Republic

But if something different manifests itself in the individual, we will return again to the state and test it there and it may be that, by examining them side by side[*](Cf. Sophist 230 B τιθέασι παρ’ ἀλλήλας, Isocrates Areopagiticus 79, Nic. 17.) and rubbing them against one another, as it were from the fire-sticks[*](Cf. L and S. and Morgan, De Ignis Eliciendi Modis, Harvard Studies, vol. i. pp. 15, 21 ff. and 30; and Damascius (Ruelle, p. 54, line 18) καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὅπερ εξαίφνης ἀνάπτεται φῶς ἀληθείας ὥσπερ ἐκ πυρείων προστριβομένων.) we may cause the spark of justice to flash forth,[*](Cf. Gorgias 484 B, Epistle vii. 344 B.) and when it is thus revealed confirm it in our own minds.Well, he said, that seems a sound method[*]( Plato often observes that a certain procedure is methodical and we must follow it, or that it is at least methodical or consistent, whatever the results may be.) and that is what we must do. Then, said I, if you call a thing by the same[*](ὅ γε ταὐτόν: there are several reasons for the seeming over-elaboration of the logic in the next few pages. The analogy between the three classes in the state and the tripartite soul is an important point in Plato’s ethical theory and an essential feature in the structure of the Republic. Very nice distinctions are involved in the attempt to prove the validity of the analogy for the present argument without too flagrant contradiction of the faith elsewhere expressed in the essential unity of the soul. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, p. 42. These distinctions in the infancy of logic Plato is obliged to set forth and explain as he proceeds. Moreover, he is interested in logical method for its own sake (cf.. Introduction p. xiv), and is here stating for the first time important principles of logic afterwards codified in the treatises of Aristotle. γε marks the inference from the very meaning of ταὐτόν. Cf. on 379 B, 389 B, and Politicus 278 E; cf. also Parmenides 139 E. The language suggests the theory of ideas. But Plato is not now thinking primarily of that. He is merely repeating in precise logical form the point already made (434 D-E), that the definition of justice in the individual must correspond point for point with that worked out for the state.) name whether it is big or little, is it unlike in the way in which it is called the same or like? Like, he said. Then a just man too will not differ[*](Cf. 369 A and Meno 72 B. In Philebus 12 E-13 C, Plato points out that the generic or specific identity does not exclude specific or sub-specific differences.) at all from a just city in respect of the very form of justice, but will be like it. Yes, like. But now the city was thought to be just because three natural kinds existing in it performed each its own function, and again it was sober, brave, and wise because of certain other affections and habits[*](ἕξεις is here almost the Aristotelian ἕξις. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1105 b 20, regards πάθη, ἕξεις and δυνάμεις as an exhaustive enumeration of mental states. For δυνάμεις cf. 477 C, Simplic. De An. Hayduck, p. 289 ἀλλὰ τὰ ὧν πρὸς πρακτικὴν ἐδεῖτο ζωήν, τὰ τρία μόνα παρείληφεν.) of these three kinds. True, he said. Then, my friend, we shall thus expect the individual also to have these same forms in his soul, and by reason of identical affections of these with those in the city to receive properly the same appellations. Inevitable, he said. Goodness gracious, said I, here is another trifling[*](Cf. 423 C.) inquiry into which we have plunged, the question whether the soul really contains these three forms in itself or not. It does not seem to me at all trifling, he said, for perhaps, Socrates, the saying is true that ’fine things are difficult.’[*](A proverb often cited by Plato with variations. Cf. 497 D-E.) Apparently, said I; and let me tell you, Glaucon, that in my opinion we shall never in the world apprehend this matter[*](τοῦτο by strict grammatical implication means the problem of the tripartite soul, but the reference to this passage in 504 B shows that it includes the whole question of the definition of the virtues, and so ultimately the whole of ethical and political philosophy. We are there told again that the definitions of the fourth book are sufficient for the purpose, but that complete insight can be attained only by relating them to the idea of the good. That required a longer and more circuitous way of discipline and training. Plato then does not propose the longer way as a method of reasoning which he himself employs to correct the approximations of the present discussion. He merely describes it as the higher education which will enable his philosophical rulers to do that. We may then disregard all idle guesses about a new logic hinted at in the longer way, and all fantastic hypotheses about the evolution of Plato’s thought and the composition of the Republic based on supposed contradictions between this passage and the later books. Cf. Introduction p. xvi, Idea of Good, p. 190, Unity of Plato’s Thought, p. 16, n. 90; followed by Professor Wilamowitz, ii. p. 218, who, however, does not understand the connection of it all with the idea of good. Plato the logician never commits himself to more than is required by the problem under discussion (cf. on 353 c), and Plato the moralist never admits that the ideal has been adequately expressed, but always points to heights beyond. Cf. 506 E, 533 A, Phaedo 85 C, Ti. 29 B-C, Soph. 254 C.) from such methods as we are now employing in discussion. For there is another longer and harder way that conducts to this. Yet we may perhaps discuss it on the level of previous statements and inquiries. May we acquiesce in that? he said. I for my part should be quite satisfied with that for the present. And I surely should be more than satisfied, I replied. Don’t you weary then, he said, but go on with the inquiry. Is it not, then, said I, impossible for us to avoid admitting[*](Plato takes for granted as obvious the general correspondence which some modern philosophers think it necessary to reaffirm. Cf. Mill, Logic, vi. 7. 1 Human beings in society have no properties, but those which are derived from and may be resolved into the laws and the nature of individual man; Spencer, Autobiog. ii. p. 543 Society is created by its units. . . . The nature of its organization is determined by the nature of its units. Plato illustrates the commonplace in a slight digression on national characteristics, with a hint of the thought partially anticipated by Hippocrates and now identified with Buckle’s name, that they are determined by climate and environment. Cf. Newman, Introduction to Aristotle Politics pp. 318-320.) this much, that the same forms and qualities are to be found in each one of us that are in the state? They could not get there from any other source.

It would be absurd to suppose that the element of high spirit was not derived in states from the private citizens who are reputed to have this quality as the populations of the Thracian and Scythian lands and generally of northern regions; or the quality of love of knowledge, which would chiefly be attributed to[*](αἰτιάσαιτο: this merely varies the idiom αἰτίαν ἔχειν, predicate of,say of. Cf. 599 E. It was a common boast of the Athenians that the fine air of Athens produced a corresponding subtlety of wit. Cf. Euripides Medea 829-830, Isocrates vii. 74, Roberts, The Ancient Boeotians, pp. 59, 76.) the region where we dwell, or the love of money[*](φιλοχρήματον is a virtual synonym of ἐπιθυμητικόν. Cf. 580 E and Phaedo 68 C, 82 C.) which we might say is not least likely to be found in Phoenicians[*](In Laws 747 C, Plato tells that for this or some other cause the mathematical education of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, which he commends, developed in them πανουργία rather than σοφία.) and the population of Egypt.One certainly might, he replied. This is the fact then, said I, and there is no difficulty in recognizing it. Certainly not. But the matter begins to be difficult when you ask whether we do all these things with the same thing or whether there are three things and we do one thing with one and one with another—learn with one part of ourselves, feel anger with another, and with yet a third desire the pleasures of nutrition and generation and their kind, or whether it is with the entire soul[*](The questions debated by psychologists from Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 1102 a 31) to the present day is still a matter of rhetoric, poetry, and point of view rather than of strict science. For some purposes we must treat the faculties of the mind as distinct entities, for others we must revert to the essential unity of the soul. Cf. Arnold’s Lines on Butler’s Sermons and my remarks in The Assault on Humanism. Plato himself is well aware of this, and in different dialogues emphasizes the aspect that suits his purpose. There is no contradiction between this passage and Phaedo 68 C, 82 C, and Republic x. 611-12. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, pp. 42-43.) that we function in each case when we once begin. That is what is really hard to determine properly. I think so too, he said. Let us then attempt to define the boundary and decide whether they are identical with one another in this way. How? It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites[*](The first formulation of the law of contradiction. Cf. Phaedo 102 E, Theaetetus 188 A, Soph. 220 B, 602 E. Sophistical objections are anticipated here and below (436 E) by attaching to it nearly all the qualifying distinctions of the categories which Aristotle wearily observes are necessary πρὸς τὰς σοφιστικὰς ἐνοχλήσεις (De interp. 17 a 36-37). Cf. Met. 1005 b 22 πρὸς τὰς λογικὰς δυσχερείας, and Rhet. ii. 24. Plato invokes the principle against Heraclitism and other philosophies of relativity and the sophistries that grew out of them or played with their formulas. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, pp. 50 ff., 53, 58, 68. Aristotle follows Plato in this, pronouncing it πασῶν βεβαιοτάτη ἀρχή (Met. 1005 b 18).) in the same respect[*](κατὰ ταὐτόν = in the same part or aspect of itself; πρὸς ταὐτόν = in relation to the same (other) thing. Cf. Sophist 230 B ἅμα περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πρὸς τὰ αὐτὰ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐναντίας.) in relation to the same thing and at the same time. So that if ever we find[*](For this method of reasoning cf. 478 D, 609 B, Laws 896 C, Charmides 168 B-C, Gorgias 496 C, Philebus 11 D-E.) these contradictions in the functions of the mind we shall know that it was[*](ἦν = was all along and is.) not the same thing functioning but a plurality. Very well. Consider, then, what I am saying. Say on, he replied. Is it possible for the same thing at the same time in the same respect to be at rest[*](The maxim is applied to the antithesis of rest and motion, so prominent in the dialectics of the day. Cf. Sophist 249 C-D, Parmenides 156 D and passim.) and in motion? By no means. Let us have our understanding still more precise, lest as we proceed we become involved in dispute. If anyone should say of a man standing still but moving his hands and head that the same man is at the same time at rest and in motion we should not, I take it, regard that as the right way of expressing it, but rather that a part[*](Cf. Theaetetus 181 E.) of him is at rest and a part in motion. Is not that so? It is. Then if the disputant should carry the jest still further with the subtlety that tops at any rate[*](The argumentative γε is controversial. For the illustration of the top cf. Spencer, First Principle, 170, who analyzes certain oscillations described by the expressive though inelegant word wobbling and their final dissipation when the top appears stationary in the equilibrium mobile.) stand still as a whole at the same time that they are in motion when with the peg fixed in one point they revolve, and that the same is true of any other case of circular motion about the same spot—we should reject the statement on the ground that the repose and the movement in such cases[*](The meaning is plain, the alleged rest and motion do not relate to the same parts of the objects. But the syntax of τὰ τοιαῦτα is difficult. Obvious remedies are to expunge the words or to read τῶν τοιούτων, the cacophony of which in the context Plato perhaps rejected at the cost of leaving his syntax to our conjectures.) were not in relation to the same parts of the objects, but we would say that there was a straight line and a circumference in them and that in respect of the straight line they are standing still[*](Cf. Aristotle Met. 1022 a 23 ἔτι δὲ τὸ καθὸ τὸ κατὰ θέσιν λέγεται, καθὸ ἕστηκεν, etc,) since they do not incline to either side, but in respect of the circumference they move in a circle; but that when as they revolve they incline the perpendicular to right or left or forward or back, then they are in no wise at rest. And that would be right, he said.