What really is the highest state worth achieving? Are material things going to give us the most amount of joy or are they a waste of time? Socrates addresses these issues in Book Seven of Plato’s Republic. Through the use of the very well known allegory of the cave, Socrates talks about how we are moving to achieve the ideal state of being (i.e. wisdom and truth.)

Right off the bat in Book Seven Socrates jumps into the allegory. There is a cave. There are men that are forced to look at the back of the cave with their heads locked into position. There is a fire behind them. As people pass in front of the fire and behind the prisoners, they cast a shadow. The prisoners can only see the shadows so assume it is reality.

Socrates then raises the question of what would happen if a prisoner was released and allowed to see the light. He says, “Don’t you suppose he’d be at a loss and believe that what was seen before is truer than what is now shown?” It would take some time for the prisoner to fully understand this new truth, which has just been revealed to him.

This allegory of the cave is meant to represent us. We are all in the cave and sitting in darkness. We think that truth is the shadows in front of us. We need to be taken to something higher.

We achieve this ascent through seeking truth. We seek the truth through education and finding new ways to exercise our ability to reason. Socrates says, “…this power is in the soul of each, and the instrument with which each learns – just as an eye is not able to turn toward the light from the dark without the whole body – must be turned around from that which is coming into being together with the whole soul until it is able to endure looking at that which is and the brightest part of that which is.”

As founders of the city, they have to make sure that the best nature of the people is being supported. The city is not there for each of the members to go their own way. It is for the people to live together in harmony. They together must seek truth and justice. After spending some time with the common people, the founders will be able to “see ten thousand times better than the men there, and you’ll know what each of the phantoms is, and of what it is a phantom, because you have seen the truth about fair, just and good things.”

Giving the guardians and the philosopher kings the proper education is a key part of their ascent to knowledge and wisdom. If they are going to be guarding and leading the city, they need to be both great in fighting and great in knowledge. Socrates says, “…our guardian is both warrior and philosopher.”

All too often in our lives we embrace things that in the end turn out to be nothing but shadows. We think material possesions are going to help us to achieve this higher state, which we desire. According to Socrates, it is through being trained well and exercising our mind that we can achieve the level of intellect, knowledge, and wisdom.

Just like a boat needs to be steered, a group needs a leader with the wisdom to know the direction to take things. For Socrates, being a philosopher and a lover of truth is the highest role in life and is what is most needed in a leader. Socrates states that the leader of the city should be the philosopher king. The question is what would the philosopher king look like. What would he value? In book six of Plato’s Republic, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus continue to discuss who the philosopher king will be and how they will find him.

The first thing they try to understand is what the nature of the philosopher king might be. They know he needs to be a lover of truth; constantly asking questions and desiring to know the right path. Socrates says, “let’s agree that they are always in love with that learning which discloses to them something of the being that is always and does not wander about, driven by generation and decay.”

Being that the philosopher king would be a lover of truth and wisdom, he would not desire to please his appetite for the vices of sex, food, and property. Indulgence would cause him to lose his sense of focus. He might start living for himself and not the city. Socrates says that he would “forsake those pleasures that come through the body – if he isn’t counterfeit but a true philosopher.

Wisdom is not just being able to recognize fruitless pursuits like overly indulging in vice, it is being able to learn from the past. The philosopher king is someone who will remember what has happened from the past, instead of choosing to be brought down by it. He will use the knowledge of the past to better guide the city in the best direction. Socrates says, “Let us never then admit a forgetful soul into the ranks of those that are adequately philosophic; in our search let us rather demand a soul with a memory.” Socrates later says when using the analogy of the pilot of the ship, “They don’t know that for the true pilot it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and everything that’s property to the art, if he is really going to be skilled at ruling a ship.”

As stated earlier, the philosopher king must love to learn because he loves truth. He must place a high importance on education so that he can grow in virtue. Socrates says, “Well, then, I suppose that if the nature we set down for the philosopher chances on a suitable course of learning, it will necessarily grow and come to every kind of virtue.” The knowledge that he receives from his education will be a base for his understanding of life.

With society being the way the way they are, it would be very hard to find the philosopher king. There are not that many people out there that would fit the qualifications. There is no guarantee that when someone finds a suitable philosopher to be king that he would want to do it.

For a city or a community to thrive and not just get by, they need a great leader. Socrates’ city needed the philosopher king. It would be someone who loved wisdom, sought the truth, had a solid understanding of history, and a education that gave him a solid base of knowledge. The leader…the philosopher king would have the foresight to “steer the ship” in the right direction.

We must be guard ourselves to make sure what we do is the best for the community. Only the men and women whom are best for each other should marry. Those who are married will produce the children, which will be the next generation of the community. We need to have the best guardians and the best leaders. Just like this, in Book Five of Plato’s Republic, Socrates understood the importance of protecting the city of today and ensuring a great city of tomorrow; protecting against the forces and factions that could tear it apart.

At the start of Book Five, Socrates was about to move onto something else but Adeimantus felt that there was one major spot of the city that had not been covered yet. Adeimantus wanted to know how marriage and children within the guardians would be handled. He says, “…we’ve been waiting all this time supposing you would surely mention begetting of children.”

First they talk about the differences between men and women. There are obvious physical differences. Are men and women different by nature? They agree that people should be assigned jobs according to their nature. In the end, men and women have the same level of humanity and are able to accomplish the same things. They should both be allowed to be guardians and fight in battles.

The next question is how will men and women marry. Marriages will be “sacred in the highest possible degree.” The law will mandate a festival and sacrifice for a marriage. Poets will come and make hymns. Marriages are to be arranged by the ruler of the land. The city must make sure that only the best procreate so that the best children are produced.

Once the offspring are produced, they do not get to see their parents. It would be bad to possibly allow the offspring to be influenced by their parents. They must be rushed off and taught what is justice and how to be a guardian of the city.

When parents produce a child, they are passing their legacy to the next generation. Children are the greatest contribution two people can make to the city. The next generation will determine its success or failure.

There needs to be the best people in the city so that the city will survive. The city will be like a family. Factions within a city are like factions within a family. Factions will tear a city apart. Bust just like a family, life is so much sweeter when life can be experienced together.

Glorifying personal appetite for vice and self-interest is a main cause for faction within a community. If the guardians want to be successful, they need to steer clear of their personal appetites and of self-interest.

We have our city. Men and women are fighting together against the enemy, for the good of the city…the family. The city needs a leader. Socrates offers the idea that the ruler of the city needs to be both a master of politics and of philosophy. He needs to be able to govern with forethought, prudence, justice, and truth. Socrates said, “…but they are like philosophers…the lovers of the sight of truth.”

The long-term success of the city is largely dependent on the people that are in it. The relationships that are formed within the city, who marries whom, and the children that are born will all form the character of the city. A city must also have a great leader. We must protect the city of today and ensure a great city for tomorrow.

In Plato’s Republic Book 4, Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, while continuing to build their utopian city, start to realize the level of sacrifice that will be required. Will the guardians be able forgo the “savage masters” of their appetites for personal wealth for the sake of the city?

Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain why they are not allowing the guardians of the city to relish some type of personal desire or property. Why wouldn’t they be allowed to have private wealth? Socrates explains that if they are going to focus on justice of the city, it would be bad for them to have any personal agendas or personal desires taking their minds captive. Socrates says, “…we are not looking to exceptional happiness of any one group among us but as far as possible, that of the city as a whole.”

There has to be a balance between wealth and poverty. Socrates gives the example of a potter. If he is rich, he will become lazy. If he is poor he will not even be able to afford the tools that he will need to perform his craft. The city must be guarded from these two extremes.

The question comes up of how big the city should be. Socrates says, “up to that point in its growth at which it’s willing to be one.” The city needs to be kept to people that are willing to give it all up for the sake of the city.

Procreation will be one reason for the city to increase in size. It would be too easy for the wrong people to get together, get married, and have children that could end up being unjust. Marriage and procreation needs to be arranged wherever possible. This would maximize that possibility that they would have children that would be a contribution to the greatness of the city.

Just like marriage, music is something that needs to be restricted and monitored. There is something about music that moves the soul and stays with you. It causes people to think new ways. People may start to think too much for themselves and live for something other then the city. It could distract from the bigger picture.

Great appetite for personal wealth might also be a distraction from the needs of the city. Adeimantus’ first reaction was that this was something that could be regulated by new laws. Socrates compared this to cutting off the heads of a Hydra. It might help to solve the problem initially but it would just come back. They recognize that religion does a better job at regulating the activities of a man’s soul.

An appetite for personal wealth comes from a man’s soul. This is just one part of the soul. There is also spiritedness and reason. If people desire to be just, they must sacrifice their desires and their spiritedness in favor of using reason. Socrates says, “Isn’t it proper for the calculating part to rule, since it is wise and has forethought about all of the soul, and for the spirited part to be obedient to its ally?”

For a city to survive and for people to live together, reason needs to be exercised. There needs to be an education in how to control or sacrifice personal desires and spiritedness. Putting too much value in personal property will cause them to lose sight of the importance of protecting the will and the needs of the city. It will cause people to stick higher value on the private then the public. Things will need to be sacrificed for this perfect justice…for the sake of the city.

Isn’t it the same with science? Scientists use science to make claims about events that they weren’t really at. People will just initially accept it as truth. This gives science the ability to capture men’s souls the same way narratives do.

All of this freaks me out a bit with Al Gore’s new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. I have heard scientists on each side make a case for and against global warming. I have a feeling Al Gore will be able to bring a lot of people over to his side. He has the power of the narrative movie and the power of science on his side.

If you were to take a survey of what the main influences on our culture, what would you find? Would it be something to be proud of? Maybe on the list there would be things like MTV, Tom Cruise, or Dan Brown.

Socrates did not have MTV, Tom Cruise, or author Dan Brown but there were many things that shaped their regime. The poets, the writers, and the actors played a significant role in defining what was praise worthy and what is blame worthy within the regime. Physical training and the lifestyle that a person leads is something that will have a long-term effect on the life of justice within the city. How people relate themselves to the city also makes a big difference. In Book Three of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his friends dive into what are the influences and the needs of the city.

Right away in Book Three they come to the conclusion that if there are going to be great warriors and young people in the city, what they read and hear must be monitored. If there is going to be people fighting for the protection of a city and its ideals, their access to music, poetry, performance must be limited. These things move men’s souls. It may cause them to do things that might go against what is desired of them.

The poets were the ones that wrote about the gods and their various escapades. Socrates and Adeimantus ask the question if it would be detrimental to a city if the people saw their gods living lavishly and holding onto many vices. It would be better for the young people to hear about moderation and virtue. The poetry that promoted living in excess must be suppressed.

They identify a real danger of narratives. Narratives are stories, which are to imitate the truth. People get sucked into the performance or the words and it becomes very real. They start to associate what they saw or heard in the narrative as the truth. Narratives must be suppressed.

Music needed to be addressed. There was something about the sound, harmony and rhythm of music, which had the power to the move the soul. Socrates said, “…good speech, good harmony, good grace, and good rhythm accompany good disposition.” Music needed to be regulated. It must be decided which musicians are allowed to come into the city.

They also decided that for the soldiers and the young people to have healthy minds and healthy souls, they must have healthy bodies. It is important to control their exercise and diet if they want them to be making right decisions. Living lavish lifestyles will not teach them to be stewards of what they have. Being unhealthy will just slow them down, lead to sickness, and early death.

It is vital that the people of the city have both sound mind and body. Another crucial point is that they must have a relationship to the city. It is hard to have guardians for the city, which do not know or believe in what they are fighting for. This is why Socrates devises the idea of the “noble lie.” People will believe that they came from under the earth of where they live. This will cause them to better believe in the city and die to defend it.

All too often we do not think about the lives that we lead or the things that we use to feed our soul. There are many different factors that we give into and vices that we choose to accept. In Book Three of Plato’s Republic, Socrates describes the ideal city and shows the importance of only feeding the mind, body, and soul with things that are going to promote the spreading of justice within a regime. The things we do, what we read, watch or listen to affect how we live our lives.

Sometimes the news feels like the movies. Recently there was a story about a U.S. Congressman wrapping ninety thousand dollars in tin foil and putting it in his freezer. There are stories of corporate corruption and celebrities getting no serious penalties for their latest drug escapades. It is easy to start to doubt justice. In Plato’s Republic Book 2, Glaucon and Adiemantus starts to ask the question of whether justice is something we do because we are compelled by law or because it is the highest end.

Glaucon, a student of Socrates, was not convinced enough by Socrates’ argument against Thrasymachus’ view of justice in Book 1. Glaucon wanted to know the what was justice “not because we desire its consequences but because we delight in it for its own sake.” Socrates says that justice is the highest form of good and beauty. Glaucon points out that that is not the popular point of view.

Glaucon lays out the opinion that justice is something that men do because they have to. The good of injustice fully out weighs the bad. It is even profitable. He asks, what is life if you have to suffer an injustice but can not avenge it?

If the just man and the unjust man were both given the opportunity to perform injustice, Glaucon says they would both take it. Glaucon gives the story of a great ring, which gave a person to the power to see into the private lives of whoever he wants. The person would be able to use it to their own personal advantage. Glaucon claims the just man would use the ring if he could.

Adeimantus claims that reputation is a primary motivation for someone to be just. A solid reputation with the gods is very important. It allows someone passage into the after life. It also allows them to have stronger relationships with their friends. Poets have a great regard for justice but it can be hard and seem like drudgery. It is hard to desire the drudgery of justice when injustice is so abundant.

Instead of first talking about justice of an individual man, Socrates decides to talk about the justice of a whole city. With words, they decide to paint the picture of what a just city is like. They both agree that a city must exist because man is not self-sufficient

The people in the city will have a variety of needs. People need food, housing, and clothing. There needs to be people that will fill each of the individual roles. They agree that it is best for the city to have one man practicing one role rather than one man practicing many roles.

The city slowly gets bigger and bigger. Peoples’ needs grow from the basics to the luxuries of relishes and couches. There is also need for a professional army because a volunteer army would not get the job done. There would need to be people to watch over, train, and educate these professional warriors.

They recognize that there are things that feed a man’s soul. Spoken and written word has a great effect on people. There needs to be someone to watch over the poets. They want to make sure that only the poetry that promotes justice is heard by the public.

People in a city will look up to the gods as examples of how they should live their own lives. The city will need gods that do not fight or plot against one another. The gods are all-knowing and all-powerful good beings. The poets must tell great stories of the gods’ virtue, even if they have to rewrite some of history.

In a just city, we each have our own role. We do what is best for us but we also do what is best for the city. We do what is just because it is what we are supposed to do. If we do not do what is right and what is just then how can we survive as one whole city. It will turn into every man for himself. All that is private will turn public. If the city does not survive , the people will not either. We have to live together. Famous British novelist Charles Dickens once said, “Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.”

Glaucon makes the argument that people only practice justice because they have to and that injustice is favorable. He only mentions the positive consequences of injustice.

Can you really make a rationale argument for injustice just because it is the right thing to do?

For the sake of argument, lets just say that Ann Coulter is correct. We will accept her premise that liberalism is the Church of the Godless.

I have been reading Plato’s Republic Book Two. It asks the question, why should we be just. Are people only just because they are too weak? Are laws nothing but arbitrary rules setup by “the man” to keep down the weak?

If you ask the questions in light of Ann Coulter’s new book, liberalism seems really scary. Without God, laws would be arbitrary. What excuse do I have to not just go out and break the law? Laws would just be here to keep me down. If I don’t get caught for breaking the law, what is the punishment?

By getting rid of God aren’t we just going to give ourselves more of a culture of corruption?

Doesn’t humanity necessitate a divine? We follow natural and scientific laws. Dont’ wee need a law giver.

I dunno… I’m just thinking out loud.

The questions of how to run our lives is something that we see strewn throughout literature. In Douglas Adam’s book the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the characters are looking for the answer to the ultimate question. In Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken,” he asks which road he should take, “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both…” Finally, in Plato’s Republic Book One, what is just and what is right are the questions the characters wrestle with and explore.

Right away in Book One of Plato’s Republic, we meet Socrates, in the city of Piraeus. It is a port town, with many different groups and ideas that are considered outlandish by mainstream Greek culture. The city is known for its innovation. It was seen as a haven for new discussions to take place and new ideas to be tossed around. There were a variety of opinions on how a person should approach life and the decisions that are faced.

While on his way out of Piraeus, Socrates was spotted by his friend Polemarchus. He persuaded Socrates to come back to his house. They wanted to have a discussion. The house was all set so the discussion could start as soon as they got there.

Socrates first starts talking with Cephalus, Polemachus’ father. Socrates is interested in finding out from Cephalus what it is like to be in “the threshold of old age.” Cephalus talks about how when he was younger he had much more of an appetite for vices like sex, “drinking bouts”, and feasts. Now that he is older he realizes that these activities were not the best. Cephalus refers to the activities as “savage masters.”

Socrates then brings up money. He wonders if money is at the root of Cephalus’ contentment. Cephalus says, he has not been content but lives in fear. He has started to think more about the after life and his fear of eternity in Hades. He has spent many sleepless nights worrying about the unjust deeds that he has performed and his unpaid debts. He emphasizes the importance of leading a good, holy, and just life, which brings a person much hope.

Cephalus points out that living a high and moral life is great but that there is also a need for money. He says that wealth is not the highest thing but it is an important tool in living an intelligent life. The amount of money that a person has contributes to how they go about living. Their natural question is if they are supposed to be living right and just lives, what is justice?

Cephalus weakly defines justice as being “the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another.” Socrates asks if a weapon should be given back to an angry friend, even if it is the friend’s property. What would be just? It is not just to give it back. Cephalus’ definition of justice does not stand up.

Polemarchus quickly jumps in with his definition of justice, “giving to each man what is owed to him.” If this definition is taken more in the general sense, it seems to be much more accurate. Socrates seems to take it with much more of a limited scope, more in a physical or monetary sense. It can be debated what Polemarchus meant by the definition.

Socrates takes on the definition by comparing it to the art of medicine or cooking. If a man is a cook, seasoning is what is owed to the meat. If a man is a doctor, then medicine and becoming healthier is what is due to the patient. What happens where there is no food to cook or no patient to heal? Are these men useless? Socrates finds Polemarcus’ definition of justice flawed.

Socrates, in limiting his ideas of what is due or owed to physical things, does not see that giving what is due is a way a person runs their life. It is doing what is right and prudent in a situation. It is finding the right “road” to take.

The discussions advances on to whether it is just to do right to your friends and to harm your enemies. The truthfulness of a man must be considered in this situation. What if a person is two-faced? He acts as your friend but is actually not. On the flip side, what if a friend acts as if he is not your friend but really is? A person would not know when to do right and when to do harm.

Another question is can it be just to harm another human being? Does harming another human being really make them more just or apt to live a high and moral life? They both agree that it does not.

Thrasymachus can not hold himself back any longer. He wants to know what Socrates’ definition of justice is. Thrasymachus considers justice to be “the advantage of the stronger.” He claims that when a stronger party makes laws, no matter what system of rule (democratic or tyrannical), they are doing it for their own advantage.

Socrates takes on Thrasymacus’ argument. What about when a ruler makes mistakes? It is just for the ruled to do what is commanded. What is to be done when the ruler commands something unjust? Then it is just to disobey. The ruler will not always make decisions to their advantage.

Socrates brings up the example of the doctor caring for the sick. Is the doctor solely working for his own benefit? Most certainly not! He is doing it for his benefit and the benefit of sick. Thrasymacus later comes to the conclusion that, “justice and the just are really someone else’s good.”

They then come to the conclusion that there is a soul and that the work of the just is the work of the soul. The just place a high importance on the virtues of the soul. Those people will also be very profitable.

Like the people in Book One, how often do we ask the same questions and have these same debates? We want to know what is just. We grapple with whether we should do what is advantageous for us and whether what we do will be for the common good. Will this action bring good things to me and harm my enemies? Will I be harmed? There are many answers to these questions, all of which will be debated till the end of humanity.