Plato's Republic

The Republic was the most difficult book I have ever read.  It took me two months of concerted effort to complete, and I feel as if new grooves had to be dug into my brain to get the job done.  Mostly I learned that my brain wants to vociferously resist any kind of improvement of this sort.  My eyes will water and my mouth will hinge into gaping yawns after two pages.  I had to read, and re-read, then re-read again, most of the entire book.  I apparently have the attention span of a gnat.  But the more I read, the more I was drawn in.  It is not a book one just reads; it must be studied and puzzled over, discussed and studied again.  It was a transformative experience.  Mediocre reads I had previously enjoyed seem exceptionally lame now, like I have been spoiled for them.

 

The Republic surprised me on many levels.  Many concepts that I thought came straight out of Catholicism actually had their basis in the philosophy of Socrates.  The cardinal virtues, prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, and the underpinnings of Catholic social justice teaching, were directly codified by Plato.  Who knew?  And though Socrates gave lip service to “the gods,” at times, he often seemed to unify them into just one.  Also, the story of “Er” while fully supporting reincarnation, definitely gives credence to an early form of Purgatory as well.  And this is all 400 years before the birth of Christ.

I found the portion discussing the various political states very illuminating.  Socrates’ explanation of why a meritocracy will devolve into an oligarchy, which will then devolve into democracy and finally into tyranny is almost chillingly prescient.  It was very odd to see any other form of government held up as being superior to democracy, but his reasoning, of course, is very sound, since he considers democracy a sort of mob-rule.  Surprisingly, Socrates also appears to have believed somewhat in the equality of the sexes, or at least, that exceptional woman could compete on a male playing field.

The Republic is worth all the effort it took to absorb.  I understand now why it is considered a foundational work in the western literary cannon.  It is amazing that so much well-reasoned thought came from a single source.  We are lucky that it has survived, when so many other works perished.  The world would be a completely different place if everyone read Plato; it certainly deserves a place on every classicist’s short list.

Plato's "Crito"

Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito” are nearly always assigned to be read together, which makes perfect sense because they are so closely related. In “Apology,” Socrates gets sentenced to death; and in “Crito,” Socrates’ buddy, Crito, tries to convince Socrates to fly the coop before the sentence can be carried out.  There is no time to lose, since the ship from Delos has arrived, signaling that Socrates will be put to death very soon.

Socrates is reluctant to flee his own doom, but he agrees to listen to Crito, and to put to the test his arguments in favor of escape.  Crito loves Socrates, and he fears that others will believe the disgraceful idea that he would not spare the money to save Socrates’ life.  He points out that Socrates is deserting his own children, and appears to be taking the easy way out.  Crito is also concerned that Socrates fears that anyone who helps him to escape will get into trouble with the authorities, which they both agree is a possibility.

Socrates argues that the fear of what others will think should not be a consideration because the “doctrines of the multitude” are invalid, and only the opinion of the one person with complete understanding should actually be consulted.

Crito further argues that the law that condemns Socrates is unjust and should not be upheld; however, Socrates is concerned that in leaving the prison he is doing wrong against the state.  Socrates contends that he should value and obey the state which “nurtured and educated” him above even his mother and father.  He rightly points out that he had every opportunity to leave the state during his lifetime, and was even offered exile as a possible punishment during the trial, but categorically refused.  Furthermore, why would any decent state welcome a known felon such as himself?

In the end, Socrates decides that he would prefer to “depart (the world) in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws but of men.”  He tells Crito, “Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below.”

Plato's "Apology"

I just finished reading Plato’s breathtakingly unapologetic “Apology,” on the trial of Socrates.  Socrates is on trial for his life, which (spoiler alert) he loses, yet he cannot bring himself to treat the accusations against him as anything more than an interesting logic puzzle.  The charges against Socrates are two-fold:  he is accused of being a man “who speculated about the heaven above, and searched in the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause”; and “is a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, but has other new divinities of his own.” Both charges, apparently, being capital crimes in 399 B.C. Athens.

Now Socrates, at over 70, is hopelessly arrogant.  In his youth, the Oracle of Delphi prophesized that he was the wisest of all men.  He has spent all the intervening years attempting to prove the gods false, failing miserably in the process, and alienating half of Athens while he does so.   He spends all his time quizzing politicians, poets and artisans on their respective levels of wisdom, and always finds them wanting.  He found the politicians not wise at all; the poets could not even explain their own poetry; and the artisans, while knowledgeable about their craft, made the mistake of thinking that they were wise about things they knew nothing about.  To be fair, Socrates’ enemies always thought he was putting himself forward as being the wisest of them all, but he claims nothing could be further from the case.

“…for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is … that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing, … he is only using my name by way of illustration.  He… is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.”

Socrates answers the second charge by pointing out that it would be foolish to corrupt a man, because in all likelihood, the corrupted man would harm him in turn.  His insistent questioning of his accusers brings them step by step to agreement with his thesis, thus angering them even further.  He appears genuinely confused that he is accused of not believing in gods at all, and also of believing in other gods; a charge he believes only serves to identify the illogic of his accusers.

Through the entire trial, Socrates has little to no consideration for the final verdict.  He feels that a good man should not calculate the cost of doing the right thing, even if the cost is death.  After all, no one knows if dying is a good or bad thing, so doing something bad to avoid death is clearly not wise.

Socrates is convicted, of course, and refuses to be exiled or to promise to stop his offending behavior.   He believes that death is actually either just a nice long rest, or that the gods (of whom he was convicted of not believing) shall care for him in the afterlife because he has always attempted to do their bidding.  He reminds us that avoiding unrighteousness is far more important than avoiding death, especially since death comes to all men anyway… and he’s already old!