Plato: The Republic (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) [ペーパーバック]

This version of the Republic (translated by Tom Griffith) is pleasant and readable; it definitely has its moments and would probably be a good way to first encounter the dialogue. But do not use it for serious study, since the translation can be quite free and sometimes confusing. For instance, the word usually translated as "advantageous" (sumpheron) in Thrasymachus's argument is rendered as "good for." This is a nice attempt to capture the meaning in a natural way - but I personally wouldn't play around with the word "good" in a translation of the Republic.

"The Republic" is Plato's classical utopia, and perhaps one of the most controversial political texts ever written. It's so absurd that some people deny that Plato really meant it! Strange Aristotle never noticed. And yet, those who believe that "The Republic" shouldn't be taken literally probably have a point. Plato himself didn't take "The Republic" absolutely literally either.

"The Republic" describes a hierarchical caste society ruled by a militarized, collectivist elite. The elite itself is divided into different segments, the highest echelon being that of the philosopher-kings, enlightened thinkers who contemplate the heavenly world of Platonic forms, and precisely for that reason are fit to rule society as well. Below the philosopher-kings stand the Guardians, essentially the military caste. Famously, both the philosophers and Guardians live under conditions of total communism. They own no private property, are reared together, and hence don't know their parents or siblings. Strictly speaking, there are philosopher-queens as well, and also female soldiers, since the elite has gender equality (a point that has puzzled modern feminists). Below the elite groups stand merchants, artisans and farmers, but no slaves. The castes are (almost) hereditary, eugenics are used to ensure the fitness of the elite groups, and the population is induced to believe in fantastic, religious myths. The myths are noble lies welding this strange society together. Did I leave something out? Oh, and the poets are banished from the city! In other words, the ideal society described in "The Republic" looks like a curious blend of Sparta, Egypt and India (at least the two former societies would have been known to Plato).

So where do we go from here? The most moderate interpretation is that although Plato did regard "The Republic" as the best society, he didn't really believe that such a society was possible. It was a deliberate utopia. This raises a lot of intriguing questions, such as how Plato imagined the best *possible* society to look like, or what function "The Republic" was supposed to have. The first question is to some extent answered in "The Laws" and the Seventh Epistle, where Plato advocates a mixed constitution. What the answer to the second question might be, I honestly don't know. Perhaps nobody does. A wild guess: the point of Plato's utopia was to explore certain ideas without hindrance, throw certain concepts into as sharp relief as possible, in other words, do exactly what modern utopian novels do, in contrast to political utopias meant to be taken seriously.

I think that Plato clearly saw both the dilemma of democracy, and the dilemmas of tyranny and oligarchy, what we would simply call "dictatorship". Plato saw his teacher Socrates being persecuted by the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, but he also saw him being executed by the demos. The twin dilemmas of both dictatorship and democracy were starkly visible in the life of Socrates. The perennial problem of democracy is: what happens if the people vote the wrong way? (In Athens, the problem was even more pronounced, since many positions were filled by lot!) The perennial problem of dictatorship: how do we stop a ruler from becoming a tyrant, if the people can't even vote? Plato's solution to the problem was to balance the demos and the elite by a mixed constitution. In "The Laws" he took Sparta and the Cretan city-states as his concrete models, but he might just as well have harkened back to the days of Solon, or made use of the systems in Carthage or Republican Rome.

Plato's concrete solutions aren't ours, of course. Even the Athenian democracy he criticized was a far cry from our modern conceptions of democracy. From our vantage point, a mixed constitution on a Spartan or Cretan model actually looks even worse than the Athenian system. Note also the irony that "The Laws" lack the "socialist" and "feminist" traits of the Platonic utopia. Also, there is slavery in Magnesia, the name given by Plato to his realistic Cretan city-state, while there doesn't seem to be any slaves in "The Republic". And yet, despite the obvious differences between Plato's time and ours, the dilemma is still with us! Modern democracies attempt to solve it by combining universal suffrage with a division of powers, by a federal structure, or by a strong constitution guaranteeing basic human rights, a constitution that cannot be changed, at least not by a simple majority. Our methods may be different from the Platonic ones, but we are still trying to solve the same dilemma as he experienced in the aftermath of the Peloponessian War.

It could further be argued that no clever constitutional solution is possible in the long run, if the citizens loose their sense of civic duty. And it further seems that civic duty is possible only in a relatively small state, without too large income or property differentials between the citizens. Indeed, even Plato's moderate city-state in "The Laws" insists on the citizens having roughly equal amounts of landed property, property that can be neither bought nor sold. Of course, our concept of citizenship is much broader than the Platonic one: women and even resident aliens are citizens, and there are no slaves. Yet, Plato's general point seems to be correct.

So far, I have only touched on those points in "The Republic" and "The Laws" that could be creatively developed without offending our modern sensibilities too much. But, of course, "The Republic" also deals with other issues, more disturbing ones to our liberal ears. Are people really born equal? Are there innate differences between individuals? Is it always permissible for the rulers to tell the truth? Do societies need myths and noble lies? Ironically, Plato also asked questions that should disturb some conservatives: Given that innate differences are individual rather than sex-related, does this mean that the sexes are equal? And what's so good about private property and foreign trade anyway?

Perhaps that's the main function played by "The Republic". It's a work of provocation, a work meant to shock us into boldly questioning our preconceptions, a work that's the very opposite of a noble lie. Pace Popper, "The Republic" might actually be Plato's most Socratic work!

[This isn't really a review of this particular edition, but a general comment on Plato's dialogue, and its relation to some other works, but placing it here felt like the most natural option.]