Sophia Dorian

Christopher Lay

Philosophy 001

8 July 2022

Plato’s Republic Essay

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates explains his notion of a democracy and defines its desire for

unnecessary pleasure by comparing it to similar governmental systems, the oligarchy and

tyranny. In this essay, I will argue that a true democracy does not exist because today’s

democracy, which is known for making sure all citizens and members of society are able to

contribute to the construction and betterment of the state, has been corrupted by people who want

only to seek unnecessary pleasures that they exploit common people for. To support this, I will

introduce examples from today’s society and include Socrates’s ideas and statements pertaining

to the flaws and troubles that this imperfect version of democracy causes for people who simply

want to experience a comfortable life, and who are constantly being controlled and exploited by

higher-ups in society. To provide an alternative perspective, I will introduce the opposite idea

that what we live in today is in fact the perfect example of what a democracy should look like, if

we are not united and are simply fending for ourselves.

Socrates explains that his notion of democracy includes its derivation from oligarchical

tendencies. Democracy is split into the “state” and the “soul,” where the state is the political

applications of democracy, and the soul is the personal aspects, Democracy is the insatiable

desire for unnecessary, but legal, pleasures, which can lead to the corruption and neglect of the

people when the governing body is unable to satiate its greed. They will care only for their own

wealth and status and therefore neglect those they are supposed to represent as a governing body.
When the people are cast aside and forgotten, they become impatient and start seeking power and

pleasure, necessary or unnecessary, of their own, which their democratic government has not

provided them. When democracy leads to an insatiable thirst for freedom, which entails the

ability to have any and every pleasure, other people and needs are neglected.

What Socrates defines as “necessary” pleasures are those that are needed to survive, and

are beneficial to the human body. Basic foods and condiments, for example, are necessary

pleasures that the human body cannot survive without. Necessary pleasures cannot be escaped,

and if they are not accommodated, can lead to death. Unnecessary pleasures are just the opposite,

which can be harmful to the human body. In a democracy, legal, unnecessary pleasures such as

delicate foods, designer products and the like are sought after by those who have the means of

obtaining them, no matter what they must do to get them. Socrates splits up the forms of

government - democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny - into classifications depending on what

pleasures each seeks. Democracies seek legal, unnecessary pleasures, oligarchies seek necessary

pleasures, and tyrannies seek illegal, unnecessary pleasures.

Democracies, which usually stem from an oligarchical system, seemingly “make up” for

all the unnecessary pleasures they were not accustomed to in an oligarchical system. In the

democratic “soul,” an example might be that a child who has only ever had the bare minimum in

terms of food and childhood pleasures, or in other words has been raised in an oligarchy setting,

might try to make up for that, by immediately after moving out, taking advantage of their

freedom and indulging in all sorts of unnecessary pleasures. I find this interesting because if

oligarchy leads to democracy, democracy will then lead to tyranny, which will form a never-

ending cycle of necessary, unnecessary, and illegal pleasure. If this is applied to both

government and personal life, it means that some people, when they are introduced to freedom
and power for the first time, can become completely corrupt and lose their sense of self-control

and therefore seek out what is potentially dangerous to both them and their people.

The reason why society is so heavily impacted by those of higher social status and power,

such as those in government, is that when they get a taste of what it’s like to be powerful and

able to make executive decisions that will pertain to all people, regardless of their personal

disposition or situation, that they will take advantage of this and end up corrupting themselves

and their ability to help people by instead hoarding all the material and political wealth for

themselves. An example of how power is carried out to eventually harm people or what they

stand for is how in some cases, reporters or journalists can be forced to be silent so that what

they say or make public does not negatively impact anyone in government or the sorts. For this

reason, it is dangerous to immediately switch between an oligarchy to a democracy, since the

change can be so sudden and automatic for some people that it can lead to complete deterioration

of their morals and values, since they are trying to “make up” for what they have lost by

previously being part of an oligarchy rather than a democracy, where they are free to make

decisions based on their freedom as citizens. According to Socrates, this leads to the sickening of

the state and people, which then leads to violence and the absence of virtue. When people are

neglected and not taken into consideration by those who they deem to be their superiors, in a

society that is supposed to be for and with the people, ruin is ensured as a result of the “slave-

making” of the people who were supposed to be protected.

I will argue that a true democracy cannot exist with the implication that the people who

are of a higher status and power than common citizens who reside in the state are able to exercise

their freedom to pursue any sort of wealth or gain with no regard to how their tendencies impact

the people of the state. Socrates argues that when a “democracy,” stemming from the oligarchy,
exists, there will be revolution and anger on the part of the people who feel they have been

cheated by the system that was supposed to value their individuality and unitedness above all

else. Just like in today’s society, where the people who are in a higher position are able to pursue

their notions of what is important for them personally, there are people who are constantly being

neglected by the one-sidedness of the people of congress or the like.

Socrates, in Plato’s Republic, explains the process of democratic tendencies rising from

oligarchy, explains how a young man who might be raised in a very unpleasant environment,

where he has not been subjected to any sort of unnecessary pleasure which might make his life

more enjoyable, the change is inevitable. Such is a government, where the people in the

government are changed by a “class of desires.” From here, only corruption and promise of

pleasure will enter, and no truly beneficial things will be introduced to the state. When all has

been completely destroyed, what is next is the relapse of the oligarchical tendencies. What we

can understand and argue from Socrates’ argument is that a completely oligarchal “childhood,”

whether we apply this concept to politics or home life, will lead to a democracy where the only

thing being sought after, rather than true “equality and freedom,” is material wealth and

otherwise harmful substances or items that are not inherently beneficial for the human body or

mind.

However, one might argue that a true democracy is achieved by pursuing the freedoms

and pleasures that are absent in an oligarchy. A democracy, defined by Socrates, is the insatiable

desire for unnecessary pleasure, which will lead to violence and dissatisfaction of the common

people. If this is the definition of a democracy, as stated by Socrates, then the correct orders of

democratic officials and the like is to seek what they deem to be the true unnecessary pleasures

that they themselves would like to enjoy, with no consideration of how their actions may affect
people outside their immediate circle of acquaintances or such. These people, who abuse their

power, were raised in an oligarchy setting or one with the same idealist views, and display the

traits that they were taught were unnecessary or unimportant due to their curiosity and

inexperience when it comes to having freedom and power of their own.

To respond to this, I will argue that the “freedom” sought for in a democracy should be

the freedom to seek unnecessary pleasures, but do not compromise the abilities of others to enjoy

such pleasures as well. A democracy should not have people fending for themselves (including

those in government) and should instead be the union of people to experience the pleasures

themselves, while not cheating and robbing them of their true necessary desires. This ideal

version of a democracy is not what we live in today, where people who have greater power use

that to take advantage of the “slaves” of the state to rob them of their wealth and labor to fund

their personal desires, which fuel their ability to take and steal even more. A perfect democracy

would be one where everyone is truly equal and able to enjoy both necessary and unnecessary,

but legal, pleasures that they had been cheated of before.