On Plato's Republic
I am in the process of doing some research on the links between sacrificial orders and the orders which followed after them (centralised desacralized orders) and in doing so it struck me that Greek philosophy is conspicuous in disregarding sacrifice. The whole endeavor of speculating what the real substance is behind the visible world (like with Thales and his water) is a far cry from offering sacrifice to Athena or traveling to the Oracle of Delphi to obtain sanction on a decision. With this in mind, I’ve decided to read through Plato’s Republic again.
I had read it a long time ago, but it never really made much of an impression on me. I much preferred reading things like Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander and Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, but this time, having a better understanding of the context within which it was, I am able to engage with it much better. I have to say it has gone from being a fairly boring piece of work to one that really confuses me because it is just terrible. I really don’t know how you can come away from the work (once you have a good grasp of the context) without thinking that the Athenians were probably too nice to Socrates.
Before I start with book one, it is worth making the disclaimer that I don’t read Greek and I am therefore obviously working from a translation. This is important to note because translations are deeply suspect. It is impossible to translate something from one language to another without it being deeply garbled in some way. Each translator overlays their own culture’s categories and conceptual frameworks onto things, so it may be that I am doing Plato a disservice. As for making the context clear, what is happening in Greece in this period is that the older order is being replaced by a new one. This older order is one in which sacrificial rites were central. The purpose of these rites were to consult the gods on what to do or get their sanction on decisions already made. To give an example, when Solon was chosen to make the new laws of Athens before Socrates and Plato’s time he is reputed to have consulted the Oracles of Delphi about the issue. The laws he penned stipulating what appears to have been some form of debt cancellation were called seisachtheia and it seems its name was taken from, or given to, a public sacrifice that occurred at the same time. Various translations are not clear on this point, but that there was a sacrifice to inaugurate the laws is agreed upon. The purpose of this sacrifice was to probably confirm with the gods that they sanctioned it. (side note: both inaugurate and sanction etymologically stem from sacrificial rites.) Solons laws also dealt with things like what animals could be sacrificed, and their values, so he paid close attention to sacrifical rites.
In place of this sacrificial order which put all decisions before the gods came an order that’s very name lacks any link to sacrificial governance – tyranny/ the tyrants. Plato’s uncle was Critias, a leader of the Thirty Tyrants (along with Charmides) and he was apparently related through his mother to Pisistratus (a tyrant). This order, being able to wield coinage as a governing mechanism, could side step the older sacrificial order, and it did.
So let’s look through book one.
Book one opens with Plato praying to the goddess (Athena, I assume), but was this sincere? Clearly not given his philosophy, so why state it? I think it’s to deflect charges of being subversive.
Next, one of the first characters introduced is Cephalus. An old man who had been conducting a sacrifice.
They immediately start talking about money.
Plato/ Socrates links money to sacrifice and the after world.
Then starts discussing ethics in relation to monetary relationships.
The focus on money is really telling.
Next Cephalus, being what looks like a literary symbol of the old sacrificial order, totters off after previously discussing how he has no libido now.
I can’t help but read this as Plato/ Socrates being pretty dismissive of the old elite and depicting them in a humiliating way. They are presented here in the guise of an old man who can’t get it up anymore - it’s a bit much, but it seems par for the course with Plato and Socrates. I can’t help but get the impression both Socrates and Plato were probably pretty insufferable people.
Another point to note is that the focus on money, and the connections being drawn between money and the ethics being discussed, is quite striking. I recall the argument being made elsewhere that its not a coincidence that it is in the hyper monetized/ coinage using states of Greece that we start getting philosophy talking about some “real” substance behind the visible world. Its their equivalent of people talking about how we could be living in a virtual reality as philosophy, or the mind as a computer.
The next part of book one involves Socrates in a Socratic dialogue with first Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus (who conspicuously doesn’t join his father in dealing with the sacrifice), and later, Thrasymachus. The debate with Polemarchus is conducted with some civility, but having been exposed to Alasdair Macintyre I can see what the discussion with Polemarchus really is - a waste of time and an exercise in utter confusion. What Socrates has done has demanded a definition from his interlocutor of something which doesn’t exist as an abstract thing . This thing being “justice”. The philosophers did this with other things like “good” and “bad” which Socrates also plays around with here. Justice, like good, is clearly an evaluative concept that pertains to specific situations which exist in specific times and places. It is embedded in a narrative, if you will. You cannot rip it from this narrative and then talk about it as if it exists as a thing. Its nonsensical. I mean, look at this gibberish:
You can get these world salads by ripping the evaluative words from context. Look how tiring and annoying this section is:
:
No wonder they made him drink Hemlock.
Subsequently, Polemarchus seems to bow before the great and brilliant Socrates, so he is treated fairly well in the book. Thrasymachus, on the other hand, is pretty much humiliated because it looks like he has Socrates’ number:
Thrasymachus isn’t wrong here. Socrates is the one bringing justice in as some abstract thing so he should be able to describe it thus without specifics, shouldn’t he? Of course Socrates weasels out of it at this point:
This is all part of the famous “I know that I know nothing” jestering, and then having weaseled out of an answer, he turns it back on Thrasymachus:
The depiction of Thrasymachus in this book really leaves me uncomfortable. Its like reading some Redditor’s secret fantasy diary entry where they humiliate a bully with superior reasoning, tip their fedora, and then walk away to cheers from a crowd.
Again, Thrasymachus has his number:
Socrates is employing tricks to win an argument. He will bounce between abstracts that don’t exist and then back to concrete example to undermine answers he previously asked for. His answers aren’t subject to the stringent criticism he doles out. Like here. He sneaks in “the good”, but isn’t pulled up on it, obviously. What is “good” why are they “good”? Who knows, but Socrates says they are and we must bow down before his logical brilliance.
One of the more annoying parts of book 1 which is filled with annoying behavior, is that a point made by Thrasymachus is “vanquished” by Socrates in a completely unsatisfactory way. The point being the following:
The problem with the post sacrificial orders is this is a descriptive claim. This is what the situation really is at base once you step out of the sacrificial order and its a problem we have been struggling with ever since. You can see Machiavelli and all of that stuff right here. Socrates, being the supporter of tyrants and the non-sacrificial order obviously can’t agree to this and gives this answer:
Do you see what he does here? The ruler is ruling for the people, therefore he is doing what is good for them, and if he doesn’t he isn’t a “real” ruler. He further defends this as follows:
Do you think Socrates gets the same level of nitpicking of these claims as Thrasymachus has to put up with? of course not.
Then by the end of book one, we get Thrasymachus apparently fully beaten and eating out of Socrates hands. At this point Socrates starts claiming that justice IS an evaluative concept linked to the function of the soul which I find incredibly puzzling. Having demanded people define it in the abstract he then gives it an evaluative role in the abstract for an abstract concept which is itself undefined and undefinable. Then to ramp the confusion to 11, he subsequently claims he doesn’t know what justice is.
I have looked through some synopsizes of the book from other sources to see if I am missing something here, but it seems like no one else can make much sense of this, either.