Introducing...The Quixotic Quartet! // Ian Blair

     Hot take inbound in three, two, one...I thoroughly enjoyed the reading for this week, specifically Plato's narration style of Socrates' philosophical chemistry with Glaucon as they wrapped up their theoretical founding of their version of an ideal city and individual. One observation I noted swiftly was to take note of the criteria used by Socrates to find if his ideal city was, in fact, just. I, however, would argue that this utopia, no matter how vast or grand, is not exactly a practical or realistic example to apply these criteria. And as we shall soon see, some of these will need a bit more thought before they can work in the physical world.

    Criteria number one seems to fall flat once we apply a practical example, or even just a plain generality to Socrates' blueprint. You'll notice that the first criteria is listed among the smallest class: The Rulers. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that very few can reach a level of education and thinking required to rule in a major legislative or governmental position. Wisdom is not necessarily knowledge of book or street manners, but it goes hand in hand as it is the practice of applying said knowledge in practical and social situations. Socrates claims that his city has good council, and that much is true. But, and there's always a catch, this claim that the council is wise comes under the given presumption (on Socrates' part) that the other classes would bother listening to the wise rulers in the first place. For how can someone know what wisdom is and who is wise if they do not know better themselves? Virtually every unified country, state, or even city-state has had the educated elite and the uneducated masses fill their populace throughout history. Having such a concept as "uneducated masses" implies that the populace, as a collective whole, is not wise; that is if we use Socrates' context of a city being wise because all of its citizens are either wise, or wise enough to listen to better authority.  

    His second criteria requires no real introduction: Courage. We have certainly seen nations of brave men and women succeed before, and I think most people would agree that courage is a defining characteristic of any person or place that carries the quality. I mostly agree with the points made by Socrates on this one, especially that the courage of an organized civilization starts with its army.I will add that its citizens can also be the spark of courage at a moment's notice, like when the U.S. entered World War Two and millions of people enlisted almost immediately. 

    I find these final two criteria of Socrates' ideal to be quite similar, so grouping them together seems like a logical notion. Before I dive into why I disagree with the idea that a real country could be collectively practiced in self-control, and therefore have a sense of morality and justice as a result, I have to detail the synonymous nature between the two. What makes self-control different from the previous virtues? Let's ask Socrates himself:

"Temperance is different from wisdom and courage, each of which is associated with a particular part of the city. Temperance, on the other hand, pervades the entire city, producing a harmony of all its parts and inhabitants, from the weakest to the strongest. And this holds true however you want to measure strength and weakness:..." (Plato, 127).

     Seems pretty clear to me that temperance or self control leads pretty well into our analysis of justice. If temperance is the harmonious combination of a plethoric amount of individuals, then justice can be defined as every individual simply conducting their own affairs and agendas without interfering in other crafts, thereby taking business away from others thereby committing a kind of theft or fraud, a most unjust act in society. If I were to believe this definition of justice to be true, and for the sake of argument I will entertain it as so, then the next question becomes how this would apply to a given society, not just a utopian atmosphere. Drum roll please...

It doesn't, for if every single individual of a literal city was simply given a task to perform the rest of their days, and had no way of changing or dabbling in other professions, then careers such as entrepreneurship and freelance talent would not exist. Neither would we celebrate people who excel in multiple practices and trades such as Will Smith or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. 

Overall, I can understand and follow Socrates' points and where he is coming from when he argues them, but I just can't see how his city is really all that good of an example of pursuing justice and other qualities of a just person. That being said, I am curious as to what many of you think about the passage so far, or even my blog/comments this week. If you disagree with my take, what would you change?

P.s. I commented on Abbie's and Jessef's posts.