Complete Works (238 page)

You seem to be speaking with true enthusiasm, Socrates. But I’m sure that most of your hearers, beginning with Thrasymachus, will oppose you with even greater enthusiasm and not be at all convinced.

Don’t slander Thrasymachus and me just as we’ve become friends—not [d] that we were enemies before. We won’t relax our efforts until we either convince him and the others or, at any rate, do something that may benefit them in a later incarnation, when, reborn, they happen upon these arguments again.

That’s a short time you’re talking about!

It’s nothing compared to the whole of time. All the same, it’s no wonder that the majority of people aren’t convinced by our arguments, for they’ve never seen a
man
that fits our
plan
(and the rhymes of this sort they have heard are usually intended and not, like this one, the product of mere [e] chance). That is to say, they’ve never seen a man or a number of men who themselves rhymed with virtue, were assimilated to it as far as possible,
[499]
and ruled in a city of the same type. Or do you think they have?

I don’t think so at all.

Nor have they listened sufficiently to fine and free arguments that search out the truth in every way for the sake of knowledge but that keep away from the sophistications and eristic quibbles that, both in public trials and in private gatherings, aim at nothing except reputation and disputation.

No, they haven’t.

It was because of this, because we foresaw these difficulties, that we were afraid. Nonetheless, we were compelled by the truth to say that no [b] city, constitution, or individual man will ever become perfect until either some chance event compels those few philosophers who aren’t vicious (the ones who are now called useless) to take charge of a city, whether they want to or not, and compels the city to obey them, or until a god inspires the present rulers and kings or their offspring with a true erotic love for true philosophy. Now, it cannot be reasonably maintained, in my view, that either of these things is impossible, but if it could, we’d be justly [c] ridiculed for indulging in wishful thinking. Isn’t that so?

It is.

Then, if in the limitless past, those who were foremost in philosophy were forced to take charge of a city or if this is happening now in some foreign place far beyond our ken or if it will happen in the future, we are prepared to maintain our argument that, at whatever time the muse of [d] philosophy controls a city, the constitution we’ve described will also exist at that time, whether it is past, present, or future. Since it is not impossible for this to happen, we are not speaking of impossibilities. That it is
difficult
for it to happen, however, we agree ourselves.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

But the majority don’t share your opinion—is that what you are going to say?

They probably don’t.

You should not make such wholesale charges against the majority, for they’ll no doubt come to a different opinion, if instead of indulging your love of victory at their expense, you soothe them and try to remove their [e] slanderous prejudice against the love of learning, by pointing out what you mean by a philosopher and by defining the philosophic nature and way of life, as we did just now, so that they’ll realize that you don’t mean
[500]
the same people as they do. And if they once see it your way, even you will say that they’ll have a different opinion from the one you just attributed to them and will answer differently. Or do you think that anyone who is gentle and without malice is harsh with someone who is neither irritable nor malicious? I’ll anticipate your answer and say that a few people may have such a harsh character, but not the majority.

And, of course, I agree.

Then don’t you also agree that the harshness the majority exhibit towards [b] philosophy is caused by those outsiders who don’t belong and who’ve burst in like a band of revellers, always abusing one another, indulging their love of quarrels, and arguing about human beings in a way that is wholly inappropriate to philosophy?

I do indeed.

No one whose thoughts are truly directed towards the things that are, Adeimantus, has the leisure to look down at human affairs or to be filled with envy and hatred by competing with people. Instead, as he looks at and studies things that are organized and always the same, that neither [c] do injustice to one another nor suffer it, being all in a rational order, he imitates them and tries to become as like them as he can. Or do you think that someone can consort with things he admires without imitating them?

I do not. It’s impossible.

Then the philosopher, by consorting with what is ordered and divine and despite all the slanders around that say otherwise, himself becomes [d] as divine and ordered as a human being can.

That’s absolutely true.

And if he should come to be compelled to put what he sees there into people’s characters, whether into a single person or into a populace, instead of shaping only his own, do you think that he will be a poor craftsman of moderation, justice, and the whole of popular virtue?

He least of all.

And when the majority realize that what we are saying about the philosopher is true, will they be harsh with him or mistrust us when we say that [e] the city will never find happiness until its outline is sketched by painters who use the divine model?

They won’t be harsh, if indeed they realize this. But what sort of sketch
[501]
do you mean?

They’d take the city and the characters of human beings as their sketching slate, but first they’d wipe it clean—which isn’t at all an easy thing to do. And you should know that this is the plain difference between them and others, namely, that they refuse to take either an individual or a city in hand or to write laws, unless they receive a clean slate or are allowed to clean it themselves.

And they’d be right to refuse.

Then don’t you think they’d next sketch the outline of the constitution?

Of course.

[b] And I suppose that, as they work, they’d look often in each direction, towards the natures of justice, beauty, moderation, and the like, on the one hand, and towards those they’re trying to put into human beings, on the other. And in this way they’d mix and blend the various ways of life in the city until they produced a human image based on what Homer too called “the divine form and image” when it occurred among human beings.
⁸

That’s right.

They’d erase one thing, I suppose, and draw in another until they’d made characters for human beings that the gods would love as much [c] as possible.

At any rate, that would certainly result in the finest sketch.

Then is this at all persuasive to those you said were straining to attack us—that the person we were praising is really a painter of constitutions? They were angry because we entrusted the city to him: Are they any calmer, now that they’ve heard what we had to say?

They’ll be much calmer, if they have any moderation.

Indeed, how could they possibly dispute it? Will they deny that philosophers [d] are lovers of what is or of the truth?

That would be absurd.

Or that their nature as we’ve described it is close to the best?

They can’t deny that either.

Or that such a nature, if it follows its own way of life, isn’t as completely good and philosophic as any other? Or that the people we excluded are more so?

Certainly not. [e]

Then will they still be angry when we say that, until philosophers take control of a city, there’ll be no respite from evil for either city or citizens, and the constitution we’ve been describing in theory will never be completed in practice?

They’ll probably be less angry.

Then if it’s all right with you, let’s not say that they’ll simply be less angry but that they’ll become altogether gentle and persuaded, so that they’ll be shamed into agreeing with us, if nothing else.
[502]

It’s all right with me.

Let’s assume, therefore, that they’ve been convinced on this point. Will anyone dispute our view that the offspring of kings or rulers could be born with philosophic natures?

No one would do that.

Could anyone claim that, if such offspring are born, they’ll inevitably be corrupted? We agree ourselves that it’s hard for them to be saved from corruption, but could anyone claim that in the whole of time not one of them could be saved? [b]

How could he?

But surely one such individual would be sufficient to bring to completion all the things that now seem so incredible, provided that his city obeys him.

One would be sufficient.

If a ruler established the laws and ways of life we’ve described, it is surely not impossible that the citizens would be willing to carry them out.

Not at all.

And would it be either astonishing or impossible that others should think as we do?

I don’t suppose it would. [c]

But I think our earlier discussion was sufficient to show that these arrangements are best, if only they are possible.

Indeed it was.

Then we can now conclude that this legislation is best, if only it is possible, and that, while it is hard for it to come about, it is not impossible.

We can.

Now that this difficulty has been disposed of, we must deal with what remains, namely, how the saviors of our constitution will come to be in the city, what subjects and ways of life will cause them to come into being, and at what ages they’ll take each of them up. [d]

Indeed we must.

It wasn’t very clever of me to omit from our earlier discussion the troublesome topics of acquiring wives, begetting children, and appointing rulers, just because I knew that the whole truth would provoke resentment and would be hard to bring about in practice, for as it turned out, I had to go through these matters anyway. The subject of women and children [e] has been adequately dealt with, but that of the rulers has to be taken up again from the beginning. We said, if you remember, that they must show themselves to be lovers of their city when tested by pleasure and pain and
[503]
that they must hold on to their resolve through labors, fears, and all other adversities. Anyone who was incapable of doing so was to be rejected, while anyone who came through unchanged—like gold tested in a fire—was to be made ruler and receive prizes both while he lived and after his death. These were the sort of things we were saying while our argument, afraid of stirring up the very problems that now confront us, veiled its [b] face and slipped by.

That’s very true; I do remember it.

We hesitated to say the things we’ve now dared to say anyway. So let’s now also dare to say that those who are to be made our guardians in the most exact sense of the term must be philosophers.

Let’s do it.

Then you should understand that there will probably be only a few of them, for they have to have the nature we described, and its parts mostly grow in separation and are rarely found in the same person. [c]

What do you mean?

You know that ease of learning, good memory, quick wits, smartness, youthful passion, high-mindedness, and all the other things that go along with these are rarely willing to grow together in a mind that will choose an orderly life that is quiet and completely stable, for the people who possess the former traits are carried by their quick wits wherever chance leads them and have no stability at all.

That’s true.

On the other hand, people with stable characters, who don’t change easily, who aren’t easily frightened in battle, and whom one would employ [d] because of their greater reliability, exhibit similar traits when it comes to learning: They are as hard to move and teach as people whose brains have become numb, and they are filled with sleep and yawning whenever they have to learn anything.

That’s so.

Yet we say that someone must have a fine and goodly share of both characters, or he won’t receive the truest education, honors, or rule.

That’s right.

Then, don’t you think that such people will be rare?

Of course.

[e] Therefore they must be tested in the labors, fears, and pleasures we mentioned previously. But they must also be exercised in many other subjects—which we didn’t mention but are adding now—to see whether they can tolerate the most important subjects or will shrink from them
[504]
like the cowards who shrink from other tests.

It’s appropriate to examine them like that. But what do you mean by the most important subjects?

Do you remember when we distinguished three parts in the soul, in order to help bring out what justice, moderation, courage, and wisdom each is?

If I didn’t remember that, it wouldn’t be just for me to hear the rest.

What about what preceded it?

What was that?

We said, I believe, that, in order to get the finest possible view of these [b] matters, we would need to take a longer road that would make them plain to anyone who took it but that it was possible to give demonstrations of what they are that would be up to the standard of the previous argument.
⁹
And you said that that would be satisfactory. So it seems to me that our discussion at that time fell short of exactness, but whether or not it satisfied you is for you to say.

I thought you gave us good measure and so, apparently, did the others.

Any measure of such things that falls short in any way of that which [c] is is not good measure, for nothing incomplete is the measure of anything, although people are sometimes of the opinion that an incomplete treatment is nonetheless adequate and makes further investigation unnecessary.

Indeed, laziness causes many people to think that.

It is a thought that a guardian of a city and its laws can well do without.

Probably so.

Well, then, he must take the longer road and put as much effort into learning as into physical training, for otherwise, as we were just saying, he will never reach the goal of the most important subject and the most [d] appropriate one for him to learn.

Aren’t these virtues, then, the most important things? he asked. Is there anything even more important than justice and the other virtues we discussed