IV of Platos The Republic - Book Report/Review Example

Textual Analysis of 432b-434c in Book IV of Plato’s ‘The Republic’ Through the translation of the section 432b – 434c in Plato’s Book IV of ‘The Republic’ by Robin Waterfield, the chief theme of the argument is embodied in the text stating “this is in a sense what morality is: doing one’s own job and no one else’s” or prior conveyed as “morality was doing one’s own business, and not intruding elsewhere.” The essential substance of the text hereafter further consists in the supporting details “Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State when the other virtues of self-discipline and courage and reason are abstracted; and, that this is the ultimate cause and condition of the existence of all of them, and while remaining in them is also their preservative; and we were saying that if the three were discovered by us, morality would be the fourth or remaining one.” Among the four qualities which Plato regarded of being of huge significance, morality outstands the rest – self-discipline, courage, and reason. As Plato perceived it in his time, it is morality that determines the rise or the ruin of the State, demonstrating this philosophy by way of exemplifying the situation where there emerges conflict once the trader, warrior, and legislator switch duties on purpose. Each of these professions indicates a status of power so that an unfavorable interference in State affairs may be brought by the point when an individual designated in any of these positions makes an attempt to handle someone else’s work. For Plato, it would generate the State the most harm and evil if one aspires to labor beyond his inclinations especially when the job the person is originally identified with suits his potentials well because then, crossing over another line of work reduces heart and devotion for the former. This, hence, brings to thought how morality plays a significant role in acquiring goodness for the entire community. Plato proposed that an individual’s morality or capacity to function in the State occurs to bear competition with “political virtues, reason, self-discipline, courage.” To analyze how this could be so in reality, it may help to imagine how the loss of morality tends to corrupt with greater impact, affecting a wider scope of society and value system compared with the problematic issues associated with the loss of courage, reason, or self-discipline which typically stay within moderate areas of concern. The idea with ‘meddling’ or ‘interchange’ between job functions in the light of Plato’s claim is that it gradually establishes the mind of greed and unnecessary acquisition of power in order to fulfill selfish interests. Apparently, the State is not merely composed of single or few entities in human form who are basically rational and capable of thinking in various respects. Individuals who constitute the overall governing body for a nation or multitude possess networks comprising other human beings with whom opinions and schemes are shared that it becomes dangerous to assume business in addition to one’s own. Performing other tasks alludes disposition to ‘manipulate’ the State and this threatens the good equilibrium since the people of such State are more likely to spread this influence of detaching from the realm of morality across-the-board. Part of the discourse on the ‘Morality in the City’ of section 432b – 434c in Book IV even reflects in Plato’s principle of democracy. According to Platos argument in ‘The Republic’, the inherent weakness of democracy exists, being known as the ‘extreme of popular liberty’ where complete equality and liberty in the relations among the sexes and slaves are expected to be similar to the degree of liberty of the masters. It is, however, one which is rather disposed to transform itself to tyranny and at this point, it is important to note the difference between the democracy of the present on the basis of the ‘populist democracy’ in the Athens and that which Plato examined under the constraints of morality. Plurality in number of individuals within a society creates several constitutions and once the democracy is built, there is no requirement to rule or to be ruled. Sophistication is also deemed necessary among the people in the city and tolerance as another chief yet weak characteristic is only thought to be complete if it serves the advantage of the majority. In other words, democracy based on Plato’s argument of morality is kept sound and good for as long as it dwells apart from the notion of ‘popular liberty’ in which men realize the freedom to cross borders in terms of failure to be moral. A man fails to be moral the moment he extends application of democracy in the manner of taking responsibilities other than his when these responsibilities are meant to be distributed to those who are more fit to handle them. If a person, for instance, yields to the intention of gaining the knowledge of the skills of one or some of his fellows, then he would have something else to do besides the sole task of working with his unique set of duties. While this ought to project a fine scene of versatility, it necessarily raises question on the proper allocation of forces and the individual economy in general. It could be tyrannical in the sense that whenever there is lack of balance or the uneven distribution of roles because some people are deprived of specific functions to carry out, the one or few holding for themselves the learned abilities thereof pose the risk of enslaving the rest whose jobs are taken from them. This condition of slavery would eventually ruin the image of the State against which the subjects who experience weakness or powerlessness at having stripped off the their designations can opt to seek grounds to retaliate by virtue still of popular liberty. Moreover, there is appears quite a significant relation between Plato’s discussion of morality and his ‘allegory of the cave’. In his metaphysical approach of distinguishing reality from illusion, Plato argued that reality is essentially based on forms or ideas that remain constant for ages, so that beyond this the realm of illusions account for objects that are perceived without form and tend to vary like opinions do. Through the ‘allegory of the cave’, Plato used the prisoner enslaved in the cave since childhood and the shadow cast on the wall by fire as the caveman’s idea of ‘real’ yet representing illusion. Then as he is led gradually to light, he gains knowledge and becomes able to concretize real objects which begin to form under the growing intensity of light upon his ascension out of the cave where he would find himself nullifying all of the old illusory beliefs. Inclusive of the pertinent text of the section under Waterfield’s translation is the statement “Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State when the other virtues of self-discipline and courage and reason are abstracted” and this altogether implies that morality itself can prove its worth despite the possible detachment of all the other qualities. Though the ethics of this point in Plato’s argument is evident, still, it would be much reasonable to evaluate the other virtues in the context of political systems yet to be discovered. Plato’s confinement to historical truths of his period, particularly the community of his residence along with all its environmental factors seemed to limit his scope of the view of morality. For who knows or who has completely understood the full essence of courage, reason, and self-discipline enough to see treat it less than morality? Had Plato been exposed to a sufficient number of communities that enabled him to justify the morality of self-implements as deserving to be stationed above or substituted for each of the three values mentioned? The text, unfortunately, has not been able to deliver this account and Plato would have been more accurate in description of what makes a man moral if he had rendered separate concrete endeavor of contrasting morality with each of the self-discipline, reason, and courage. Read More