Plato, whom many regard as the greatest philosopher, had a noble lineage. He was born in 429 B.C.–thesecond year of the Peloponnesian war and also theyear of Pericles’s death. He was a student of Socrates for eight years. He loved and admired Socrates. In some of his dialogues, he portrays Socrates as the very embodiment of virtue. After the execution of Socrates, he left Athens and lived in foreign lands for ten years. During this time, he met Euclid and learnt about Pythagorean ideas of mathematical mysticism. After returning to Athens, he founded the Academy (his school) and gathered around him a group of disciples including the great philosopher Aristotle. Plato died in his eighty first year.
Plato was not only a great philosopher but also a great literary genius. His dialogues are marked by deep mysticism and dazzling literary beauty. Plato’s moral doctrines are similar to those of Socrates but contain a heavy admixture of metaphysics. Further, Plato introduced a political dimension into individual morals. In his famous dialogue Republic, Plato implies that only citizens of an ideal State or commonwealth can be moral. Critics complain that in the writings of divine Plato (as he was called by his admirers) logical thought is often overtaken by poetic fancy and that illiberal ideas masquerade in attractive literary costume.
In this section, we will briefly outline Plato’s ethical ideas covering both individual morality and political ethics. But as an indispensable preliminary, we need to mention an aspect of his metaphysics, which is known as the theory of Ideas or Forms. Plato uses this theory in his writings on nature, dialectic [logic] and morals.
Ancient Greek philosophers were greatly troubled by one aspect of the physical world. The world appeared to them as a kaleidoscopic picture of continuous change or flux. It seemed to be in a state “of constant becoming and continuous change, where things appear to be purely momentary, and in an incessant transition from the immediate past through the present into the future.” Related to this was another problem that perception and sensation of things vary between individuals; and that sometimes the same individual has different perceptions and sensations about the same thing. Objects and things seemed to be “wholly wanting in constancy and stability”. Many ancient philosophers thought that no reliable knowledge can be had of things which are in a state of such perpetual change. Heraclitus, for example, observed that we cannot step in and out of the same river for it would have changed in the meanwhile (or between our two steps). Some philosophers like Protagoras, however, believed that perception (or the deliverances of human senses) is knowledge of the empirical world as it is.
ForPlatotheexternal world,as given in senses,is only an appearance.He usesvarious expressions to describe the sensible and phenomenal world such as–the many, the divisible, the becoming, and non-being. The real world according to Plato is an abstract realm of eternal and unchanging Ideas or Forms. The objects and things of the physical world are appearances or phenomena which are like images of the Forms in the world of Ideas. Plato calls the Forms as archetypes and the objects of the material world as their copies or adumbrations. Plato believes that philosophers gain knowledge of the Forms (or being) through the intellectual perceptions of the soul.
Readers may wonder how the above piece of metaphysics ties up Plato’s moral philosophy. To anticipateourdiscussion,Plato arguesthat sincephilosophers have an insightinto Forms or reality, they should be the rulers of a State, or that alternatively rulers should become philosophers.
Bertrand Russell looks from a different perspective the problem of continuous change in nature which bothered Greek philosophers. They felt that it prevents men from gaining certain knowledge. According to Russell, the problem which puzzled the Greek philosophers relates to universals or general terms used in language. Examples of general terms are roses, tables, chairs and the like. In modern language, these terms are concepts, and the objects which fall within the definition of any concept are assigned to it. There may be any number of instances of the concept ‘rose’. Some philosophers believe that there is a form or essence underlying all such instances of a concept. They are called realists. Their opponents are nominalists who argue that one need not look beyond the individual instances of ‘rose’.
After this brief outline of the theory of Forms, we turn to Plato’s moral ideas. For Plato the good has unconditional worth and is the source of worth in various things. He gives a sublime philosophical definition of the good: “It is the ultimate ground at the same time of knowing and of being, of the perceiver and the perceived, of the subjective and the objective, of the ideal and the real, though exalted itselfabovesuch a division.” Platoregardedthe idea of the goodand God as identical.
Plato considers the good from three sides. First, he considers the good as Idea or good in itself as mentioned above. In this aspect, it is distinct from its manifestationsin science, truth, beauty and virtue. Secondly, he considers the good as individual virtue. Thirdly, he regards the good as ethical world in the political State. We will shortly consider the constitution which Plato outlines in the Republic.
Any discussion of the highest good has to consider the conception of pleasure. The doctrine of hedonism proposed that pleasure is the true good. Plato rejects hedonism because pleasures are indeterminate and relative. Further, pursuit of impure pleasures often results in pain and misery. Plato, however, admits pleasure as an ingredient of the good by showing the necessary connection between virtue and true pleasure. True and enduring pleasure is found in the exercise of reason and in the possession of truth and goodness. Good life is virtuous life largely made up of intellectual studies and rational action accompanied by some, pure aesthetic pleasures. Plato’s conception of pleasure is thus spiritual and intellectual.
Plato’s theory of virtue follows the Socratic doctrine. He identifies virtue with knowledge. From this it follows that virtue is teachable, and that men can learn morality just as they can learn any other subject. Morality is not an innate quality or a contingent gift of nature. Moral beings are not born but made througheducation.
Plato makes a fourfold division of morals, and associates them with different parts of the soul. The fourvirtuesarewisdomorprudence,valour,temperanceandjustice.Platoregardsthevirtuesasforming a complex unity–the one can be manifold, or the manifold one. This may seem like philosophical word play, but implies that virtues share common features and look similar from several perspectives. Plato accords a privileged position to justice as the overarching virtue.
Plato divides soul into three parts–rational, spirited and appetitive. Wisdom or prudence is virtue ofreason,the first part of thesoul. Wisdom is the directingor measuring virtue.Forinstance,without it, courage will become a rash impulse, and quiet endurance will degenerate into stony indifference. Valour is the virtue of spirit, the second part of the soul. Valour preserves the rational intelligence which is oftenbeset with anxieties in itsstruggleagainst pain andpleasure,desire and fear.Thethird part of the soul consists of biological appetites. It is necessary to control their propensity towards excess. Temperance regulates human passions and signifies the submission of non-rational elements to reason.
Justice refers to the harmonious functioning of the related elements of the soul – the appetitive, the spirited and the rational. Justice in Plato’s sense makes an individual concentrate on his duties; it can be thought of as the sense of duty. As we shall see, in the ideal commonwealth of Plato, every citizen will perform his assigned duties without craving for the (more attractive or powerful) roles of others.
As mentioned earlier, Plato considers that individual virtue is possible only for citizens of a moral State. Plato’s dialogue, Republic, is a vision of such an ideal political society or commonwealth; it is the earliest political utopia. Plato proposes a constitution in which philosophers will be the kings or rulers. He holds that until philosophers are made kings, or kings and princes acquire philosophical wisdom, no solutions can be found for the political ills of States. Prima facie, Plato’s suggestion of handing over State power to speculative philosophers sounds strange.
Political thinkers have identified the reasons which led Plato to his vision of the ideal commonwealth. He was reacting against the troubled political conditions in Athens after its defeat in the Peloponnesian war. In modern terminology, Athens then was a failed State. The capital penalty imposed on Socrates would have exacerbated Plato’s dislike for democracy which had then degeneratedintomobrule.Beingan aristocrat,Platohad a natural antipathytowardsdemocracy.Most importantly, Plato was impressed by the myth of Sparta. Sparta was a military autocracy controlled by an oligarchy. Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus gave a glowing, romantic and fictional account of the Spartan State and created the myth of Sparta which impressed Plato. The Republic contains many features of the Spartan State which Plutarch narrated.
The citizens of the Republic are to be divided into three classes: the common people, the soldiers, and the guardians. Only the guardians are to exercise political power. The legislator (or the author of the constitution) will select the first group of guardians. Afterwards, the guardians will succeed by heredity. The main problem is to ensure that guardians will follow the intentions of the legislator.
To secure this end, Plato proposes a series of political, economic, educational and other measures. As acquisitive instincts and family ties lead to corruption, the Republic will have neither private property nor the family system. There will be community living and common eating. Women and children will be commonly shared. Children will be taken away from parents at a certain age and
will be raised by the State. Weak and infirm children will be exposed to death at birth.
Plato gives extensive detailsabout thepropertype of education. Education will consist of culture and athletics (gymnastics). There will be austere training of the body. Both boys and girls will participateinphysical training.Girls will also be trained in all military arts andwill be conditioned to
be brave. The education will inculcate gravity, decorum and courage. The education, it is evident, is a form of rigorous military training.
Plato proposes strict censorship over literature, drama and music. Even Homer who attributes immoral behaviour to Gods is to be banned. Tragic dramas with their pathos which may undermine courage and military virtue are to be banned. Cheap comedy, pantomime and buffoonery will find no place in the Republic. Plato is severe on poets too. Military music which serves to embolden soldiers and the general populace will be encouraged.
Plato doubts whether people will readily accept his proposed State. He hopes that people can be convinced through “one royal lie”. It will consist in propounding and propagating the myth that God has created men of three kinds – rulers (guardians), military class and the common citizenry. If people accept the inequalities and the class system as part of a divinely ordained order, there will be no dissatisfaction or social unrest. The Republic will enjoy political stability.
Plato explains his second conception of justice after describing the three classes of the ideal common wealth. The wisdom of the state resides in the small class of guardians; the courage of the State in the auxiliaries; and the temperance of the State in the subordination of the governed to the governing. The justice of the State consists in that everyone attends to his business without interfering with anyone else’s. The individual is just when all the parts of his soul function harmoniously with due subordination of lower parts to the higher parts. Similarly, the State is just when all its classes and their individual members perform their due functions diligently. Political injustice, on the other hand, exists in a meddlesome and restless spirit, which leads to one class interfering with the business oftheother. As BertrandRussell observes humorously,that everyoneshould mind hisownbusiness is an admirabledictum,but it hardly, fitsinto modern concept of justicebased on equity,impartiality and fair play.
For many centuries, philosophers lavished fulsome praise on Plato’s Republic. It was seen as an odyssey of the free intellect; a sublime expression of political ideals freed from narrow, personal interests of the individual. Although the then Athenian State was in utter moral decline, Plato seemed to have expressed its Form or its true but deeply buried moral foundations. It was recognised that the political institutions of the Republic subordinate the individual to the political society. But it was considered a necessary corrective to unchecked individual licentiousness. The volitions of the individual and requirements of State power have to be reconciled to ensure political stability.
In modern times, political thinkers have attacked Plato’s ideas. They are seen as offensive to the modern democratic temper. Bertrand Russell traces the ancestry of fascism to Plato. Karl Popper includes Plato among the three great intellectual enemies of open society – the other two being Hegel and Marx. Open society, according to Popper is representative democracy with full panoply of individual freedoms. We may note the main charges which modern writers level against Plato.
In spite of Plato’s fine talk, his Republic is a hereditary military oligarchy. It is essentially based not on democratic but on aristocratic principle. Political power vests with the guardians. A large section of the population – farmers, artisans and traders – will be permanently excluded from political power. This will be a permanent dispensation with no possibility of change. Plato’s Republic seems to reflect hissubconscious aristocraticwishthat thedemocratictendencies should be stifled.
It may appear that the Republic will be ruled by saintly guardians imbued with Platonic ideals. As ideals represent impersonal ethics, there may seem no great objection to rule of the enlightened philosophers. It may seem preferable to the messy democratic systems often driven by venal greed and power lust of politicians. The difficulty is that there may be no unanimity or consensus on even the most enlightened ideology. Ideology expresses the desires, hopes and the world view of a social group. There can be conflicting ideologies. The second half of the twentieth century is a tale of the conflict betweenWesterncapitalismandcommunism.Therecan be clash on moralityforinstance as between that of a Christian saint and of Nietzsche’s superman. Ideals cannot be often disassociated from the class, status or nation of an individual. The ideology of the guardians will have no relation to popular desires or hopes; at best guardians will implement Plato’s ideals.
Plato’s concept of justice, unlike modern democratic theory, has no connection with equality. Justice implies that citizens accept their status as guardians, soldiers, farmers, artisans or traders, and perform theirassignedroles.Thisconceptionallowsinequalitiesof powerandprivilegeto exist withoutinjustice. Plato sees no injusticeintheruleof hereditaryguardianssincetheyarebest fittedto rulebecauseof their knowledge and training. Plato’s view on this question is misconceived. In society, certain occupations like those of doctors, lawyers, navigators and accountants, require acquisition of professional skills. But those who seek political office need no such qualification – the common denominator of citizenship is sufficient for aspiring political leaders. Plato’s view in this matter rests on a false analogy.
Plato argues that the guardians possess the knowledge of moral Ideas of the abstract realm. Leaving aside the question whether such an ideal realm in fact exists, we need to note another difficulty with Plato’s conception. Plato, and for a long time many philosophers, mixed up factual statements and moral judgments. Factual statements are verifiable and objective. They are about events or features of the world whose veracity can be directly or indirectly checked. For example, experimental data are statements of fact. Knowledge of the physical world largely consists of factual statements of science.
Moral judgments and theories with which Plato is concerned are distinct from facts. We will discuss the nature of moral judgments later. But it is easy to see that morals are not directly linked to an objective external reality. They are essentiallyabout desirable human conduct and ways of living. While there can be agreement in principle about facts – X is true or false – it is not so with morals. As we have noted, people disagree about morals which ultimately depend on one’s ideals, preferences and ends. In this sense, morals cannot be equated with knowledge. In modern terminology, one has to distinguish between judgments of facts and judgments of value. Agreement on facts rests on standard verification procedures. Moral agreements are matters of consensus.
We may note a few more unattractive features of Plato’s Republic. It smacks of totalitarian and autocratic rule. Plato is ready to use the ‘royal lie’ to deceive the gullible population. He introduces censorship which is against the principle of liberty. His proposals for abolishing family system are weird. He virtually abolishes the private moral space of the individual. He experiences his activities and pleasures not as an antonomous individual but as a part of the social organism. He is submerged in the State.
As we noted earlier, Plato’s views on virtue are derived from Socrates. He places them within the framework of his theory of Forms. As a result, he injects an air of mysticism into them. Plato
conceives an individual’s moral life as dependent on the ethical constitution of the State. Hence any discussion of Platonic virtue cannot be separated from political ethics. Plato is generally seen more as a political thinker than as a moralist. His ideal political commonwealth is an outgrowth of his disenchantment with democracy and common populace (‘the great unwashed’ in the words of a political philosopher) and his desire to ensure the continued existence of an aristocratic State. Notwithstanding the glittering phrases he uses, his ideal commonwealth is essentially a closed military-aristocratic oligarchy. It contains features characteristic of modern dictatorships. As such, the Platonic political temper runs counter to modern liberal political thought. However, his account of individual virtue is still an inspiring ideal.