Plato’s
Idea Society
During class we discussed Plato’s
idea of an ideal society in which there were three classes: the leaders who
create laws for the good of the whole, the auxiliary who enforces the laws and keeps
order, and finally the workers who have one specific skill. A major concern
that was continually brought up was that the auxiliary class was unnecessary. In
a perfect society, there would be no political unrest and no one would be
breaking laws. Plato’s society only specifies that there is perfection only in
the fact that everyone is working at what they are best at. Even though people
are working at what they are best at and are happy where they are does not mean
that they will magically stop breaking laws. It is very possible that people
would still go out and drink and cause problems or speed while driving, neither
of which pertain to their work. Therefore, there is still a need for an auxiliary
group to enforce laws that do not affect peoples work but are still for the
general good and safety.
Another issue that was widely
debated in class was if the role someone was assigned was a task he wasn’t
suited for. An example is someone who shouldn’t rule, but was declared to have
gold in their blood and selected anyway. If this person was raised and trained
being told that they were going to be a leader, then it doesn’t matter that
there was no gold in their blood or it isn’t what they were born to do because
they will have been trained their whole life to succeed in this. A simpler
example would be the cabinet maker. If you took a child and raised them from as
soon as they could begin the skill set how to build cabinets and had them work
only at their trade, then by the time they were old enough to be a true cabinet
maker then they would have mastered their craft. This brings into light the argument
of nature vs nurture in that the noble lie says that nature has selected the
person to be a worker as a leader, but through their life they are trained, or
nurtured, to fill their role in society.
I most certainly agree with your point about the auxiliary class. Plato would probably say that our souls do the same in that our desires may want more than should be allowed but our reason, through passion (or emotion), corrects those desires and keeps them in check. One example would be if you're at a party and there is a lot of good food and you want to eat it all, but you'll feel guilty if you do. Going into your second point I'm not sure if you're supporting that Plato suggests that both nature and nurture play a part. I would like to add though that I think in the society Plato sees as ideal blood does matter. Even if you train a bronze soul to be a ruler they may be proficient in it but I think that Plato believes that the bronze soul will fail althogehter or at least will be less effective in ruling than a gold soul ruler.
ReplyDeleteLucas I like a lot of what you say in this post - it actually quite helped me to understand the actual role of the auxiliary in Plato's ideal society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your examples are expressing the point that even though an ideal society's cabinet-maker would be perfect at making cabinets, they wouldn't necessarily be perfect people. Relating to the soul, the same point could be made about passion - passion regulates the desires in a way that is (hopefully) dictated by reason. Regarding your point about the blood, I think in our society, it makes all the sense in the world. If you take a child who potentially is not genetically gifted to be a ruler yet train him all of his life to be a ruler, he'd probably be a good, or even great ruler. And Plato, in my opinion, would probably agree. But even great does not mean ideal - what if that same child had been born with gifts to be a ruler? If these two hypothetical children were both raised and trained the exact same way to be a ruler, wouldn't aptitude necessarily determine the difference? In my opinion, it seems that is the difference between great and ideal.
ReplyDelete-Chandler
Lucas I like a lot of what you say in this post - it actually quite helped me to understand the actual role of the auxiliary in Plato's ideal society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your examples are expressing the point that even though an ideal society's cabinet-maker would be perfect at making cabinets, they wouldn't necessarily be perfect people. Relating to the soul, the same point could be made about passion - passion regulates the desires in a way that is (hopefully) dictated by reason. Regarding your point about the blood, I think in our society, it makes all the sense in the world. If you take a child who potentially is not genetically gifted to be a ruler yet train him all of his life to be a ruler, he'd probably be a good, or even great ruler. And Plato, in my opinion, would probably agree. But even great does not mean ideal - what if that same child had been born with gifts to be a ruler? If these two hypothetical children were both raised and trained the exact same way to be a ruler, wouldn't aptitude necessarily determine the difference? In my opinion, it seems that is the difference between great and ideal.
ReplyDelete-Chandler
I agree with your point that the auxiliary class is necessary, but I don't entirely agree with your explanation as to why. You explain the auxiliary class as a correction of the worker class' unjust and illegal actions, that the workng class will not "magically stop breaking laws." But Plato did not intend for the auxiliary class to do this in the Republic, since every person is supposed to be living justly already.
ReplyDeleteThe auxiliary class is designed to protect the workers and to spread the rule of the guardians. While the actions of the worker class may not be necessarily injustices, there can be conflicts that arise between them which the auxiliary class needs to solve. According to Plato, the worker class of the state is like the appetitive part of the soul. The desires of the soul cannot prioritize or regulate themselves. They need the emotional part of the soul, which corresponds with the auxiliary part of the state, that keeps the desires in check and regulates them. In class, the examples the auxiliary class we discussed were stop lights and crossing guards. When four people come up to an intersection at the same time - how do they determine the order in which they go? The fact that these people are at this intersection at the same time is not an injustice, but there is still a conflict that needs to be resolved.
In your second point, you argue that the issues brought up in class about the noble lie aren't really issues because "they will have been trained their whole life to succeed" in the type of work they are believed to inherently be best at. While I understand your argument in regards to the cabinet maker, I disagree, primarily in the case of the ruling class. A ruler's job is to choose what is best for the people as a whole. This is not the same thing as building a structure or growing crops. There is no recipe to be taught or memorized for determining what is best for the people. Your argument is that the person will have been brought up to know how to succeed in this, but in the case of the ruling class some necessary qualities cannot be taught, such sa being a natural leader. Just because the father is good at being a ruler does not also guarantee that his son will be as successful. They are not the same person. I do not believe that a person will inherently have the ability to fairly balance the needs of all classes in a society simply based on the fact that he is raised in the ruling class.