Adam Pilarski 9/20/13 Notes on The Republic-Sept.

20th Socrates, then, tries to meet the challenge of Glaucon and Adeimantus to demonstrate that justice is better than injustice. Irrespective of what anyone thinks or believes, or the reputation of the just man, or even the opinions of the just city, etc. The benefits of the just city are going to be internal, as it is within the just soul. Socrates ends this book on: The argument for the real superiority of justice turns on an examination of happiness (true pleasure). Among the unnecessary pleasures are the unlawful pleasures of illicit dreams. An unjust person indulges these unlawful desires, while a just person keeps them in constant check. The rational, the guiding element, is absent in an unjust man. They are an unchained beast, only interested in the corporeal matters surrounding them. They are devoid of shame, virtue, wisdom, and, possibly above all, honor. It does, in addition, lack moderation. There is no sexual act that's too bizarre, there is no amount of food that it won't gorge, no amount of money they won't steal, etc. So is the unjust person. They do not govern the desires, rather, instead, desire governs them. The unjust person is living a nightmare, yet they are entirely unaware of it (Socrates). The "perfectly" unjust life cannot be the happiest life-whether or not the unjust individual knows it. A tyrant in his household is a master over slaves, the tyrant rules a city as if it were his household. Every association has a standard and purpose-the unjust city/soul misses the mark. How can tyrants think themselves happy? People are bad due to an ignorance of reality (the Good). Nobody wants to be deceived about the important questions. The unjust man is constantly in fear, in doubt, etc. Thus, a properly political relationship, as to who is qualified to rule and be ruled, etc. Every association has its proper standard. Therefore, an individual who is in unity and moderation within themselves is the complete opposite of a tyrant. The tyrannical

individual is in perpetual contention within themselves, within other people, etc. They experience the lowest, most base forms of life possible. This being the case, how can tyrants even think themselves happy if what Socrates is saying is true? Well, it could be said, that the tyrant doesn't even know how to measure true happiness or justice. Then, how could they see it within themselves? How does one gain insight into how to live? To know what "the good" of the good life is, that is, the true ranking of goods. -Love of wisdom (learning, knowledge) of the philosopher. -Love of winning (recognition, honor) of soldier). -Love of profit (money, reputation) of the ordinary person. Socrates now meets the skeptical objection-who says that this hierarchy of love is correct? Whoever will be most successful in the just city will be one who is competitive; who loves to win. While this is much more egocentric, this is far better than a nihilistic drive of hedonism. Finally, Socrates argues tat only a philosopher is capable of judging who has achieved true happiness. Only one who has ascended into the higher realms will not confuse higher pleasures with lower ones or the release from pain. This theory of knowledge is based on a "two-world" theory of reality. Only the escaped prisoner knows "what is" in the Allegory of the Cave. Socrates continuously compares the most base pleasures to those of a beast. How, then, can they judge someone who is just? "What do you really want people?" Socrates, in the end, prioritizes philosophy over politics. A philosopher may withdraw from an unjust city to live within the "heavenly city." Their foremost duty is to "know thyself" and "save thyself." Plato's Republic is not an attempt to make philosophy "useful" to politics, but a proposal that politics meet philosophy's higher standard-justice. Thus, the ruler must not consider what will "make people happy," but, rather, what will be most just among the people. If one had to choose what life they were going to live, they would have to choose what would be just, as this will maximize the most utility in the long run.

So what does this mean? Well, is this book about politics, or about the psyche? Socrates says that, in an unjust city, the philosopher has no obligation to venture back into "the Cave." They have gone beyond duty, yet there is no obligation. The very end of the work, Socrates asserts that the polis is truly more a means of measuring philosophy rather than politics. Thus, Socrates does not try to reconcile philosophy with politics but, rather, Socrates is challenging that, pragmatically speaking, the just life is better than the unjust life. He is saying, "Here is the just life. Use it as a standard."