The Books: “Plato: Republic” (Plato)

Next book in my Daily Book Excerpt:

Say goodbye to ‘cultural commentary’, say hello to ‘political thought through the ages’. Actually, it’s probably more like politics/philosophy … but who needs to get too rigid with this categorization stuff?

jc71p31343.jpgFirst book in this section is The Republic, by Plato.

I came to this book late – because I don’t believe it was required reading in my Humanities classes in high school. Or maybe sections of it were. Regardless – I read this when I first came to New York. We read Aristotle’s Poetics in my theatre history class – which I had read before – but that sparked an interest in Republic.

Republic is a series of meandering conversations between Socrates (who was Plato’s mentor, I guess you would call it) and a student. Their topic? The ideal community. Socrates asks questions, drawing the student out, making the student think in a deeper way about all sorts of elemental things: what is happiness? Is it easier to be moral or immoral?

To my taste, when you get right down to it, what “Socrates” describes is a sort of benevolent dictatorship. It’s very authoritarian, this community. The faceless masses ruled by a “philosopher king”. There has to be a lot of indoctrination – if you ‘educate’ the people in how things should be, then they will succumb. There isn’t the concept of “the individual”.

Anyway, there are many interpretations of this work, and I’m not gonna get into that. I was fascinated by the politics in the book … Plato was tormented by the same questions that, say, Thomas Jefferson was – when he sat down to write the Declaration of Independence. WHY are people good? WHY are people happy? Is it beneficial to the community? Let’s not be too idealistic here: evil has its benefits too. Immoral people are not ALWAYS shunned – many of them rise to the highest positions in society, and wield great power and influence. So how can we say, without a doubt, that GOOD is its own reward, when obviously the opposite is also true? No facile answers allowed. Socrates won’t let it pass.

Plato, also like our Founding Fathers, understood that man’s natural impulses needed to be checked. No one is perfect, and all men have within them excesses that must be reined in if civilization is going to exist and flourish. Plato (through the Socrates character) talks a lot about education and social conditioning: if we can start very young with the kids, helping them to rein in their darker impulses, then the community just might survive.

I’m not wacky about a lot of his suggestions – they’re too authoritarian for me -but who gives a crap what I think?? What is interesting is the way Plato frames the debate, and the way, in many cases, he STILL frames the debate today. About politics, morality, government, good vs. evil, society … It’s all in there.

It’s also quite a readable book, since the whole thing is a conversation. It’s very chatty.

Plato is really really rough on the poets … there will be no poets in his Republic – he thinks poetry could destroy civilization – which is another reason why, er, I don’t really want to live in his imagined community. His point is that anyone who makes it their job to “represent” something, is distanced from reality – and that’s dangerous. My response to that is, well, not to be obnoxious, but: “Whatever, dude.” The opinion Plato has of “representational poets” exists as well today. Funny: a lot of his dire warnings about the dangers of “representation” reminds me of the art of Islam, where the human figure is forbidden. No representational images allowed – which is why mosques are decorating with dizzying geometrical tile patterns, as opposed to statues, paintings of Muhammad, whatever you. No, it’s all about the kaleidoscope pattern of colors, patterns the eye can lose itself in. There is nothing to latch onto, there is nothing for the eye to hold tightly to. You cannot imagine the people in the story, they are not given a human face – that is strictly forbidden. If you invest your life in creating an appearance of something, if your craft is representing reality … then you really shouldn’t be all that respected or listened to. Because you have chosen to live in a fantasy world, as opposed to reality. Again: Plato frames the debate in this chapter, and in a way – it’s still being worked out today: what is the role of “artist” in any society? Plato doesn’t want to let them in at all. F*** off, Plato! HOWEVER what he has to say about all of it is reaaaaallly interesting, and that’s the excerpt below.

This is only the start of this fascinating conversation which takes up an entire chapter. Anyone who is an artist should most definitely read Plato’s Republic because all of the questions asked by Socrates in that excerpt are questions that we should be asking ourselves.

I remember when Robert DeNiro came to my school to speak with us, he talked about the legendary amount of research he does for each role (if he’s playing a homicide detective, he trains to be a homicide detective, and rides around with homicide detectives … if he’s playing a taxi driver, he gets a hack license and drives a taxi for a couple of months … etc.) This is not just a gimmick. This is not: “oooh, look at me, look at my dedication” – The way DeNiro put it was – (and I loved this): “I need to earn the right to play the character.”

What a cool and complex way to say it.

The character is something that is outside of him – who has a full life – and he, the measly actor – needs to earn the right to play him. But also: the character is representational of people in the “real” world – people who really are surgeons, or detectives, or bounty hunters, or saxophonists … You mustn’t disrespect these REAL people, who have these REAL jobs … You need to “earn the right” to “pretend” – and that takes research. Any old schmuck can pretend to ‘scrub in’ but it will be a cliche, nothing that seems REAL, if he hasn’t hung out with surgeons, if he hasn’t immersed himself in the surgeon’s world.

That’s what came to mind as I looked through the excerpt above this morning. I do not see the dangers Socrates sees in a painter painting a shoe – and not knowing how the show itself was made … but still: the question is interesting. Has the painter/poet/artist “earned the right” to represent reality to the audience? Who gives them that authority? Where does that power come from? Is it used humbly, or is it used arrogantly? Etc.

Anyway. Naturally, because this is MY blog and no one else’s: Plato’s Republic reminds me of Robert DeNiro. Ah yes, it all makes perfect sense.


EXCERPT FROM The Republic, by Plato.

“Now, we’d better investigate tragedy next,” I said, “and its guru, Homer, because one does come across the claim that there’s no area of expertise, and nothing relevant to human goodness and badness either — and nothing to do with the gods even — that these poets don’t understand. It is said that a good poet must understand the issues he writes about, if his writing is to be successful, and that if he didn’t understand them, he wouldn’t be able to write about them. So we’d better try to decide between the alternatives. Either the people who come across these representational poets are being taken in and are failing to appreciate, when they see their products, that these products are two steps away from reality and that it certainly doesn’t take knowledge of the truth to create them (since what they’re creating are appearances, not reality); or this view is valid, and in fact good poets are authorities on the subjects most people are convinced they’re good at writing about.”

“Yes, this definitely needs looking into,” he said.

“Well, do you think that anyone who was capable of producing both originals and images would devote his energy to making images, and would make out that this is the best thing he’s done with his life?”

“No, I don’t.”

“I’m sure that if he really knew about the things he was copying in his representations, he’d put far more effort into producing real objects than he would into representations, and would try to leave behind a lot of find products for people to remember him by, and would dedicate himself to being the recipient rather than the bestower of praise.”

“I agree,” he said. “He’d gain a lot more prestige and do himself a great deal more good.”

“Well, let’s concentrate our interrogation of Homer (or any other poet you like) on a single area. Let’s not ask him whether he can tell us of any patients cured by any poet in ancient or modern times, as Asclepius cured his patients, or of any students any of them left to continue his work, as Asclepius left his songs. And even these questions grant the possibility that a poet might have had some medical knowledge, instead of merely representing medical terminology. No, let’s not bother to ask him about any other areas of expertise either. But we do have a right to ask Homer about the most important and glorious areas he undertakes to expound — warfare, tactics, politics, and human education. Let’s ask him, politely, ‘Homer, maybe you aren’t two steps away from knowing the truth about goodness; maybe you aren’t involved in the manufacture of images (which is what we called representation). Perhaps you’re actually one step away, and you do have the ability to recognize which practices – in their private or their public lives – improve people and which ones impair them. But in that case, just as Sparta has its Lycurgus and communities of all different sizes have their various reformers, please tell us which community has you to thank for improvements to a government. Which community attributes the benefits of its good legal code to you? Italy and Sicily name Charondas in this respect, we Athenians name Solon. Which country names you?’ Will he heave any reply to make?”

“I don’t think so,” said Glaucon. “Even the Homeridae themselves don’t make that claim.”

“Well, does history record that there was any war fought in Homer’s time whose success depended on his leadership or advice?”

“No.”

“Well then, are a lot of ingenious inventions attributed to him, as they are to Thales of Miletus and Anacharsis of Scythia? I mean the kinds of inventions which have practical applications in the arts and crafts and elsewhere. He is, after all, supposed to be good at creating things.”

“No, there’s not the slightest hint of that sort of thing.”

“All right, so there’s no evidence of his having been a public benefactor, but what about in private? Is there any evidence that, during his lifetime, he was a mentor to people, and that they used to value him for his teaching and then handed down to their successors a particular Homeric way of life? This is what happened to Pythagoras: he wasn’t only held in extremely high regard for his teaching during his lifetime, but his successors even now call their way of life Pythagorean and somehow seem to stand out from all other people.”

“No, there’s no hint of that sort of thing, either,” he said. “I mean, Homer’s associate Creophylus’ cultural attainments would turn out to be even more derisory than his name suggests they are, Socrates, if the stories about Homer are true. You see, Creophylus is said to have more or less disregarded Homer during his lifetime.”

“Yes, that is what we’re told,” I agreed. “But, Glaucon, if Homer really had been an educational expert whose products were better people — which is to say, if he had knowledge in this sphere and his abilities were not limited to representation — don’t you think he’d have been surrounded by hordes of associates, who would have admired him and valued his company highly? Look at Protagoras of Abdera, Prodicus of Ceos, and all the rest of them: they can use their exclusive tuition to make their contemporaries believe that without them in charge of their education they won’t be capable of managing their own estates, let alone their communities, and they’re so appreciated for this experties of theirs that their associates almost carry them around on their heads. So if Homer or Hesiod had been able to help people’s moral development, would their contemporaries have allowed them to go from town to town reciting their poems? Wouldn’t they have kept a tighter grip on them than on their money, and tried to force them to stay with them in their homes? And if they couldn’t persuade them to do that, wouldn’t they have danced attendance on them wherever they went, until they’d gained as much from their teaching as they could?”

“I don’t think anyone could disagree with you, Socrates,” he said.

“So shall we classify all poets, from Homer onwards, as representers of images of goodness (and of everything else which occurs in poetry), and claim that they don’t have any contact with the truth? The facts are as we said a short while ago: a painter creates an illusory shoemaker, when not only does he not understand anything about shoemaking, but his audience doesn’t either. They just base their conclusions on the colours and shapes they can see.”

“Yes.”

“And I should think we’ll say that the same goes for a poet as well: he uses words and phrases to block in some of the colours of each area of expertise, although all he understands is how to represent things in a way which makes other superficial people, who base their conclusions on the words they can hear, think that he’s written a really good poem about shoemaking or military command or whatever else it is that he’s set out to metre, rhythm, and music. It only takes these features to cast this powerful a spell: that’s what they’re for. But when the poets’ work is stripped of its musical hues and expressed in plain words, I think you’ve seen what kind of impression it gives, so you know what I’m talking about.”

“I do,” he said.

“Isn’t it,” I asked, “like what noticeably happens when a young man has alluring features, without actually being good-looking, and then this charm of his deserts him?”

“Exactly.”

“Now, here’s another point to consider. An image-maker, a representer, understands only appearance, while reality is beyond him. Isn’t that our position?”

“Yes.”

This entry was posted in Books and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Books: “Plato: Republic” (Plato)

  1. Paul says:

    Interesting, I didn’t remember that part of ‘Republic’ clearly except for Plato’s take on the arts as subversive elements. In reading it, this argument strikes me as more than a little hypocritical since ‘The Republic’ itself is representational according to its own definition. One could pass the question back to Plato himself: “please tell us which community has you to thank for improvements to a government. Which community attributes the benefits of its good legal code to you?” None that I am aware of :-)

  2. Kathy says:

    political thought through the ages’. Actually, it’s probably more like politics/philosophy … but who needs to get too rigid with this categorization stuff? Uhm … I do?

    If you wanted to get all polisci on your readers, your topic would be technically classified as “political theory.”

    Can’t wait to see what you have to say about Machiavelli. You do have Machiavelli on the bookshelf, don’t you? {raises eyebrows here} What about Hobbes? Or Locke?

    {ducking and running}

    ;)

  3. red says:

    kathy – yeah, i’ve got all of those.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.