The Republic

Plato

Watch The Review

Introduction:

We have a couple important notes before we begin. Plato’s “The Republic” is a very controversial piece of literature. It challenges fundamental ideas, not just about society but also how we view our own lives in ways that might feel a bit uncomfortable. It probably should make you feel uncomfortable. And I think that's a lot of times the point as a way to challenge idea. I don't know if that's true or not I just threw that in there. But most importantly I just want to say here early on - big disclaimer: I do not agree with every single idea that this author has. A necessary 2019 disclosure, everyone. I think most people wouldn't agree with all the ideas of Plato, and Plato himself doesn't agree with all his ideas. So later on we get him disagreeing with his own thoughts, basically. I am NOT an expert, I am not pretending that I know everything about this, I will just give my own summary and thoughts around the different topics discussed and I highly encourage you to do your own study and research to fully get the proper grasp of this book. First of all I think it's important to understand why this book was written to fully understand where the ideas came from. To properly critique something you need more than just the ideas, you need to understand where the ideas come from. And a lot of the crazier ideas of Plato that a republic will make a lot more sense with these things in mind, I think at least. So, some quick background basically Plato lived in 428 BC in Athens, Greece. And the ancient Greeks, as I'm sure a lot of you are already familiar with, defined a lot of our Western civilization. They had massive leaps in not just philosophy but art, literature, biology, architecture, politics and much much more. All this while simultaneously fighting two wars, the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War. So during the Persian War where the Greeks were vastly outnumbered (I always imagined like the movie 300 even though that's clearly not what happened at all) but the Greeks were vastly outnumbered, but the way they defeat the Persians was from coming together. All the different city-states of Greece came together. Ancient Greece back then was very different from how we know Greece today. It's span north and I think even across Italy, all these different areas. I don't know exactly the geography, but it was big, okay? And all he states came together and were just like: “No Persia, go away”, and they did it. But after this war, after defeating the Persians, instead of all the states coming together, they broke apart and they fought against each other in a civil war known as the Peloponnesian War where they fought against who should be the ruler of the city-states. It was a very brutal war which you can tell just from how long it lasted, 27 years. And eventually Athens lost. Plato, who lived during this time, he saw the effects of this war. He had people close to him that passed away and I think keeping this in mind is important for some of the crazier ideas that are proposed in “The Republic”. Because Plato wanted to avoid civil war at all costs and I think keeping that in mind is important. To have an open mind for the discussion. The second reason, I think, is because Athens. At this time, Athens was a democracy and that was something that the Athenians were very proud of, it's something that was part of their character that they lived in a democracy, and it was something that they greatly upheld. But in 399 BC Socrates, the philosopher, was executed under this democracy. And I think this is something that really affected Plato and also shaped ideas for “The Republic”. So the Peloponnesian War and the fact that Socrates was executed. I don't know if this is correct, I'm just saying. So then, what was Plato's and Socrates’ relationship? I think it's necessary to establish early on their relationship. I think most people have heard of Socrates, maybe not of Plato or vice versa, I don't know. But Socrates was a philosopher, he is a historical figure that that did exist. The thing is that he never wrote down any of his work and it was Plato who basically did this. But Plato writes his work in “The Republic” as a dialogue where Socrates is the main character and obviously we can't know for sure to what level of accuracy the dialogue actually occurred. Most likely, it wasn't that accurate, but again we don't know. But it is a little bit confusing because Plato is the author and but Socrates is the main character who presents all these ideas. Some compare Socrates’ and Plato’s relationship as a sort of teacher-student relationship, which is inaccurate because Socrates never taught, he spoke and people listened. But it also kind of fits the picture as well. I like to see it as a senpai and kōhai kind of relationship. So then, “what is “The Republic” about?”, you might ask. Well, Socrates is famously not interested in finding relative solutions, he wants to find absolute truths. If we don't know what something is, then how can we properly understand it? And Socrates is famous for trapping his opponents with his “what is it” question, to give a definition of something. And “The Republic” begins with such a question, such a “what is it” question:

Book 1:

In book one, the novel begins with Socrates. He is walking home from a religious festival and he stumbles into some acquaintances who convince him to come over to their place. He sort of half reluctantly accepts. There's a couple of people in this group, but let's focus on Cephalus first. Cephalus is an older man and the dialogue begins with this “what is it” question coming from Socrates who ask Cephalus what it’s like to be so old. This could be seen as a very rude question to ask someone but Socrates wants to spark a conversation, it’s not about making people feel good. Despite the very rude question, Cephalus responds in a composed manner saying that: “Well I enjoy being old. I no longer feel controlled by Eros, my desires don’t control me anymore” He looked forward to being rewarded in his next life because he's lived an honest life and lived up to his legal dues, so he thinks “well I may be old, I may be dying soon, but I still will be rewarded in the next life”. And Socrates goes “got ‘em”, you just gave me a definition of justice: living an honest life and living up to your legal dues, that's the definition of justice that you just gave me even though that's not my question. And then, to stomp over Cephalus’ argument that he never even intentionally made, Socrates challenges Cephalus’ views even further and says: “well if justice is living up to your legal dues, then let's say for example, (this is not the example he brings, but) let's say you borrow an axe from a friend because you need to chop some wood. And then later on, your friend demands to have the axe back, but the friend has gone completely insane. Would you still give the axe back to him? Obviously not, you you wouldn't give a weapon to a crazy person.” So in that's regard justice is not living up to your legal obligations, and you are just wrong in this argument that you never even made. Cephalus who's old is not interested in this conversation and he bids his farewell and leaves the group. But there are some younger remaining people in the group who has been listening and they give their opinion on this instead. One of them being Thrasymachus who is a sophist. Sophists were teachers back in ancient Greece where they would be hired by rich people to teach their sons. They are the enemy of Plato and Socrates, you can say, because they are not interested in finding absolute truths and they're just more interested in winning an argument basically and going to whatever stretch to do so. So Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice and says: “justice is the advantage of the stronger”. He admits that this is not really a definition, but he's saying that it pays off more to be unjust than to be just and people who are are unjust naturally progress in society and justice is a restraint put on us, stopping our natural desires to progress. Socrates then responds by saying: “well, if justice is in the advantage of the stronger, do people make mistakes” and Thrasymachus says: “yes, people make mistakes”. And then Socrates asks: “well do rulers make mistakes?” and of course Thrasymachus says: “yes, rulers can make mistakes” and then Socrates finishes by saying: something like: “let's say for example, if you are a ruler and you put up a tax policy that will benefit you - you will get more money from the people and you'll raise the taxes. But the ruler is doing what they think is just, because they have the advantage and they gain from this. But let's say then that this new tax policy basically bleeds the city dry, there's no more money left, and eventually it will end up hurting the ruler because he's left with less than what he had from the beginning, and he can no longer acquire anything from his citizens. Therefore, justice is not in fact in the advantage of the stronger because rulers make mistakes.” Thrasymachus then responds by saying: “well (I need to win this argument) justice is what the ruler thinks is in the advantage of the stronger”. And very interestingly Thrasymachus sort of just disappears from the book at this point. He could very well still be part of the group and listening silently, but it's noteworthy how he disappears at this point because he brings up the subject, he brings up the the relative argument and Socrates just isn't interested in it. That's not the reason for this dialogue, he wants to find the ultimate truth of “what is justice”.

Book 2 and 3:

Socrates has now defeated his opponents, more or less, but the rest of the group is not entirely satisfied. Glaucon, who is another member of the party, wants a better definition of justice. “Is a just life superior to an unjust life?” is a question that they ask, and they want Socrates to prove it. And maybe you were thinking “well, finding the definition of justice, that's really not that interesting”, at least first when I heard about it I wasn't completely engaged. But when you think about it in a broad sense, it really shapes everything in our lives. What is good and what is bad? What is right and wrong? Is being it's being just better than being unjust? Why should you live an just life instead of an unjust life? I think it's a very interesting topic that I've never asked myself before. And Glaucon brings up a very interesting example. Glaucon says that justice is social bond, a contract between people, which I think can make sense. He expresses, much like what Thrasymachus said, that we have a natural desire to want to gain more and the only reason we don't act unjust is because we don't want unjust things happened to ourselves. And if the whole world acted unjust, then everyone would just stand to lose from it. So therefore, it's a social contract. In his view, justice comes from weakness and it comes from fear. And he brings up this example of The Ring of Gyges, which is a magical ring. So he brings up this thought example of: if you had a ring that could render you invisible, would you still act just? I think I've played around with this idea, and maybe you have as well: if you could do something unjust and no one would know about it would you do it? And Glaucon argues that anyone with this ring, even the most just person, would still act unjust because if you're invisible no one will know about it. You could rot rob a bank or you could do all kinds of things. I'm not going to bring up their example. Whenever people ask me what my superpower ability would be I always thought: “okay well, what superpower could I get that would benefit me the most and not face any consequences?” So I think this definition fits pretty well and I think it fits in with actually how a lot of people look at justice. It's a pretty common way to look at it, but maybe we've never actually thought about it. Adeimantus, who is Glaucon's brother, joins the conversation as well and he says that justice itself isn't desirable and that we only act just because we want to be rewarded in the afterlife. So therefore Adeimantus and Glaucon want Socrates to prove to them that justice in itself is desirable and that living a just life is better than living in a unjust life. And Socrates warns Adeimantus and Glaucon that this is going to be a very long journey to get through. And I will warn you in case you made it this far that yes, in fact, it will be a very long review. But they are up for the task. They're young and they're excited and they want to find the answer. I also think it's interesting how Socrates purposely wanted to hear everyone else's argument. At this point he hasn't really expressed his own views, he's actually just picked apart what other people's ideas are. But this is really where the book begins on its own topic to find the definition of justice. And the way Plato or Socrates does this, I think, it's very surprising and very interesting:

Book 4:

To prove that justice is superior he brings up the analogy of humans in a macro perspective of a city. It's called the “city-soul analogy” and basically it means that to prove that a just city is happier than an unjust City, the same analogy can be drawn between a just man and an unjust man. Whether a just man is happier than an unjust person. And so begins the very long journey of “The Republic”. I will brush through some points just to save time, and I also still don't understand all of it to be honest. I guess I'm just too old.

So to craft this society Socrates says that each person in this city must be specialized to maximize the efficiency of the city. He wants a shoemaker to focus solely on making shoes, a doctor to solely focus on doing doctor things. And that a shoemaker who specializes will always be better than a shoemaker that doesn't specialize. And the shoemaker will always be better at making shoes then a doctor can make shoes, and a doctor will always be a better doctor than a shoemaker. So this city will initially just start off with farmers, craftsmen, doctors. The city will live with just what is necessary and won't go beyond that. And Socrates calls this city healthy because of this. But Glaucon, however, has a very different view on it. He calls it a “city of pigs” ironically. He thinks that people have a natural desire for more, people have a natural desire for luxury, better entertainment, better food. So he argues that they will want to eat meat in this city, which is a seemingly small distinction from what the city previously has been, but it makes all the difference. Because to have meat in the city you need more land, and to have more land you need to go to war. And therefore Glaucon and Socrates agree this is a natural progression and that war is inevitable in this city. And therefore a new class of people is introduced in The Republic which is the Warriors. By Socrates’ idea of specialization, warriors can only be warriors and nothing else and he describes his highly spirited individual and these highly spirited individuals make for great warriors. But they are hard to control. You want to be able to control them so they don't become thugs and break the laws, but you also don't want them to become too wimpy as well. So Socrates proposes that the best way to contain these warriors is through education. So it's important that these warriors are educated to act on the will of the city. How do we do that? Well, Socrates explains what stories will be available in this city and what stories won't be available, I think more importantly. He says that the classic legends of Homer will be forbidden or censored in the city. Because the stories in Homer and other works show dying as something really bad and that's not beneficial for the city. Warriors needs to be able to die for their state and therefore they cannot allow these work of fiction to be shaping the souls of the Warriors. Socrates goes through in great detail what will be allowed not just in literature but also music, what kind of instrument, and even what type of notes will be allowed or at least what will be the most effective. You can look at it the same way with the type of music that is played in the military, it's very similar with the drums and then the type of tunes. But this all falls under a very interesting topic of censorship. It's something that we've all been affected by ever since growing up. Our parents censored certain things from us when we are children. And they do this for a good cause they do it to protect us, and I would argue that Socrates sees the city and its people in the same way. Where the city would be a mother censoring certain things for their child. Censorship is a topic that is still widely discussed even today. I think there's three points that can be brought up against censorship. I myself have been highly affected by it. I would would even say the number one point against censorship is that there's a natural curiosity towards things that aren't allowed. I think most people can relate to wanting to do something more because they weren't allowed to do it, and the desire to want to do it being even stronger because of it. Another example could be if a parent for example lies to their child. Let's say if a mother is a stripper and maybe they don't want their child to go through the same career path then they might lie about what their job is. Before they go to work every day they might say “I'm going to the bank” instead to protect their child. They do this to protect their child because they don't want them to follow the same path. But eventually, let's say a couple of years down the line, the child finds out the truth and this sort of trust between a mother and a child has been broken because of their censorship. And maybe the damage of that is much more than what would have been if the parent had just said the truth. A lot of times you could argue whether the negative effect of what's being censored is really more than what is positive. Do video games really cause violence? And I think with censorship you are implying that you know better, you know for a fact that this needs to be censored because you know it has a negative effect. And I think that is said a lot of times without much evidence. I think it's a really interesting topic. Some people are arguing that censorship is good, some people arguing that it's always bad, and here we are 2000 year later still discussing it. There's also many examples in history of progression of humanity being held back because of censorship. We had Galileo whose ideas famously were censored because he challenged the Christian view.

The next topic of “The Republic” is another controversial idea. In this city that Socrates describes there will be doctors of course, but these doctors will not treat anyone. If you get wounded in battle of course the doctor will treat you, but any form of self-inflicted injury will not be taken care of. Let's say if you injure yourself from eating or drinking too much as an example. Sorry, that time and resources will not be wasted on you. Which kind of makes sense a little bit. But then it gets a little darker Socrates would probably argue for euthanasia. If you have a chronic illness you are then just costing this city a bunch of money and resources, and therefore you will be thanked for your service in the city but you will also be put to sleep. I think obviously now we have a very different view of life and I'm not saying I agree with it, we obviously know a lot more than we did back then, we don't have the same view of the afterlife as well. But I think what's interesting here is the distinction between a good and a bad life. A fundamental belief from when we're grown-up is that everyone is born equal and we should all be treated equally. And I agree with that of course, but where I think it's interesting is the distinction between a good and a bad life. And I think we treat all life as good when that's not necessarily the case. I hope that isn't taken in a weird way by anyone. All right let's move on, this is too controversial.

The third controversial idea is the myth of metals, which is another idea proposed by Socrates. And he explains this in an almost embarrassed manner. He knows how ridiculous this sounds, this myth of metals. But basically, it's a lie told by the city to its citizens that they don't have any mother or father and that they came from the earth. I think the purpose of this is pretty obvious, it's so that you would look at this state as your parent. And Socrates finds this very useful for the sake of a patriotic view of the state and loyalty to the state. And there are similar ideas around housing, people should live together in these common areas instead of private households, which will not be allowed by anyone even its rulers. So there's some pretty crazy ideas being proposed here. It's like Plato created communism, not Karl Marx. But perhaps the silliest bit out of the myth of metals is that everyone is born, not just from the earth, but into different categories. So you will be born either there into bronze, silver or gold category. And that will determine what sort of job and what group in society you fit into. And now at this point you might think: “well, this sounds pretty awful. I don't want to live in this city and neither should anyone” And I think you're right to assume that. The whole concept of this city is not with the mindset of the well-being of certain individuals, it's the mindset of the well-being of the whole state. And I think it's pretty interesting how completely opposite our ideas around individuality are today. And there’s obviously good reason for that, but I think there are examples from today of individual focus that almost seem comical. There's a lot of famous dystopias written around these sort of ideas. We have dystopian novels such as “1984”, "Brave New World, “We” by Zamyatin who may have inspired all of these. And these were authors who lived to see the effect of communism and totalitarianism, and the novels were probably written as a reaction to that. We have “Brave New World” which really fits into the Socratic idea of the myth of metals, where all the people in this novel are born from tests and labs. They don't have a mother or father; they are born in this factory. And they also fit into these groups as well, they are born into these different ranked groups in society and everyone is happy being part of their own group. Big Brother, of course, also with the idea of the state being this family figure almost. I don't know if that really fits, but you understand my point. “We” by Zamyatin where there is no individualism, you are born as a number and, as the name implies itself, it's all about the group and not your own well-being. According to Socrates there will be no money in this city which is a very interesting topic in itself as well. Adeimantus he loves gold, he sees is that something preposterous. And he says that if there's no gold then the city won't be able to defend itself because no one will come to its aid if they can't pay them. But Socrates claims that any neighboring city will happily come to its aid because they obviously have the best warriors. I've completely skipped a part about how they train their warriors, that's very interesting. But since they have the best warriors that don’t care about money, there will be everything left after the battle to plunder for themselves since this city does not permit it. I think Socrates recognizes that money is not necessarily a good but it's also not necessarily something bad. Here we go again with “boohoo, millionaire complaints about money”, that's not the case. I think I view it in a very similar way. I think money is good if you spend it well. But it's not as if I have a pile of money at home that I worship and that that in itself brings me joy. When you have money you worry about losing money. Take for example anyone at the stock market, it seems like a very stressful profession. And I think a lot of people have the view that: if only they had money then then they would be happy. But there's so many examples of people winning the lottery and then turning up more unhappy than they used to be because their whole worldview has changed, their whole life has changed because of money. I think there's even a science and data behind this now showing that after a certain amount of money, you don't become more happy because it probably implies more troubles. Which I can agree with. “Mo Money Mo Problems”, he said it the best, Biggie. Another interesting topic around this as well is expansionism where Socrates says this city will not expand beyond a certain point because by limiting the size of this city they can make sure that it can maintain its ruling. There's so many examples of this in history. We had Napoleon for example. The constant expanding eventually leading to its demise. And I think the same thing ties in with gold as well. When you have you just want more and more of it, eventually leading to your own destruction. Here I am making videos, why?

Book 5:

Now we're on book five everyone. I haven't mentioned this but basically there's ten books of “The Republic” but they can sort of be seen as chapters instead. And it gets even more strange at this point. Socrates brings up the topic of selective procreation which is another great lie that will be told by the state, that everyone's partner will be determined through a lottery state lottery. Where, basically, your sexual partner is chosen completely by chance. Or so they will be told. Of course the state will instead put together the most desirable or admirable that they want more of in this city to breed the best kind of people in the city, and also avoid any form of incest. Because obviously people don't know who their real mothers and fathers are, so it's also necessary in that sense. I think they follow the same storyline in Zamyatin’s “We” where everyone has their set partner in this dystopia. I think it's interesting how they bring up this topic of genetics and reproducing literally 2000 years ago. We're getting to a point where, in the future, we'll most likely be able to manipulate the DNA so that this superior people will come into existence we can we can change DNA in a way that we can craft certain individuals for certain purposes. I think I read it in an another book, I think it was Stephen Hawking who actually pointed this out. And Socrates was playing with the idea even 2,000 years ago, I think that's interesting. In book five we get to hear a little bit of Plato's ideas around feminism, which is not the best way to put it. I don't think I think that Socrates or Plato had any sort of ideas we have today. But he recognizes that men and women are different by nature, but in terms of ruling in term of who can be a ruler, he sees no difference between a man and a woman and that they are both fit for the role. I think even now most people aren't too used to women being in a leadership but again, 2,000 years ago, Socrates recognized that there is no difference. Which can be seen as a sort of progressive thought to put forward, especially with the knowledge of how poorly women were treated back in ancient Greece. I think all they had to do was stay at home all day, taking care of the house and they were generally treated poorly as far as I know. But then again, you could also just see it as recognizing that women can get what men already have.

Book 6:

So, who then are the most fit to rule this city? I'll let you guess. That's right, philosophers. I’ve got to say, Socrates is a little bit of an elitist it really feels like. So since philosophers seek truth above all else, their rationale and their rational part of the soul will best rule the city. So Socrates has a very interesting view of leadership, which in a way I agree with. But it's also extremely pessimistic. He says that if you look at how we determine a leader in a democracy, it is a very long process to go through. Anyone that wants to become a leader is up for a tremendous task of going through a public election, it's not something that anyone is willing to go through. To become a leader in our democracy you must truly want to become a leader and Socrates argues that the one most fitted to rule is the one that wants to rule the least. And he brings up this example of a boat where a couple of seamen are on this boat. They're travelling to this destination but everyone is arguing over who should steer the ship. Whilst the one who is most fit to steer the ship is the one focusing on the stars, and they're looking at the Stars to try and navigate instead. Which is what they should be doing. So the person most fit to steer the ship is the one focusing on what they need to do to, steer the ship, instead of arguing why they should steer the ship. I explained this very poorly but I think you understand the point. Therefore, according to Socrates, the one who wants to rule the least is the most appropriate to rule, but they will also never become the ruler because they don't seek it. And this is pessimistic in the sense that it implies that the ship cannot make it to the shore even if people are arguing, which is obviously not the case.

Book 7:

Next up we get into metaphysics, which I find a little hard to understand still. And therefore I will try in my best. I do understand the “Allegory of the Cave” and I think that's probably the best way to introduce the idea of the good as Socrates describes it. Socrates recognizes the world as something that can be described beyond our senses, he uses math as an example. 2+2 will always be 4 no matter where you are in the universe. When certain things according to our eyes and our vision and our senses will appear differently depending on our subjective manners, like colors. Is the color red red for everyone? But 2+2 will always be 4. Socrates brings up here in book 7 the most famous metaphor in philosophy, or Western philosophy at least. I talked about this before in my video and you might have heard it already. The famous “Allegory of the Cave”. It's something that I discussed in my Simulacra and Simulation video and I used it in the context of simulation, which funny enough still applies. But Socrates brings up the allegory of the cave as a way to describe education. I want you to try and imagine a very dark cave. And in this cave there are a couple people in a row and these people are completely immobilized they cannot move any inch of their body, they cannot move their head. Imagine Clockwork-Orange-style, strapped down in this cave with chains. The only thing these people can see is the cave wall in front of them. Now this wall has a bunch of shadows cast upon it because there is a light behind them and in front of this light there are people crossing a bridge. So what the prisoners in the chains can see on the wall are just shadows, all these people moving back and forth. And since these people have never experienced anything else in their life, for them, and what their senses are telling them is that these shadows are real because they don't know any other truth. So eventually, in this allegory of the cave one of the prisoners managed to escape his chain and his worldview is of course then completely changed. He sees people that are real, he sees a whole new dimension essentially. And Socrates describes this experience as something very painful to go through, but eventually a satisfying experience. But the prisoner isn't completely free yet, and he managed to escape the cave in itself where he eventually gets blinded by the Sun. Again a very painful experience, but once it's calmed down he recognizes the Sun the light brings all things into existence. He sees the flowers, he sees the trees, and there's this beautiful image where you see this character praising the Sun basically. And this Socrates’ metaphor for the idea of the Sun bringing the true forms. See, I'm not really good at explaining it. But the Sun represents the form of good basically and the point of education is to drag a person out of this cave to see things how they actually really are and not just feeding information to you. Not everyone can escape this cave and therefore Socrates thinks that the person who escaped the cave needs to come back. That philosopher-king needs to come back from the cave to rule.

Book 8 and 9:

In book eight, Socrates steps back from describing the Republic of the city and he instead takes some time to describe different forms of regimes. He describes a timocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy and finally a tyranny. And I will kind of brush over this because I don't know it that well and I kind of want to save any form of time I have at this point. But I think what's important here is how he notes that each one of these different rulings are worse than the other and that in the last stage, which is when democracy - the most free form of city that there is - will eventually fall into tyranny - the least free city. Socrates says that the desire for freedom will eventually lead to not having proper rulers, it will give the chance for a tyrant to rise. And I think it's very, very interesting how accurately Socrates depicts the rise of the tyrant two thousand years ago, more than two thousand years ago, he accurately depicts something that has already happened to us many times. You have the example of Saddam Hussein, our last known tyrant, who rose to power through democracy, I think, and he started off by doing a lot of good for his people, much like other tyrants of our time. Benito Mussolini, for example, who famously made the trains run on time. Saddam helped modernize infrastructure, he helped modernize industries, health care systems, education, different social services, farming. Same with Hitler but I will not bring up any examples because I don't want to be taken out of context. I think you get the point. The tyrant starts from a democracy and does good for his people, but as Socrates describes, the tyrant who is ruled by his desires will eventually get the taste of blood. He will do something to an opposition, he will execute one of his enemies, and he will do this in the name of the people, he will do it as “I've done something to protect you, not me”. And once he had the taste of blood that will just be the start of it. The tyrant who is ruled by his lust and desires will not just bleed the city dry but will become paranoid and kill all their enemies. This loss of blood will continue, only the people that flatter the tyrant will keep living and anyone challenging his position will of course be executed. And this is what happened to Saddam Hussein, at the end of his regime his military power was very poor because he had executed anyone and most of his best men just out of sheer paranoia. Socrates argues that the least happy man in the world is this ruling tyrant, which actually starts to make a lot of sense if you think about it. Constantly living in this fear, this paranoia driven by your greed and lust, you can't trust your friends. This constant fear of enemies. Saddam himself even had to move where he lived every single day to protect himself. So not only is the ruling tyrant the least happy, it's also the worst worse ruling for a city. For example, Iraq used to be so much richer before the time of Saddam Hussein. And Socrates draws the opposite line that the just man is the happiest man and the unjust man is the least happy man. So then who is the most happy man? Well of course, you could probably guess, that's right - the philosopher, everyone. Is anyone surprised? Again, such an elitist. According to Socrates, seeking truth is the greatest pleasure of them all and only a philosopher will know this because he's experienced all the pleasures. He even makes a really strange joke about it saying that the philosopher-king is 729 times happier than the ruling tyrant, which obviously is a joke, you cannot quantify such a thing. I think there's a reason behind the number, I just don't remember it. Socrates also draws a conclusion between the three parts of the city, at the three classes, and the three parts of the soul. I cannot get into it, I'm sorry. I just remember that it didn't really make sense to me the idea of the soul from Socrates.

Book 10:

Finally, we made it to the end, book ten, where Socrates brings up the view of the afterlife. He talks about the myth of Er, which is a warrior who died in battle and he then goes to the afterlife which has a bunch of people in it. Kind of like an airport. And he sees how the system works. And basically, people will have to serve a thousand years in heaven or a thousand years in hell, based on how you lived your life, that this is where you go. But after serving these thousand years you will then get to pick a new life again. And here again, according to Socrates, only this philosopher will know how to pick the right life. I think it's very interesting because, just like this natural progression of different type of ruling, so will the person, the individual, go through the natural progression between good and evil themselves. They will not always make the right decision of what life they want to live and only the philosopher knows which life is the right choice. And in the story he will have to pick last. I don't know if it was Er that had to pick, but the character of this myth has to pick last between what life they can live. And he eventually finds the life of a philosopher and he says: “this is the life I would have chosen, even if I got to pick first” and he was very happy with his decision. He picks this life of a philosopher, an ordinary man who minds his own business, and that is the definition of justice according to Socrates or Plato. Minding your own business and not meddling with other men's concerns.

Conclusion:

I think I kind of brushed over the end of how it all ties in together with the individual and the city, but I think this has gone on well enough. I think Plato's “The Republic” is such a phenomenal piece of literature, it makes me happy that I'm alive to even experience it just for the sake of taking part in these ideas that were written so long ago. I don't know if there exists anything like this. The life of Socrates is so interesting as well and it continues in his other books as well. Again, this is why I'm so happy I picked up literature. Because I think it's so interesting to take part in these discussions and ideas and stories. Whether you know it's real or not, I find it very, very fascinating to escape into. I don't know what other medium could possibly accomplish something like this and I think “The Republic” is such a great example of that. It discusses ideas that are still very much relevant today in a way that is still very engaging and exciting and I loved reading this book. I don't think I would have taken so much time with it otherwise. And if you made it this far, thank you for reading, it wasn't really much of a review but I got to bring up some of my thoughts around it. I would obviously give it 10 out of 10.

Rating: 5/5