In my rush to publish the primer on my map and the purpose of politics, I did not give Plato his due. Plato’s Republic has been an inescapable lesson on politics, but it was also a trap. I believe Plato structured his work as provocation to his students to do better. The city proposed by Socrates in the Republic would be a difficult place to live in, but the Athens of Plato’s time was worse in many ways. Plato’s question to his students in the Republic seems to have been, “What is Justice?” I’ve reconsidered the Republic and concluded that Plato instead asked his students, beyond the pages, “If not Justice, else what?” What is the purpose of politics? If it is not justice, what else could it be?
Plato’s composition of the city as reflection of the soul is a transformative view of humanity. Unifying the self is as necessary as unifying the city. My account of politics has a radically different composition than Plato’s account, but this owes primarily to how I treat the individual. In the Republic, the city is the soul writ large, meaning that a city, healthy or otherwise, should be taken as one person. From this perspective, only a monarch is suited to conduct the politics of a city. Consider the personalities of the Republic. The appetite, spirit, and reason of humanity represented in six characters. Cephalus, aging head of affairs, he of perverse appetite. Polemarchus, the war chief, an inflamed spirit. Thrasymachus, bold in battle, is reason driven by spirit and appetite. Socrates, he of undiminished potential, gives reason to the spirits and appetites of all present. Glaucon, clear-eyed elder brother to Plato, is spirit learning its full potential but remains in pursuit of the best master. Adeimantus, the unbreakable and elder brother to Plato, is appetite in need of discipline. A person who directs their spirit with reason and constrains their appetite would seem to be healthy, as would a city configured the same. Yet, Socrates cannot realize his proposed city among a mere six people. The work ends in death. I view Plato’s Republic, along with all of his other works, as a teaching tool, provoking his students into challenging both themselves and their teacher.
Plato’s tripartite soul is such that, if we take it as our reflection, we distort ourselves to fit. His account of the soul’s composition is intuitive and understandable, a coherent and compelling narrative. A soul whose parts play their proper roles is a just soul, justice being the minding of one’s own business, doing what one ought. Will the soul to good ends or succumb to the reactions of the spirit and ravening of the appetite. Likewise with the city proposed by Socrates. In the Phaedrus, Plato’s allegory of the chariot illustrates how reason ought rule, as charioteer, reining the horses of spirit and appetite, which are the impulse of the soul. Reason may only steer the chariot, never shall it wear the harness. Plato’s tripartite soul and the chariot allegory are figurations, and as they make for coherent narratives, we can be tempted to fit ourselves to them. I recognize a different humanity.
Unity is the urge driving everything we think to do. Where Plato’s aspects of the soul have different desires, I see every aspect as having the same desire. If there is appetite, it seeks physical unity. If there is spirit, it seeks unity in action. If there is reason, it seeks unity in thought. Each of us holds the world together in our experience, as we hold ourselves together. As each of us moves towards a personal unity, the seemingly different desires of our aspects convene, revealing themselves as an urge to unity.
Moving towards a unified soul has two general paths: regulation and responsibility. Providing ourselves instructions to discipline our lives permits change in conditions, allowing us to move closer to unity. As self-regulation increases, freedom within ourselves diminishes, but the urge to unity is being satisfied more and more. If we continue down this path, we can arrive at unity, but as instruments of our urges to it, becoming objects of the regulation we used to arrive there. Following the path of responsibility challenges us with what our lives ought to be. Freedom of ourselves diminishes with each step towards responsibility. The world we hold together becomes immense, vivid, saturated, snaring us as we take on more charge, until we arrive at unity and find freedom of our soul is gone. Anyone arriving at unity through taking absolute responsibility for their life would have no remorse for the loss of freedom, but who among us is prepared to make that journey? The middle path appeals as well, balancing the weight of our lives with the discipline to maintain them. No path to unity is easy, and all leave us changed.
Without Plato, I would have been unlikely to discover the purpose of politics as I might not have thought to ask. I would have made no map nor learned how it works. Plato’s works are seductive, and many a student has succumbed, as they seem to brim with answers. He wrote nothing but questions, disguised as claims. I credit Plato with challenging me to overcome him.
-Cameron