As a political scientist reading The Republic, it is difficult for me to separate the political philosophy from the metaphysical philosophy. After all, in his attempt to explain the soul, Socrates makes sweeping assumptions about human ability and wisdom. He does not think that people are capable of managing their lives. He begins by altering the people’s view of the gods by removing any negative stories about them from the city (386c-392a). Although we eventually came to the conclusion in class that he is probably just watering the stories down for children, one must still ask if this is the government’s role.
Socrates continues the book by analyzing types of music , banning some while permitting others(397c-400e), and gymnastic (412a). He wants to create a population of Guardians that has the proper balance between lightness of the soul and strength of the spirit. Once again, however, we are faced with the question of whether or not the government always knows best and should replace parents as the guides in this system.
At the end of Tuesday’s class, the topic of parental competence was addressed. Basically Socrates decided that since parents are imperfect and cannot properly raise their children, then the State should do it for them. I am not convinced by this argument. While parents are imperfect so is every other human. I believe that nobody is in a better position to guide a child’s mind than the people who brought them into the world. The children raised under Socrates’ regime will not always turn out the way he intends. If I have learned anything by helping my mom in her kindergarten class sometimes, it is that different children learn differently. In fact, people are far too different in tastes, personalities, or talents to be able to exist under the same set of rules to guide their whole life.
I believe that the greatest virtue is freedom and the “right to be let alone.” I understand the need to guide children, but I do not believe that this is the job of the State, that nameless, faceless creature that asserts all the power of a parent but none of the love or care for each individual. The problem with Socrates’ entire analysis is that paternalistic government does not work; humans are far too complex, rebellious, and brilliant to be stifled and managed so closely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although you say that it is difficult for you to separate the political implications from the metaphysical implications, it seems to me that you have ignored the metaphysical implications and have only considered (or in this case commented on) the political implications.
ReplyDeleteWhat if Socrates is instead concerned about the metaphysical implications posed by the dialogues in The Republic and is establishing the city of necessity to emphasize the importance of the soul? There must be some reason that Socrates mentions it at all.
I understand that the metaphysical implications emerge from the political comparison Socrates makes. I mainly take issue with the nature of individuals that he requires us to accept at the beginning of his argument: that the society is greater than the sum of its parts since no human is independent. To see the government he creates as a useful tool for understanding the soul, one must first accept his premises. For the topic of my original post I do not accept them, but that argument now must be set aside for the rest of the book and I, for the sake of the revelations he makes later, do concede his initial point. His reason for creating a city has already emerged, and will even become more clear later, as a blueprint to maintaining order in the soul by establishing a proper hierarchy. I see the connection he is making; I just believe that there are some problems with the merits of the city half of the argument, which I used this post to address.
ReplyDeleteI suggest trying to ignore the political aspect if possible and try focusing on the metaphysical (or anything besides political) aspect since you are so obviously aware of the first. Maybe you should question Socrates' notion of the soul or something of that sort. Consider the possibility that Socrates is proving the perfection of the soul since it cannot be illustrated by the practical analogy of the city of necessity; because the soul is not a physical entity, its nature cannot be adequately explained by an imperfect science (political science, or the art of promoting just human interaction).
ReplyDelete