Plato's Republic, Bruell

7/31/2019 Plato's Republic, Bruell

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/platos-republic-bruell 1/10

1

Enrique AlvaradoProfessor BruellPlato‟s Republic December 7, 2006

The Tamed Metaphysicist : Two Instances in Which Socrates Avoids Adequate

Explanation

“Aristotle sets the table. Socrates shakes it ,” were among the final words of a

class lecture on Plato ‟s Republic. If Socrates is meant to break the plates on the table, the

cracks resulting from the destruction deserve attention. The cracks in the argument

become the source of concern. Moreover, if Socrates is a shaker, one must ask whether

his words are meant to be thought-provoking rather than didactic, open-ended rather than

conclusive, preliminary rather than final, incomplete rather than fully laid out,

problematic rather than explanatory, inquisitive rather than convictive. There is a further

question connected to this one. One radical notion after another is presented in the

Republic. Yet, Socrates clearly expresses his awareness of the doubtful nature of his own

argument. When, of his own account, Socrates raises the question regarding the

possibility of the city he has just described, he puts into question the viability of his entire

argument. A possible way one gets out of this difficulty is to assert that the Republic is a

thought experiment, an exercise in argumentation, an exploration into the most unsettling

questions regarding human life.

“And I was going to speak of them [four forms of badness] in the order that each

appeared to me to pass from one to the other…” 1 At the beginning of Book V Socrates is

not permitted to move on to a different discussion of the subject. Glaucon, Polemarchus,

1 Section 449a. All references to Sections will be from Plato, The Republic, translated by Alan Bloom,Second Edition.



2

Adeimantus, and Trasymachus demand that he discuss further his suggestion “that, as for

women and children, the things of friends will be in common.” 2 Adeimantus accuses him

of trying to “get away with it by saying, as though it were something quite ordinary, that

after all it‟s plain to everyone…” 3 Socrates is found begging an important aspect of the

question of what city is most propitious for justice through the tacit avoidance of

explaining a major revolution in social arrangements.

Adeimantus asserts that his revolution in social arrangements is crucial in making

“the whole difference, in a regime‟s being right or not right.” 4 Of course, Socrates

purposefully avoids plunging into a detailed explanation of the female drama. He plunges

into such explanation, as it were, only after being pressed by his friends. His confession is

candid and rather playful, “ I saw it then and passed by so as not to cause a lot of

trouble.” 5 Is not trouble, one can ask, what Socrates has been causing all along? Even

Trasymachus seems eager to hear what will surely be a scandalous proposition. They are

“men” who have come “to listen to arguments” and not in search of “fool‟s gold.” Moreenigmatic is Socrates‟ response, “„Yes,‟ he said, „but in due measure.‟” 6 Glaucon ‟s

response is that a man, an intelligent man, can spend all his life waiting for the adequate

time before he is prepared to listen to such arguments.

Socrates makes no pretense of being particularly at ease in addressing the

problem, “It‟s not easy to go through.” 7 Is it “not easy to go through” because it is

2 Section 449c.3 Section 449c.4 Section 449d.5 Section 450b.6 Section 450b.7 Section 450c.



3

difficult to articulate the solution? Is it difficult because the answer will “[admit] of many

doubts”? Or because, “it could be doubted that the things said are possible”? On top of

this edifice of doubt Socrates sets another layer that threatens to bring the whole thing

tumbling to the ground , “even if, in the best possible conditions, they could come into

being, that they would be what is best will also be doub ted.” 8 All the men present are

anxious to listen to what Socrates has to say, and none will have him hesitate even when

he openly admits threading upon unsure ground. “ But to present arguments at a time

when one is in doubt and seeking — which is just what I am doing — is a thing both

frightening and slippery .”9

During class discussion, much was said about the inadequacies and

incompleteness of some of the arguments set forth by Socrates. It is perhaps the case that

this passage reveals good reason for their incompleteness and deficiencies. Socrates

expresses a real concern about what effect his words will have upon minds less careful

than his, “I‟m afraid that in slipping from the truth where one least ought to slip, I‟ll notonly fall myself but also drag my friends down with me.” 10 This is an extraordinary

remark not only in an intellectual sense, but because of its ominous allusion to history:

Socrates suffered the death penalty — accused of corrupting the young and disputing

common beliefs. During the case brought upon him, no friends were able to release him

from the charges. This remark is extraordinary in another sense. In avoiding a discussion

on the female drama, Socrates was not merely ignoring the “female perspective”, he was

steering the argument towards less dangerous waters — and perhaps further away from the

8 Section 450c.9 Section 450d-451a.10 Section 451a.



4

truth. In other words, Socrates could not avoid explaining his suggestion that women

should be shared in common because such proposition calls into question the very nature

of man — by bringing to the foreground the nature of woman. Since what is natural is

related to what is good, knowing what is natural leads to an accurate understanding of

what is good. The revolution in social convention would be, presumably, replaced not by

different conventions, but by societal arrangements more in accord with nature. That

women should live according to what is natural has repercussions upon the rearing of the

guardians — their education would be undercut if they were to be brought up by a sex

living unnaturally.

The fact that Socrates does not hammer out this aspect of the argument reveals his

willingness to keep needed explanations to himself. He demonstrates this willingness

more than once throughout the Republic. Indeed, it occurs once again before his

treatment of the female drama, in section 450c, when he calls into question the possibility

and goodness of the city he is building through speech. None of his interlocutors arresthim on this point, even when Socrates reintroduces this complication a little later in the

discussion , “Weren‟t we considering whether what we say is possible and best?” 11 None

object. No one is troubled by this hasty transition.

Adeimantus quite correctly calls Socrates on his oversight regarding the

dissolution of familial ties (which we think is deliberate). What is missing from

Adeimantus ‟observation is that much of the Republic is not “ordinary”, nor is much of

what Socrates says “plain to everyone.” That they should question Socrates at such

junction in the argument is interesting because it brings to mind the many points where

11 Section 456c.



5

they could have legitimately demanded further explanation. That they didn‟t do so (and

that Socrates didn‟ t do it of his own accord) is revelatory not only of the difficulty of the

subject itself, the deficienc ies of Socrates‟ interlocutors, but also of Socrates‟ silence.

Why not go whole-hog? Once one has broken all the dishes, why not pulverize them?

It is of note that section 450-451 appears very close to the middle, in media res , of

the Republic : “To speak knowing the truth, among prudent and dear men, about what is

greatest and dear, is a thing that is safe and encouraging.” 12 The importance of the subject

is not in question: there is nothing else that is as important as what is being treated in the

Republic. Yet, Socrates is at best a guide in this enterprise, he is claiming no certainty. If

he often makes the “weakest argument stronger”, as Aristophanes accuses him, he is

never sure that his argument is so good as to be “the truth.” That he often topples the

argument of his interlocutors does not support the notion that Socrates‟ has the last word

in the description of “the truth.” One takes Aristotle‟s scientific method from grade

school to the highest echelons of education in order to analyze observable phenomena. Isit possible to take Plato ‟s Republic in the same fashion? If Socrates admits he does not

“speak knowing the truth” are we to take the Republic as a guide, the method used in

order to understand the highest good?

Perhaps Trasymachus has hit the nail on the head: He has put Socrates in the

uncomfortable position of exposing the innate difficulty of his intellectual enterprise to

his friends. In doing so, Socrates has come to admit the dangerousness of the ground

upon which he threads. Does this admission occur in media res in order to tell the reader,

“Beware, you are in the middle of things, in the heat of the battle. It is time for you to

12 Section 450d.



6

relate one part of the work to the other ”? To be sure, he is also constrained by the limits

of his listeners ‟ understanding. Due to his fear of leading tender minds astray, Socrates

threads carefully (amid all his radicalism). This awareness holds in check his radicalism,

choosing to keep much to himself for the sake of his listeners. Master of the game, he

often takes the road less radical — but only less radical in respect to the other arguments

he keeps to himself. I we assume that this assertion is correct, that Socrates does keep

certain arguments to himself, can we ever know what these arguments are? Has Socrates

been deceiving his interlocutors — and us — all along? Has he been hiding the crux of the

argument, the nugget of truth that will explain in great simplicity the things most

important to our life? Was Socrates genuinely perplexed, genuinely in the dark? Does he

avoid certain veins of the argument because he is not in doubt but in absolute darkness? If

so, can we call him wise?

One thing must be said in defense of Socrates: His friends ignore the doubts he

expresses regarding the validity of the city he has drawn up. Glaucon encourages him tospeak, “Don‟t hesitate…Your audience won‟t be hard -hearted, or distrustful, or ill-

willed.” 13 Perhaps his interlocutors are more preoccupied with the possibility of

overturning a convention so close to their erotic hearts: sex, marriage, procreation, and

self- interest. These are all related. Perhaps the attractive aspect of Socrates‟ proposition is

its libertine qualities. Presumably, however, these young men have access to young

lovers of the both sexes. There is little need to destroy marriage in order to satisfy their

erotic impulse. Marriage, procreation, and self-interest are left, for there is an intimate

relationship between the act of procreation and the self- interest of continuing one‟s own

13 Section 450d.



7

lineage. We often call our offspring “extensions of my own self,” or “my blood,” or

“flesh of my flesh.” In some cultures lineage is important for the continuity of memory,

which is important in order to avoid one‟s ultimate demise. Therefore, Socrates had in

mind above all the loosening of familial bonds, a move away from bonds that would

compromise the soul‟s love of justice. At the same, the destruction of familial ties would

encourage greater love and dedication for the city.

This does not altogether explain why Adeimantus and the other interlocutors

arrest Socrates on this point. They force him to explain why he thought the sexes must

share in communion all things, but they ignore the difficulty Socrates admits regarding

the possibility, desirability, and goodness of the regime he has described to such length,

“Weren‟t we considering whether what we say is possible and best?” 14 They therefore

focus on the baser part of the argument, and ignore the finer, more difficult questions.

The larger point emerging from these passages is that Socrates is obligated to explain

equalization of conditions among men and women, but is spared the grudging necessityto account for the difficulty in realizing the coming into being of the city in fact. If the

city itself is contra natura , then this would preclude the necessity to explain the role

women shall take in its affairs. Before considering the relationship between the genders,

the more important question of the existential plausibility of the city needs to be dealt

with head on. That this does not occur is perhaps no small detail in understanding the

Republic. That Socrates‟ interlocutors do not inquire into the most important of these

questions perhaps underscores the limits to which they can be troubled by the problems

with which Socrates is preoccupied.

14 Section 456c.



8

The point can go further than this. Glaucon‟s response to Socrates as to whether

what is being said is possible and best is unflinching,

Socrates: “And that it is possible, then, is agreed?” Glaucon: “Yes.” Socrates: “But next it must be agreed that it is best?” Glaucon: “Plainly.” 15

In class it was argued that what is good for human society must be possible. The opposite

does not hold: What is possible is not necessarily good. It was also argued that Socrates is

willing to move from custom to the highest good. The tacit implication is that custom is

not always the highest good. He is not interested in following custom but in extrapolating

that which is good in custom. This “appeal” from custom to the good is in fact an appeal

from law (derived from convention) to nature. That is, a move from a law established

upon convention to law established upon nature. If the proposed argument represents

what is the best possible good for human society, then it follows that it is also possible

because it is natural. This natural possibility is necessarily good. Therefore what is being

said must meet several requirements: The new social order must be both good and just,

should be in accord with nature, and has to be possible. How do we know if such a city is

possible if it has not come into existence? How do we know it is best if we do not know

it is possible? How can we argue that it is natural? How can we argue that it is good?

Perhaps Albert Einstein will aid my imperfect mind in this difficulty:

Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion thatman is able to comprehend the objective world rationally, by pure thought,without any empirical foundations — in short, by metaphysics. I believethat every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist... Themetaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamedmetaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in

15 Section 456c.



9

experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be"comprehended" on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. 16

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in Socrates‟ argument is the existential constraints upon his

ability to turn the argument into a true, physical city. In order to show the true aspect of

the city, it must be able to withstand the test of empirical reality within his lifetime and

according to his own design. Soc rates‟ argument is a bold , creative act arising not merely

out of that which is observable, but out of the power of the reasoning, imaginative mind. I

do not mean to suggest more than this: Socrates is aware of the deficiencies in his

argument and these deficiencies consist in great part in his inability — or undesirability —

to assess the “possibility” of the realiz ation of the city which the argument upholds as the

highest good.

Why Socrates does not discuss at greater length the possibility of the city is

perhaps a question that permits no adequate answer. It is one that gives way to the

possibility of rethinking the Republic not as a book of answers, but as book of doubts. If Plato, or Socrates, is to be upheld as a metaphysicist, it will hold the critic in good stead

to keep in mind the moments in which Socrates‟ rationality is limited by what is naturally

possible. The tentative conclusion to which we have arrived is that Socrates is a “tamed

metaphysicist .” His passion for understanding has taken him to great heights. Just as

Icarus comes near the sun and in so doing falls, so thus Socrates come near truth itself,

only to find his way slippery, dark, frightening, and dangerous. He withholds not only

some of his doubts but also avoids, at least in respect to the question of the possibility of

16 Albert Einstein, “On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005,1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.



10

the city, setting forth a proposition that would take further an already radical argument.

This is not to say that Socrates is generally shy, or that he is only dubitative. On the

contrary, the moments in which he admits doubt reveal the great length to which his

reasoning has taken him.

Documents

Plato's Republic, Bruell