My thoughts on the Kallipolis and criticisms of Socrates

In Books, I and II of Plato’s The Republic, justice were viewed in different perspectives. Cephalus believes justice as having money and paying your taxes – complying with the law. Cephalus’ son, Polemarchus, believes that justice is to treat your friends well and treat your enemies badly. However, Thrasymachus gives an appealing argument, stating that justice is defined by the well-being and advantage of the stronger party over the weaker party. Socrates contested Thrasymachus stating that he promoted injustice as a virtue and that would be contradicting to wisdom which is a virtue. Socrates also pointed out that as justice is a virtue, being just would result in good health since virtue gives a healthy soul. Eventually, they enter a state of aporia when Thrasymachus does not want to argue with Socrates anymore. Although Socrates gives critical claims that contest with the several definitions of justice posed, Socrates himself does not actually provide a definition for what justice is.  (The Republic, Books I and II)

I believe Socrates does not give strong arguments in Book I. Firstly, his stance on the argument is trivial by not giving a definition, and yet he still was criticizing every definition or statement that others make. This could be a possible reason for why Thrasymachus acted so violently and was determined to prove Socrates wrong. It wasn’t until Book IV of the Republic did Socrates propose his idea of justice. The idea of the ideal city, Kallipolis. 

Upon my first exposure to the idea of the ideal city, I was very resistant to the idea of everything it proposed. The first thing that came to my mind was that this idea of the ideal city seemed like a totalitarian regime where everyone was monitored to be put in place, by auxiliaries. Commoners did not have the free will to do anything and that they could not contribute to politics no matter what. They are prisoners to their own political systems. Although guardians had the most power, they were not allowed to possess any wealth and required a lot of strict entry requirements. Socrates was questioned why would guardians be happy since they would not receive any wealth. Socrates argued the aesthetic focus of painting a statue should be holistic rather than particular. In context, Socrates argues the ideal city focus to maximize benefit on a whole rather than just a particular group. I believe this argument although answers the posed question it leaves part of it unanswered. It does not address those that are unsatisfied with the system. Auxiliaries had to be strictly just as they had to maintain order and receive education. They also had to sacrifice their lives if need be. At first glance, all this were just like a totalitarian regime that is used to oppress everyone in society. This related to a novel that I studied in high school named The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. In a dystopian world, a religious regime manifests the protection of women by using extreme methods which neglect individual freedom of female, ultimately treating women as only tools for reproduction and societal continuity. I saw the ideal city a way which strives to promote “justice” and in turn, everyone became slaves to “justice”. At this time, I agreed more to Thrasymachus’ definition of justice. I believed the advantage of the strong is clearly reflected in our society and my criticisms to the ideal city and Gilead (the city of the regime in The Handmaid’s Tale) are that the citizens of both societies do not hold the same philosophy of the cities. My main criticism was that how would citizens fit into such a rigid and conform organization, the philosophies of the ideal city. It was just too difficult to conceptualize.

However, upon more in-depth study into The Republic, I started to detract the impression of the ideal city from Gilead. I understood more about Socrates’ intentions and how he used the form of the good to substantiate that citizens in the ideal city will value justice if everyone can maintain it. My concerns regarding the ideal city changed from how everyone would be happy in such a conformed society to how it is too theoretical for us to enact in real life and whether it will be of any substantial use to us as it is rather difficult for us to relate. With the various use of real-life examples that make connections to me, Socrates seemed to have persuaded me that it is more rewarding to be just and good than unjust and bad. I, as a very economically driven person, related deeply with his example of how the cycle of making money would not be as fulfilling when compared to making enough money and spending it in a fulfilling purpose. Socrates identified the motive of wanting to make money as a corrupting one. The soul is driven by logic which overpowers appetite and spirit.

In conclusion, Socrates’ analysis of the soul is fruitful and elaborate, where one can identify to it easily. It can be used for individuals as a motto to live better using a moderation of the three qualities of the soul – the three qualities of the soul in harmony. I personally believe a good life can be lived if everything is balanced out well, both mentally and practically. However, although the ideal city seems like the ultimate solution to injustice, there lies a lot of factors that it did not consider. Firstly, it is hard to apply it to real life as it is hard to find a group of people or anyone that is highly obedient and holds the same philosophy of the ideal city. Secondly, its peculiar traditions and norms such as the paring of males and females for the intentions of aristocratic purposes are absurd as it neglects the fundamental humanist quality of love. My main criticism lies with the ideal city’s ability to take care of individual thought and opinion. Socrates never really explained what he would do in treating the outliers of the system, he focused on the wellbeing of the whole not the particular. However, I believe the particular has to also be considered in order for the society to achieve perfection. His assumption of the perfect society would be hard to enact as we are also humans and we make mistake. The power of the society given totally to the guardians seem to be too dangerous, risky and resemble dictatorship more than a just society.

 

Sources:

• The Republic, W. M. A Grube, Second Edition