Complete Works (338 page)

C
LINIAS
: Well then, sir, the line we took so long ago was the right one.
[963]
We said that every detail of our legislation ought to have a
single
end in view, and the proper name to call it was, I think we agreed, ‘virtue’.
¹³

A
THENIAN
: Yes.

C
LINIAS
: And I think we maintained that the virtues were four.

A
THENIAN
: Indeed we did.

C
LINIAS
: The leading one, to which not only the other three but everything else should be orientated, was reason.

A
THENIAN
: You take the point admirably, Clinias. Now follow the rest of the argument. As far as the captain, doctor and general are concerned, [b] we have already indicated that their intellect aims at some appropriate single end. Now it is the turn of the statesman’s reason to be investigated. Let’s personify it and ask it the following question: “My good sir, what aim do
you
have in view? What’s your single overriding purpose? The intelligent doctor can identify his accurately enough, so can’t you, with all your superior wisdom (as I suppose you’d claim), identify yours?” Or can you two, Clinias and Megillus, answer for him and tell me precisely what your notion of his aim is, just as I’ve often given you detailed accounts [c] of the notions of many other people on their behalf?

C
LINIAS
: No, sir, we certainly cannot.

A
THENIAN
: What about replying, ‘I think he should make every effort to get an overall understanding of his aim, as well as see it in its various contexts’?

C
LINIAS
: What contexts, for example?

A
THENIAN
: Well, when we said there were four species of virtue, obviously the very fact that there were four meant that each had to be thought of as somehow distinct from the others.

C
LINIAS
: Surely.

A
THENIAN
: Yet in fact we call them all by a single name. We say courage is virtue, wisdom is virtue, and the other two similarly, on the ground that really they are not several things but just one—virtue. [d]

C
LINIAS
: Very true.

A
THENIAN
: It’s not hard to explain how these two ‘virtues’ and the rest
differ
from each other and how each has acquired a different name. The real problem is this: why, precisely, have we described both of them (as well as the others) by this
common
term ‘virtue’?

C
LINIAS
: What do you mean?

A
THENIAN
: My point is perfectly easy to explain. Shall we let one of us ask the questions, and the other answer them?

C
LINIAS
: Again, what do you mean?

A
THENIAN
: Here’s the question for you to put to me: “Why is it that after [e] calling both by the single term ‘virtue’, in the next breath we speak of two ‘virtues’, courage and wisdom?” I’ll tell you why. One of them, courage, copes with fear, and is found in wild animals as well as human beings, notably in the characters of very young children. The soul, you see, becomes courageous by a purely natural process, without the aid of reason. By contrast, in this absence of reason a wise and sensible soul is out of the question. That is true now, has always been true, and always will be true; the two processes are fundamentally different.

C
LINIAS
: That’s true.

[964]
A
THENIAN
: So there’s your explanation of why there are two different virtues. Now it’s your turn: you tell me why they are one and the same thing. Your job, you understand, is to tell me why the four of them nevertheless form a unity; and when you have demonstrated that unity, ask me to show you again in what sense they are four.

Next after that we ought to ask ourselves what constitutes adequate knowledge of any object that has a name and a definition: is it enough to know only the name and not the definition? On the contrary, if a man is worth his salt, wouldn’t it be a disgrace in him not to understand all these [b] points about a topic so grand and so important?

C
LINIAS
: Presumably it would.

A
THENIAN
: And as for a giver or guardian of laws, and indeed anyone who thinks of his own virtue as superior to the rest of the world’s, and has won awards for his achievement,
is
there anything more important than the qualities we are now discussing—courage, restraint, justice and wisdom?

C
LINIAS
: Of course not.

A
THENIAN
: So in such circumstances what role should the expounders, teachers and lawgivers—the guardians of the rest of the community—[c] play when a criminal needs enlightenment and instruction, or perhaps correction and punishment? Should they not prove better than anyone else at giving him a full explanation and description of the effects of virtue and vice? Or is some poet-visitor to the state, or some self-styled ‘educationalist’, going to put up a better show than the winner of the palm for every kind of virtue? Where there are no efficient and articulate guardians with an adequate understanding of virtue, it will be hardly [d] surprising if the state, precisely because it is unguarded, meets the fate of so many states nowadays.

C
LINIAS
: No, hardly surprising at all, I suppose.

A
THENIAN
: Well then, shall we carry out these proposals, or what? Shall we make sure our guardians are more highly qualified than the man in the street to explain what virtue is, and to put it into practice? How else could our state function like the head and sense of a wise man, now that it possesses within itself something analogous to protect it?

C
LINIAS
: Where is this resemblance, sir? How do we draw such a comparison?

[e] A
THENIAN
: Obviously the state itself corresponds to the trunk, and the junior guardians, chosen for their natural gifts and the acuteness of their mental vision, live as it were at the summit and survey the whole state; they store up in their memory all the sensations they receive while on
[965]
guard, and act as reporters for their elder colleagues of everything that takes place in the state; and the old men—we could compare them to the intellect, for their high wisdom in so many vital questions—take advantage of the assistance and advice of their juniors in debating policy, so that the joint efforts of both ranks effectively ensure the safety of the entire state. Now is this the sort of organization we want to see, or some other? Should the state, in fact, keep all its citizens on the same level, without giving some a more specialized training and education than others?

C
LINIAS
: My dear sir! That’s quite impracticable.

A
THENIAN
: Then we have to pass on to a more advanced education than [b] the one we described earlier.

C
LINIAS
: Perhaps so.

A
THENIAN
: What about the education we touched on a moment ago? Would that answer our needs?

C
LINIAS
: Certainly it would.

A
THENIAN
: Didn’t we say that a really skilled craftsman or guardian in any field must be able not merely to see the many individual instances of a thing, but also to win through to a knowledge of the single central concept, and when he’s understood that, put the various details in their proper place in the overall picture?

C
LINIAS
: We did, and rightly.

A
THENIAN
: So what better tool can there be for a penetrating investigation [c] of a concept than an ability to look beyond the many dissimilar instances to the single notion?

C
LINIAS
: Probably none.

A
THENIAN
: ‘Probably!’ No, my dear fellow, this is most
certainly
the surest method we can follow, no matter who we are.

C
LINIAS
: I trust you, sir, and I agree, so let’s carry on with the discussion on that basis.

A
THENIAN
: So it looks as if we have to compel the guardians of our divine foundation to get an exact idea of the common element in all the [d] four virtues—that factor which, though single, is to be found in courage, restraint, justice and wisdom, and thus in our view deserves the general title ‘virtue’. This element, my friends, if only we have the will, is what we must grip until we can explain adequately the essence of what we have to contemplate, whether it is a single entity, a composite whole, or both, or whatever. If this point eludes us, can we ever expect to attain virtue—when we can’t say whether it comprises a great number of things [e] or just four, or whether it is a unity? Never—not if we believe our own advice, anyway, and we’ll have to ensure the growth of virtue in the state by some other means. But if in the circumstances we decide we ought to abandon the attempt entirely, abandon it we must.

C
LINIAS
: No, sir, in the name of the gods of hospitality, we must never abandon such a project: you seem to us to be absolutely right. So now then: how is one to tackle the problem?

A
THENIAN
: Let’s postpone the question of method. The first thing we
[966]
have to settle and decide among ourselves is whether the attempt should be made at all.

C
LINIAS
: Indeed it should, if possible.

A
THENIAN
: Well then, do we take the same line about goodness and beauty? Should the guardians know no more than that both these terms are a plurality, or should they understand the senses in which they are unities?

C
LINIAS
: It looks as if they are more or less obliged to comprehend that too—how they are unities.

[b] A
THENIAN
: But what if they understood the point, but couldn’t find the words to demonstrate it?

C
LINIAS
: How absurd! That’s the condition of a slave.

A
THENIAN
: Well then, isn’t our doctrine going to be the same about all serious questions? If our guardians are going to be
genuine
guardians of the laws they must have
genuine
knowledge of their real nature; they must be articulate enough to explain the real difference between good actions and bad, and capable of sticking to the distinction in practice.

C
LINIAS
: Naturally.

[c] A
THENIAN
: And surely one of the finest fields of knowledge is theology, on which we’ve already lavished a great deal of attention. It’s supremely important to appreciate—so far as it’s given to man to know these things—the existence of the gods and the obvious extent of their power. The man in the street may be forgiven if he simply follows the voice of the law, but if any intended guardian fails to work hard to master every theological proof there is, we must certainly not grant
him
the same indulgence; in other words, we must never choose as a Guardian of the Laws [d] anyone who is not preternaturally gifted or has not worked hard at theology, or allow him to be awarded distinctions for virtue.

C
LINIAS
: It’s fair enough, as you say, that the idle or incompetent in this business should never be allowed to get anywhere near such honors.

A
THENIAN
: Now we know, don’t we, that among the arguments we’ve already discussed, there are two in particular which encourage belief in the gods?

C
LINIAS
: Which two are they?

A
THENIAN
: One is the point we made about the soul, when we argued that [e] it is far older and far more divine than all those things whose movements have sprung up and provided the impulse which has plunged it into a perpetual stream of existence. Another argument was based on the systematic motion of the heavenly bodies and the other objects under the control of reason, which is responsible for the order in the universe. No one who has contemplated all this with a careful and expert eye has in fact ever degenerated into
[967]
such ungodliness as to reach the position that most people would expect him to reach. They suppose that if a man goes in for such things as astronomy and the essential associated disciplines, and sees events apparently happening by necessity rather than because they are directed by the intention of a benevolent will, he’ll turn into an atheist.

C
LINIAS
: Well, what would happen, in fact?

A
THENIAN
: Today, as I said, the situation is quite different from the time when thinkers regarded these bodies as inanimate. Even then, men were [b] overcome with wonder at them, and those who studied them really closely got an inkling of the accepted doctrines of today, that such remarkably accurate predictions about their behavior would never have been possible if they were inanimate, and therefore irrational; and even in those days there were some
¹⁴
who had the hardihood to stick their neck out and assert it was reason that imposed regularity and order on the heavens. However, these same thinkers went sadly astray over the soul’s natural priority to matter: regarding soul as a recent creation, they turned the universe upside [c] down, so to speak, and their own theories to boot. They concluded from the evidence of their eyes that all the bodies that move across the heavens were mere collections of stone and earth and many other kinds of inanimate matter—inanimate matter which nevertheless initiated a chain of causation responsible for all the order in the universe. These views brought down on the philosophers’ heads a great many accusations of atheism, and provoked a lot of hostility; poets, in particular, joined in the chorus of abuse and among other inanities compared the philosophers to bitches baying at the [d] moon. But today, as I said, the situation is fundamentally different.