Our world, so filled with corruption and wrongdoing, seems like such a lost cause at times. People contemplate on whether or not things will get better or become even worse. There are people in pure anguish and devastation, while others live in the upmost comfort and joy. Some often ponder over the idea of a “perfect” world, a world where no one suffers. In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is convinced that the world will never see the day where it can be deemed perfect. Glaucon challenges Socrates to show that an ideal city is possible. Socrates has already articulated his vision of the ideal city. Although he has a strong understanding that the ideal city is possible, the challenge is in explaining how. Socrates claims that the ideal city is possible only if philosophers are put into power. Socrates feels that philosophers are people who do not look for any type of self-gain, they just look for a better understanding in the world: that people will understand each other better. This will make for a society was only wanted to see the good in the world. However, I do not see this to be true. Philosophers have too many conflicting traits that would inhibit the ideal city from existing.
Socrates defends his claim that if philosophers are put into power, then the ideal city is attainable by constructing a valid deductive argument with three premises. The premises are as follows:
P1. If someone rules who has knowledge of the truth and is virtuous, then the ideal City is possible.
P2. A philosopher is someone who has knowledge.
P3. A philosopher is someone who is virtuous.
These premises give way to the conclusion, which states if a city is ruled by philosophers, then such an Idea City is possible. Allow me to explain each premise and why Socrates thinks each to be true.
Premise one states that if someone rules who has knowledge of the truth and is virtuous, then the Ideal City is possible. Knowledge allows philosophers to know what the ideal city is. If someone truly knows something, then they know what it is comprised of and how to put it together. Therefore, if one knows what an ideal city is, then one knows how to bring it about. However, knowledge does not free a philosopher from corruption; a serious factor that hinders the ideal city from existing. For instance, a ruler may become obsessed with his power over his citizens. In turn, he becomes a corrupt ruler because he is able to manipulate all peoples’ lives at any point. This corruption causes anarchy to spread, and anarchy puts a city in a stagnant and inefficient state. This is why virtue is such an imperative quality to have for the ideal city to exist. A person who is virtuous has a high moral standard, which means they remain free of this corruption. The leader who has knowledge knows what the ideal city is and how to bring it about, but the virtuous leader knows how to act properly on his knowledge. The reason the virtuous leader acts properly on their knowledge is because he will make the ethical and moral decision on behalf of others, not just himself. However, the leader who just has knowledge is able to look past the ethical and moral standings of his decision and focus on self-gain.
The second premise in Socrates’ argument states that a philosopher is someone who has knowledge. Having knowledge means a person knows the true form of something. To know the true form of an object means one knows the most pure version of it. Having knowledge of something is the ability to truly understand how it is possible. When someone has knowledge of something it means that they understand everything there is to know about it. In Greek, the word philosopher literally translates to “lover of wisdom.” Socrates feels that this translation plays a pivotal role in explaining the knowledge a philosopher possesses. If someone has a love for wisdom, then they must have some share of wisdom. No one can love something without actually having first had some share of it. For instance, a person who loves puppies must have had some experience with puppies. If he claimed to love puppies, but had never been around a puppy, he would not be a lover of puppies. So, similarly, if someone is a lover of wisdom, but has had no experience with wisdom, then they do not truly love wisdom. They may love something else, something they alone call wisdom, but they do not love true wisdom. So a philosopher does not just have knowledge, they have knowledge of the truth. This is why knowledge is one of two characteristics that is needed for the ideal City to be possible. This also proves that a philosopher has knowledge.
The third premise in Socrates’ argument states that a philosopher is someone who is virtuous. A virtuous person is one who is incorruptible, courageous, temperate, truthful, just, quick to learn, graceful, high-minded and musical. Virtue is something that is selectively instinctual, meaning that only some people have it and it cannot be learned over time. Philosophers are those who are born with virtuous skills, although it may take part of their lifetime to evoke them, they are there from birth. A philosopher is high-minded, he thinks on a different level than other people. He does not get caught up in petty arguments and fret over the slightest thing. Instead, he thinks about what is to come, and how one decision can benefit the most amount of people possible. A philosopher presents himself with a high moral standard, although some people are too weak to follow that standard. This standard guides him in making decisions. He not only takes into account the logical aspect, but also the ethical aspect. In other words, a philosopher is someone who refuses to be corrupted by nonsense and stoop to others’ levels whom are much lower than them. Someone who is virtuous is temperate. Having temperance allows “the weakest, the strongest, and those in between to be singing the same song together” (Republic, 432a-5). This takes away all confusion, hostility and uneasiness there could possibly be. A philosopher is also brave. He is never afraid to voice his opinion wholeheartedly and with confidence. Although he stands strong behind his ideas, he never goes into a hostile context when trying to proclaim it to some who may not agree. A philosopher must be able to look at everything from all aspects. If he is not virtuous, then he is not able to do this. With that being said, I believe it is safe to deduce that the philosopher is virtuous.
I want to challenge the third premise that states a philosopher is someone who is virtuous. For someone to be deemed virtuous, Socrates states that they must be incorruptible, courageous, temperate, truthful, just, quick to learn, graceful, high-minded and have an ordered soul. It is not possible for someone to possess all these traits; if someone cultivates some of these traits, they come at the cost of others. At some point at least two of the characteristics conflict with each other. A virtuous person may be faced with a decision: either he must be just or truthful, but cannot be both. What happens in a case when one virtue must be sacrificed for another? In the Allegory of the Cave, philosophers are trapped in a dark cave all of their lives and only allowed to see shadows of statues. This is clearly no way for a human to live, only if the human is aware of the greater truth beyond this imprisoned world. One day some of the prisoners are freed from their enslavement and come to apprehend the forms in the above ground world. The above ground world represented the truthful realm since it has the truest forms that nature has to offer. The cave, on the other hand, represents the just world because the just thing to would be for the freed people go back and release their fellow brethren whom are still imprisoned. Now that they know the truest forms, they must decide to remain in the truthful realm or go back to the just realm. Staying above ground means they are choosing to be truthful, but going back to the cave means they are choosing to be just. There is no way to keep both virtuous qualities intact simultaneously, so they must be deemed as non-virtuous people. Likewise, a ruler must make these decisions on behalf of his people. Therefore, if a philosopher cannot keep all the characteristics of a virtuous person intact all the time, then he or she is deemed a non-virtuous person, which also falsifies premise three of Socrates’ argument.
Another fallacy I would like to point out within Socrates’ argument is that he implies many ideas without clearly stating them. Also, many of his ideas are contingent on other things. Socrates’ is claiming that if a philosopher is in command, then the ideal city is attainable. Even if this is true, which I believe it is not, there is no guarantee that anyone would listen to the philosopher. Now we see the problem of the citizens failing to listen, which in all cases, the king would have the knights reprimand, threaten, and sometimes punish the people. This also draws a conflict with the philosopher’s morality. Does he make the guards use brutal force to make the people listen or allow the people to freelance their way around? If he allows them to not listen, then the ideal city is no longer feasible, but if he uses the guards to force the people to listen, then he is no longer just because he is abusing his power. If the philosopher is no longer just, then he is in violation of a virtuous quality. If the philosopher is in violation of a virtuous quality, then he is no longer virtuous. If the philosopher is no longer virtuous, then he is no longer a philosopher. If the ruler is no longer a philosopher, then the ideal city is also no longer feasible. It is a vicious game of Devil’s Advocate, but that is the harsh reality of it. It is not humanly possible that a person can remain completely virtuous. Let alone rule a city and have everyone adhere to his rules at the same time.
The final fallacy that I would like to point out is one statement that Socrates’ made near the end of book four. Socrates spends most of book four arguing about the virtue of justice. Socrates realizes that there is no clear version of justice in the world and deems justice as a personal virtue. This means that everyone will have their own understanding of justice. So one citizen may disagree with the philosopher’s interpretation of justice, which will only cause chaotic arguments to spread throughout the city. Justice, by definition, is a concern for peace and respect for others. What one person deems just may not be what another considers just. What one person considers just might be taken as weakness by another. For instance, Batman always refuses to kill the Joker, even though he has had many opportunities. Batman feels that killing the Joker means that he is putting himself on the Joker’s level; a place he never wants to be. Each time that the city is saved and Batman spares the Joker’s life, Batman sees that as justice at its finest. However, many others interpret this as Batman’s weakness. Many feel that Batman does not have the mental toughness to kill the Joker and move on from it. They feel that the Joker deserves to die because he will only come back to do another terrible thing, which costs the city of Gotham hundreds of lives. This is a constant argument among the citizens of Gotham, which causes even more mayhem in the city. Similarly, this is what would happen if a philosopher attempted to rule a city. Countless arguments would leave the city in a stagnant state.
From the amount of contradicting qualities that philosophers, and all other human beings possess, I believe it is not possible for the ideal city to actually exist. It can exist in theory, but definitely not in the real world.