Annas (in An Introduction to Plato’s Republic) notes
that for Plato the analytic project of establishing a definition of justice is inseparable
from the empirical (synthetic) investigation of justice (“facts about
justice”). Living in the shadow of Kant we are used to separating these two
intellectual activities, drawing a bright line (in the current parlance)
between them. At best we prevent others from crossing the line and at worst we
monitor the traffic at the border so that alien influences don’t infiltrate the
homeland.
Post-Enlightenment philosophy practiced under the
constraints of this policy has been largely an “academic” pursuit, where
“academic” implies inconsequential. It is refreshing to be reminded that there
was a time when philosophy wasn’t constrained by this policy. Socrates sought
definitions of key terms by empirical examination of instances, so conceptual
analysis for Plato’s teacher involved exploration of the empirical world. This
understanding of conceptual analysis was essential to this era when philosophy
was an activity with practical implications for ordinary men and women.
Republic is strongly theoretical in its orientation. To call
a work “strongly theoretical” is to imply that it is far from having any
practical value. And yet Plato clearly
had a political agenda when producing it. Plato is serious in his contention that
in the ideal state the philosophers should rule, even though he was extremely
reluctant to broach this topic in Republic (where it does not make its
appearance until Book V).
As I see it, we might title the book “Where Shall Justice Be
Found?” for it is inspired by Plato’s strongly held belief that contemporary
Athenian society was full of injustice. Actually, in his terms, he believed
that it had “fallen” as far from a just society as it was possible to fall.
Of course, recommending that philosophers rule even to the
Greeks was sure to be regarded as highly impractical. But the condemnation of
philosophers as impractical was part and parcel of what Plato saw as wrong with
Athenian society, which valued reputation or wealth over justice and integrity.
What is the value to society of having philosophers rule?
The philosophical soul is the only type that will be immune from the
degeneration that tempts those who hold power. Plato knew that power corrupts,
and this was his way of guaranteeing that the state does not fall victim to the
corrosive influence of power. Note, though, that this is not to protect the
citizens. Plato cares little for the individual citizens, since their identity
is derived from the fact that they live in the best society. I imagine that for
Plato the life of a slave in an ideal society is to be preferred over the life
of a tyrant.
But while Plato may care little for the individual citizen,
he cares very much for the individual soul. His solution to the problem of
justice in Republic is to propose an agent-oriented ethics rather than an act
oriented ethics. He recommends a program of education to ensure that those
individuals who rule will be immune from corruption. But while this can be used
to ground a theory of the rights of individuals, Plato never did this.
It is important to understand that Plato never identified
the soul with the person. While we may equate the two in the Common Era, Plato
was no friend of the hoi polloi. Plato
is the architect of a transcendent realm par
excellence but he never transcended the aristocratic elitism of his class.
