Plato’s Republic provides a detailed image of absolute truth about justice and morality through the lense of Socrates’ dialogue with his fellow companions. The Myth of the Metals is introduced in book four and defined as a “noble falsehood” (Grube 58) but earlier Socrates proclaims that “to be false to one’s soul about the things that are, to be ignorant and to have and hold a falsehood there, is what everyone would least of all accept, for everyone hates a falsehood in that place most of all” (Grube 58). There seems to be a conflict between Plato’s myth and his opinion on falsehoods but that is actually not the case. Plato’s Myth of the Metals does not contradict with his statement on falsehoods; instead brings forth a more complete picture of Plato’s theory of justice and molds his ideal of the perfect society. …show more content…
The Myth of the Metals appears to contradict with not only Plato’s view on falsehoods but on his definition of justice as well.
Socrates states “justice is doing one’s work and not meddling with what isn’t one’s own” (Grube 108). The conflict seems to be that if justice is minding your own business, does the myth meddle into the ways of thinking of the citizens? But this view of justice actually fits better into the worldview that Plato presents in relation to the myth and being true in one’s soul. The Myth of the Metals is noble and just to Socrates because it tells the truth about human nature; creates a peaceful rule in the perfect city and fits perfectly into Plato’s definition of justice and the
soul. The Myth of the Metals is labeled as a “noble falsehood” but in reality, it is based on a fundamental truth about human nature and serves an important purpose in Plato’s kallipolis (beautiful city). Plato states in the Republic; all stories, art and other creative ventures should serve a purpose of bettering the citizens and therefore the polis (Grube 54). The myth reveals two absolute truths; everyone is created differently with different skills and abilities and we are all intertwined with a common mother. By creating the Myth of the Metals, it indirectly tells the reality that while everyone is created equal; some are more limited or skilled in certain trades. Plato states that holding falsehoods in one’s soul is hated most of all but this myth provides the truth about human nature. This truth claim is evidently what Plato wants every citizen to hold as truth in their own soul. Even in the today’s world, this truth is observable as everyone has diverse jobs with different abilities, desires and ambitions. However, the myth does lie on how everyone is created but for Plato that is not important. Plato states falsehoods in words is “useful…because we don’t know the truth about ancient events involving the gods but by making a falsehood as much like the truth as we can, don’t we also make it useful?” (Grube 58). Thus, Plato is saying that the myth is created to be useful to the city and that this is the closest to the truth anyone can get. The main objective of this story is not for everyone to hold onto the lies about ancient events (that no one can know about) but hold the truth in their soul that everyone is designed differently for different levels of work. Plato by proclaiming this “noble falsehood” intertwines his definition of justice in his ideal state. By creating a myth where it states that an individual’s social class is an outward reflection of your soul, it does not allow for anyone to aspire to a greater position. This allows for the polis to always function as it always should function with no one wanting to compete for another job with different responsibilities and concerns. Hence, they will “do one’s work and not meddle with what isn’t one’s own” (Grube 108). Therefore, the myth not only serves a purpose of proclaiming the truth about human nature but also to preserve the justice in the kallipolis. The Myth of the Metals creates a peaceful rule and eliminates conflicts that would otherwise disrupt the perfect city. The myth makes it easier for the philosopher king to rule because if everyone’s position is an extension of their soul, they will not want to aspire to be in greater roles. Ideally, every citizen will be content with their life as it is. Because of that, the philosopher king will not have any coups or dissents that would want to overtake the republic. Thus, the myth will serve the purpose of keeping the social harmony in the beautiful city and maintaining the happiness of its citizens. The myth serves a purpose for the overarching aim of Plato’s theory of justice as well. Since everyone is content with their life, there will be no concerns with the decisions made by the philosopher king. That means that everyone in the city is minding their own business and not meddling with the businesses of others. Also, the myth keeps the peace not only between the citizens and the ruler but between the citizens. Because all citizens understand they are interrelated and are all part of this family, they will want to ensure peace between one another. Lastly, one of the main conflicts in each polis is different social classes and thus, one of Plato’s objectives is to create social unity in this kallipolis. He uses this myth to achieve this goal. This myth reveals that Plato believes men are by nature created unequal. If all citizens believe that their social class is an outward reflection of their soul, they will be content. To continue to protect the happiness of the citizens, the guardians (the wealthy) should not have any personal property. So social unity is achieved through the abolishment of personal property and the myth. Therefore, peace is ensured for the ruler and the citizens while Plato’s justice is ultimately obtained. The myth brings forth the complete picture of how Plato’s theory of the soul and justice fits into the beautiful city. Socrates states the soul is made up of three elements, appetites, the spirit and the mind. The appetites are the desires that need to be controlled while, spirit is the conscious and the mind oversees the other two elements. He claims that some people allow for their desires to control their actions; these people should not be rulers. Others allow only their conscious but not any desires; these people are unfit to be rulers as well. The philosopher king is the only one who has the capacity to think rationally with their mind. The people who rule with desires or appetites represent the bronze, while people who rule only with their conscious are made with sliver and lastly, the philosopher king is the soul mixed with gold. Only through tests through a fire (pg.57) would the gold of the philosopher king’s soul be shown. The myth also brings forth the picture of justice in the kallipolis. As stated earlier, Plato’s justice is minding one’s own business. The Myth of the Metals brings forth a more complete and detailed image of this perfect city because it teaches everyone to respect one another, to all accept the ruler, to accept the common norm and serves as a cautionary tale. According to Plato, there will be no conflict within the city between the citizens or the citizens and the ruler because everyone is from a common mother. Thus, to fight with another person is not only fighting with a fellow citizen but with their own brother. Secondly, the myth gives the ruler legitimate power. It states that the ruler is made up of finer metals than the rest. So, the myth legitimizes the king’s rule. Thirdly, it does not allow for the people to question the common norms of their lifestyle, occupation or the way political decisions are done. Because their social class is seen as an extension of their soul, they will not be able to change their lifestyle, their job or make an impact on political decisions. Lastly, occasionally, some iron children will be born of silver, gold, etc. The myth serves as a cautionary tale to all citizens to properly inform that in some cases, you will need to reassign class to your own kids. It is vital to the survival of the city that the children not born to the same class be assigned to the proper class given in their soul because it affects how well the job will be done according to each occupation. Plato believed that humans were by nature unequal and politics was the essence of being a completed human being. So he comes up with the Republic that provides a very detailed image of his ideal of justice and the perfect republic. He believes this definition of justice and the ideal state is an absolute truth in this universe. The myth’s purpose is to tell the truth about human nature and fulfill Plato’s definition of justice in the kallipolis. The myth creates a peaceful and legitimate rule among the people and the ruler. It completes the image of Plato’s republic in terms of justice and of the soul. Lastly, from looking beneath the surface, it can see that there is no conflict between Plato’s opinion on falsehoods and the metals myth presented. After examining the claims made in Plato’s Republic specifically, the reasoning of the myth of the metals; it begs the questions of is there an absolute truth about justice in this world that can be universally agreed upon? Will there ever be a perfect state needing no progress to a better ideal?
According to Don Talpalriu with Softpedia, copper and bronze weapons were found 500 miles from Athens in 2008. In the Odyssey, Telemachus provides evidence on page 55 that there were five main sources of elements to be found in Greece:
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
As with all other topics discussed in “The Republic of Plato,” the section in which he discusses the myths of the metals or the “noble lie” is layered with questioning and potential symbolism, possible contradiction, and a significant measure of allusion. In Chapter X of “The Republic,” Plato presents “The Selection of Rulers: The
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
Let us firstly analyze and delineate the significant instances in the interchange between the unjust speech and the unjust speech. Both the unjust and just speech begin this interchange with a heavy slandering of one another. Perhaps, one of the most notable moments of this slander is when the just speech, after claiming that it believes in and stands for justice and is hence “speaking the just things”, is asked by the unjust speech that “denies that justice even exists” to “answer the following question, if justice truly exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father?” (p. 152, 901-905). The just speech replies to this question by exclaiming that “...this is the evil that’s spreading around” and that he needs “a basin” if he is to continue hearing it (p. 152, 906-907). Firstly the just speech, as a mouthpiece for the existing Athenian legal-political convention, has claimed that this legal-political convention is where justice in its entirety is to be found. Secondly and simultaneously, however, the just speech finds itself unable to articulate what it means by justice and how the teachings of the Homeric Gods, that have informed the construction of Athenian political convention, are positive and/or negative examples of an
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
In conclusion, the idea that this myth can be considered "noble" and a moral foundation of a city is far from "ethical." I had a certain respect for Socrates and his thoughts previous to Book III, but now I can't understand why we look to him for the answers to what is ethically and morally correct. In my analysis of his conversations, I believe that he is willing to manipulate, play mind games, and go to any necessary extremes to achieve and prove his ideas.
These duties, which vary in accordance with the metal an individual possesses in his soul, are clearly outlined in Plato’s Myth of the Metals. Thus, a just man from the bronze class will possess different characteristics than a just man in the silver or gold classes. Despite these differences, both men may still be considered virtuous human beings. The most virtuous man, however, is an individual who possesses not only the qualities of his own class, but also those of the remaining two classes. For example, an individual from the gold class must certainly have a wise soul. However, if this individual is also appetitive and spirited like the individuals in the bronze and silver classes, then he is a most virtuous and just
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.