Censorship

When I first read Book III from The Republic, I felt that Socrates was taking too many rights from the people of the just city, more specifically the guardians. I have always feared that I was living in some crazy censored society like those portrayed in The Truman Show or The Village. The thought of having my freedom to certain knowledge prohibited secretly by certain “rulers” terrifies me. That’s how I feel about this city that Socrates has built. I understand that children can’t distinguish subtleties as well as adults and that children are censored from many aspects of life anyways, but not everything should be censored. I think that children should learn of these vicious characters so that they know these kind of people exist. I know that I was never censored as a child. I could watch whatever movies I wanted (often R-rated and considered “inappropriate”) since I can remember, and I still grew up with a grip on what was right and what was wrong. I understand that Socrates wants a city without corruption, but I don’t think the cost of human rights is worth it.

The Children: Good/ Evil

In book II, Socrates talks about modifying the stories where the gods are portrayed as evil. He does this in order to protect the minds of their future guardians. I have a hard time agreeing with Socrates in this instance because this would effect everyone and not just the children. There is a good and evil in the world and choices that come with that, but also by seeing the evil, in most cases, it makes people want to do the good. I feel that if we hold back the differences from the children they will be sheltered and naive. It is kind of like Sunday school, they teach us the good and the bad, but of course it is a more watered down version they teach because they are not going to tell us straight off that if we do not accept Jesus that we will go straight to hell. However, they do tell us about the evil and give us a distinct difference of the good and bad. My point is that the Bible has bad characters as well, but the teachers still told us some version of the stories when we were younger (still molding our brains/knowledge). Those teachings did not make us want to be like them and idolize the bad characters we were learning about. I have never been in a place where there wasn’t evil in stories so I couldn’t imagine what this impact would look like. I believe that in Socrate’s society they should not shelter the children and they should always tell the protagonist and the antagonist in the stories so the children can distinctly see what lifestyle they should model.

State of the Soul

When first reading Book III of the Republic, I could not believe the structured city that Socrates described with its limitations or complete lack of personal freedoms and manipulation of education. But then I realized that I was looking at this city from the wrong angle. I had forgotten that Socrates originally set out to build this city as a metaphor for the soul. Caught up in the governmental aspects, I was angered at Socrates’ lack of respect or care for peoples’ personal liberties, their right to know all about the world around them. But then I realized two very important things: first, this city is representative of the soul, not a modern interpretation of a city in America and second, Socrates is referring to children and the state of their souls when he talks about censoring them from the tales of evil. Before these restrictions, children and adults were being treated and educated the same. That is, the children had no censor to the horrors present in the city. But Socrates recognizes the soul as something delicate. Going back to Book II, Socrates discusses how children are the future and that “the beginning is the most important part of every work and that this is especially so with anything young and tender.” He goes on to say that “at this state [the soul is] most plastic, and each thing assimilates itself to the model whose stamp anyone wishes to give to it” (376b). Socrates is hinting here what he addresses fully in Book III: that a child’s soul must be protected so that when they meet the hardships of adulthood and their souls find a definite shape, they will be good. This doesn’t mean that children are sheltered for the rest of their lives but instead their souls will be rooted in what is good so that when they inevitably witness and experience the bad, their soul will recognize it for what it is. Is this such a ridiculous concept? Don’t parents today try to protect their children from the evil of the world? Do parents raise their children by reading them bedtime stories about going to hell and the devil? No, but these stories do exist and children will discover them later in life when their souls have been shaped with the good and they can clearly recognize the bad in the world. Socrates merely stresses that children must be raised with a foundation of good rather than bad because children imitate what they are taught and if these imitations “are practiced continually from youth onwards, [they will] become established as habits and nature, in body sounds and thoughts” (395d).

The Noble Lie: is it just?

Nearing the end of Book III, Socrates asks Glaucon, "Could we...somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need...some one noble lie to persuade... the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city?"

What he is referring to as "one of those lies that come into being in case of need" is the kind of lie that he is talking about with Adeimantus in Book II. They agree that lies are useful "as a preventive, like a drug, for so-called friends when from madness or some folly they attempt to do something bad" when they are likened to the truth as best as possible. It appears that Socrates views the noble lie as a way to protect the people from the truth so as to prevent them from making mistakes or going crazy. Some advantages of persuading the people of this lie are plain: it will create unity among the people and they will love and honor their homeland. But it also creates a mysterious authority that cannot be reckoned with in the Earth as it determines (according to the noble lie) the mixture of metal in each person's soul (or the aptitude of each person). But how can Socrates hold that this noble lie would be just in an actual situation, or would he at all? This is a point of great conflation for me, although I am inclined to say that Socrates is doing all he can to make this city of necessity seem successful in being likened to the human soul. But maybe not.

In Favor of Democracy

Mr. Davis raised the point today in class about who should be capable of choosing rulers. He stated in so many words “wouldn’t it make the most sense for your teachers (K-12) to chose who was capable based on their ability learn?” Keep in mind; I do not know if this is his personal view but Mr. Davis or one that he stated merely for the purpose of debate. Unfortunately the subject changed before I was able to off a relevant rebuttal, but I would like to say that I disagree. As Mr. Davis would pointed out the argument is hard to make in our society because teachers have been appointed by politicians that have potential to be corrupt, and frankly it is a statistic that many teachers of K-12 made only average grades and scored relatively poor on test when they themselves were going through school, but lets take away the variables and lets imagine teachers are proficient in their jobs which I personally feel most are. Also lets shrink the size of our society for this scenario to say the size of a classroom. Would not better to have more than one person making a decision about who should rule considering first that everyone has live with this all-important decision second people might have different views of the same person based on personal experience with said person? For instance, maybe a boy is capable of impressing his teacher with his grades and appears to his teacher to be both virtuous and capable, but others in the class (his peers) notice things that the teacher does not like say the fact that he treats his classmates cruelly when the teacher is not looking. Essentially this how view democracy, many eyes keeping each other in check and agreeing on laws so that there is not chaos. Which to me seems to away from Socrates’ “myth of the metals” to a large extent.

A State of Control

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.

Book 3 and the "City"

In book 3 Socrates gets down to the means of the discussion of the just city. We see the whole exploration with the Guardians. In Book 2 Socrates told us that the education in this just city that he created must be of moral education. Basically I think he says here that there are only certain subject to which can be looked at and those that need to be put aside or ignored. We saw that in book 3 also when Socrates was trying to tell us that we should only tell the Guardians the good things and let them learn only good and not to associate with the bad. As said in class I don't like how this sounds. I have a suggestion of what should happen though. I think that Socrates should raise these Guardians as children in any way he wants. If that is knowing only the good then that is fine, but as they grow they should be exposed to everything which is even the bad and by the age of understanding and talking on the role of being Guardians then the once children should be able to decide and choose what they want for themselves. At the end of Book 3 the guardians lifestyle is more closely examined and it seems to be joyless. Socrates wants us to have these Guardians for the city because people were already unhappy with life if that is how I understand it. If the whole point of the Republic is justice, then is it even just to have Guardians? I hope someone can help me answer this question. I find this question hard to find an answer to. I want to believe that if it was truly a just city then there would be no need for Guardians, but I also think that to be just we might need that role model type person like the Guardians to help give us a push in the right position. If anyone wants to help me answer this question please do.