous, intellectual efforts, the young should gradually be introduced to philosophy. Further, the end of life- once people are past the age of military and political service- should be wholly spent in philosophical pursuits. Adeimantus suggests that Thrasymachus and Socrates' other hearers must certainly be opposed to this plan. Socrates chastises Adeimantus for trying to start a quarrel between him and Thrasymachus just when they are becoming friends. NOTE: Here Plato suddenly reminds you that Thrasymachus is still sitting in the audience. He wants you to reconsider the role Thrasymachus played in Book I. There Thrasymachus was portrayed as a "wild beast" disrupting a philosophical discussion; he was quite antagonistic toward philosophy. Now you can see that Plato was using him to represent the savage nature of the masses toward philosophy. But the once snarling Thrasymachus has been tamed. Thus, there is hope for philosophy being accepted by society. Why has Thrasymachus become a friend of Socrates and a friend of philosophy? Perhaps he realizes that rhetoric (his particular strength and love) and philosophy can exist together. Perhaps he sees that philosophy is a gentle art not aimed at amassing great power and wealth but, rather, aimed at obtaining the best possible life for the people of the city. Socrates says that bringing the city and philosophy together is by no means easy. But if Thrasymachus' anger toward philosophy can be assuaged, then, so can the anger of the masses. The masses can be educated to see that the philosopher's knowledge can bring harmony to the state and to their individual lives. Although Socrates offers hope for the existence of a good state with philosopher kings, he includes conditions so difficult to obtain that the possibility remains highly unlikely. The philosopher kings will have to wipe the slate clean, that is, completely erase the present characters of men. The philosopher kings will be political artists who erase one portion of the picture of the state and paint in another until all of the parts resemble the heavenly model of the principle of justice. THE IDEA OF THE GOOD (502d-509c) Socrates returns to the education of the philosopher kings. In Books II and III he outlined the basic education for all future guardians. In the remainder of this book and in Book VII he outlines the program of higher education for future kings. And he reveals what type of wisdom true rulers must have and love. Adeimantus ventures to speculate that the philosophers' knowledge is gained from studying the principles of justice and the other virtues. To his surprise, Socrates disagrees. The greatest study is the idea of the good. Without an understanding of what is good, other subjects are worthless. Under the idea of the good all other ideas, including justice, are subsumed. What does this mean? Socrates is elaborating on the Greek notion that the greatest knowledge must be the knowledge of the ultimate values toward which all human life aims. The highest good for mankind is the most important object of knowledge and the source of all knowledge. Truth, beauty, and justice, for example, are only several of the ideas that comprise the most comprehensive study of all-the idea of the good, the highest form in the Theory of Forms. Socrates says that most people believe that pleasure is the greatest good. But are not some pleasures bad? The good cannot be pleasure because to say that a thing is both good and bad is contradictory. The "finer spirits," on the other hand, claim that knowledge is the good. But this definition is circular because, when pressed to explain, the same people say that the good is knowledge and so no insight is gained. Could the good be a grand combination of pleasure and knowledge? At the moment, Socrates finds it easier to state what the good is not than to discover what it is. Socrates admits that he has no adequate knowledge of the good. Glaucon nevertheless insists that Socrates attempt an account of it. Socrates offers a compromise: He will present an account of "the offspring of the good," the sun. The Analogy of the Sun is Socrates' image for explaining the highest form of knowledge. He introduces his image by referring to particulars and universals. Particulars are the many things that can be seen with the eye, but not thought; universals can be thought but not seen. For instance, you can see a beautiful sunset-it is a particular-but you can understand beauty-a universal quality of sunsets and countless other particulars-only with the mind. Light is what makes things visible and the best source of light is the sun. The sun is not identical with visible things, but it is the cause of vision itself. Likewise, the good is not identical to the objects of knowledge, but it is the source of knowledge. To see requires sun, to know requires reason. Thus, the idea of good is to reasoning as the sun is to seeing. As Socrates says, the idea of the good gives "truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower." Just as the sun provides the source of growth and nurture to living things, so the idea of the good provides the very existence and essence of the objects of knowledge. Nevertheless, the idea of the good is not identical to the essence it imparts; it "transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power." Glaucon complains that Socrates is overstating his case. What he means is that he doesn't understand what Socrates is talking about. The idea of the good is an elusive notion, as Socrates earlier warned. But, in yet another image, Socrates will attempt to explain the idea of the good, the highest form of knowledge. THE DIVIDED LINE (509d-511c) Using the Analogy of the Sun Socrates demonstrated that there are two ways of knowing the world (two types of mental faculties)- perceiving with the senses and comprehending with the intellect. He also showed that two kinds of objects (two types of reality) correspond to these mental faculties-visible objects and intelligible objects. Now Socrates endeavors to reveal the inextricable relationship between mental processes and objects of reality. In the image of the Divided Line he presents an outline of his epistemology (theory of knowledge). And at the same time this outline is a concise educational model of the kinds of higher intellectual training needed for detaching the mind from a preoccupation with sensation and appetite, and moving the mind toward an understanding of the principle of knowledge itself. Although a representation of the Divided Line is provided below, before you look at it see if you can follow Socrates' suggestions in the text. Socrates gives the following directions: Draw a line divided into two unequal segments, the shorter segment representing the sensible world, the longer one representing the intelligible world. (The latter segment is longer because the intelligible world has a higher degree of reality and truth.) Next divide each major segment into two subsegments that have the same ratio as the sensible to the intelligible. Label the entire lower segment "sensible world" and the entire upper segment "intelligible world." Within the sensible world fill in one side of the line with the labels "shadows and reflections" on the bottom level, and "physical objects" on the next level. As you see, shadows and reflections are merely copies or imitations of such physical objects as animals, trees, and the like. Moving up to the intelligible world, label the subsegment above "physical objects" with the words "mathematics and hypotheses," and think for a moment on the ways in which mathematics and other sciences use physical objects in order to illustrate the hypotheses generated by the mind. Finally, label the top subsegment "first principles and forms." Although these highest objects of knowledge use the hypotheses below to foster an understanding of the nature of absolute ideas, they are not affected by the imprecision and distortion of the sensible world. THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE (514a-521b) An allegory is a tale that uses symbolic characters and objects. The Allegory of the Cave metaphorically presents a person's travels from ignorance to wisdom, and also reveals the philosopher's obligation to society. This famous story is Plato's most vivid and sublime image. Some scholars suggest that Plato probably took the idea for the cave image from the mystery cults. It is said that one of the rituals of the mysteries was to put candidates for initiation into caves representing the underworld, and then in glorious light reveal sacred objects to them. NOTE: The image of the Divided Line in the previous book serves as an itinerary for the journey out of the cave. Your best method for understanding the cave is to refer constantly to the divided line as Plato guides you through the four steps from darkness into light. Also, several other considerations should occupy your mind as you read the allegory: In what ways does the cave represent a system of education? Why is it so difficult to liberate people from the bondage of ignorance? As an educated person, what are your responsibilities to your fellow man, to society? Socrates begins the story like this: Imagine prisoners living in a cave. Since childhood they have been chained facing the rear wall of the cave, unable to move their legs or to turn their heads. Now imagine that some distance behind them and on a higher level of the cave floor a fire blazes. Between the fire and the prisoners is a low wall behind which people hold up puppets representing animals, human beings, and other objects. These puppeteers speak, seeming to give the puppets voices. The fire casts the puppets' shadows on the rear wall. These shadow puppets are the only reality the prisoners have ever known. One day one of the prisoners is freed from his bonds and forced to turn toward the fire. The sudden burst of light is painful and he cannot see the puppets clearly. At the same time the prisoner is told that what he believed was reality is in fact an illusion. Because of his ingrained belief in the reality of the shadows (and because he can't see the puppets) he refuses to believe that his life has been spent looking at shadows of imitation objects. Behind the fire there is a long, narrow path that goes to the cave's entrance. The prisoner wants to return to his chains, but he is dragged outside into the sunlight. This light is even more painful than the firelight. He desperately tries to flee, but he is again forced to stay in the light. First he is able to see shadows of trees, people, and other things, then reflections in water. Eventually he looks at the things of the world themselves and goes on to contemplate the heavenly objects-stars, the moon, and, finally, the sun.
