Persuasion in The Republic
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue work by Plato, which is concerned with justice, characters of justice, orders, the city state and the just man. It is one of the most influential philosophical work and political theory. The book starts with Socrates talking to the jury about justice in order to convince them to release him. The dialogue involved five characters: Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, Cephalus, Glaucon and Adeimantus. Socrates explains to his interlocutors the meaning of justice and the difference in happiness levels between a just person and an unjust person. All of them had different opinions pertaining justice. They consider the features of a government and compare it to different hypothetical cities. Socrates’ interlocutors argue that the unjust people in the society are more blessed than those who observe justice. The book start with an act of force and ends with an act of persuasion. Socrates tried to persuade them on justice, including the gods’ justice. He told them that there cannot be a chaotic or evil God, which everyone could emulate and therefore, the guardians should not tell stories which perceive the Gods as evil because the stories are lies. However, in order to ensure a rational persuasion, Socrates’ knowledge of his argument was a key factor, but he encountered some problems before persuading them. This paper analyzes how Plato understands the problem of rational persuasion, and how he develops his philosophy to overcome the problem.
Plato understands preservation of negative teachings as the main problem faced when trying to make a rational persuasion. Many people have a negative perspective towards the society as a result of what they learn from childhood. It is so hard for a philosopher to convince a non-philosopher to abandon their own idea of human nature. The jury’s argument is based on true believes which is so hard to change while the Socrates argument is based on knowledge. First, according to Bloom & Kirsch (2016), Glaucon is stuck with the idea that all goods is divided into three classes: things people desire for their beneficial outcomes, for example, doing physical exercise to reduce the risks of getting life style diseases. Things people desire for their own peace of mind, such as joy and things people desire for their own benefit and for their positive outcomes to the person. Glaucon views justice as evil and he wants to be convinced that justice is a virtue and that is valued for itself and its consequences. Socrates uses his knowledge of the nature of knowledge in both the individual and the city. He explains that a society is attributed to the fact that people depend on each other to survive and if each individual specifically plays his or her in promoting justice, the city would be a just place. Also, Socrates explains that a person has a rational part of the soul which governs the other parts to be just. He also explains to them the importance of emphasizing on physical education and diet of the guardians to protect their bodies from diseases and weakness. The guardians should watch their diet by eating in moderation. Without controlling the guardian’s education, the city cannot control its future rulers.
Secondly, Plato blames the slavery mentality of the citizens on the increased oppression from those in power. Thrasymachus believes that injustice is naturally good and one should not suffer from it. He argues that laws are made and the requirement of the law is what is called just. This is seen as a social contract between the guardians and the people to avoid being unjust to each other. Glaucon explains Thrasymachus argument saying that many just people do it unwillingly and for fear of punishment (Stalley, 2007). Also, that the wicked prosper more than the good people in the society. Socrates responds by saying that the guardians and the philosopher kings act as the rational part of the society which guides the warriors and the producers in order to ensure maximum security and peace in the society. He adds that lawlessness would give more power to the Guardians and they would mistreat the citizens. Socrates suggest that both male and female Guardians should be given the same kind of education and they should not own private properties. This would help to reduce discrimination of the poor by the rich.
Plato understood religion preservation as a result of lack of enough knowledge of the gods by the people. After Glaucon’s argument, Adeimantus argues that the unjust should never fear judgment in the afterlife since the same poets who wrote about judgment also wrote about forgiveness if ample sacrifices are offered to the gods. According to Klosko (1993), Adeimantus demonstrates that unjust people could obtain their fortune through unjust measures, devoting some money from their wealth to offer sacrifice to the gods would render them innocent in the eyes of the gods. Socrates uses his knowledge of religion to persuade Adeimantus that the gods are just and if one repents, they stand a chance to be forgiven. Also, the guardians should discourage teaching of stories that ascribe evil to the gods because they are untrue.
Plato developed ethical and political philosophy to overcome the problem of preservation and the strong false believes that the people had. It states the reasoning of what is moral an individual rather than being governed by rules or fear of consequences. According to Plato, the souls is divided into reason, spirit, and appetite (Cooper & Hutchinson, 1997). He argues that the human soul must have at least two of these parts in order to explain their psychological problems. Reason helps people to thinking abilities to judge between wrong and right, spirit gives a person emotional to feel empathy for others, and appetite increases the peoples’ desire to attain justice. However, Socrates urges people to balance the three aspects in order to make good ethical choices. Early in the dialogue, Socrates encounters Thrasymachus who insist that justice in the society is of the stronger lot. He held the view that it was normal for the superior people in the society to dominate others, lie, and steal, because they would get away with it. The story of Gyges was used to illustrate this. Gyges was given a ring that made him invisible and the story is used to show the unethical aspect of committing unjust acts without being caught. On the other hand, in his political theory, Plato is against democracy. Socrates was killed by a democratic government of Athens and this explains why Socrates was against the government. He suggested that philosophers would make the best kings. The city was also not in support of women voting and supported slavery. His idea of a perfect city is communism where everybody contributes to the wellbeing of the society. At birth, each citizen would be told that they are destined for a certain thing in life and they should not try to change their fate.
Plato’s Ethical philosophy was successful. Ethical philosophy gave people an understanding of their rights and the desire to fight for justice (Morrow, 1953). This philosophy also softened the leader’s hearts to empathize with the people thus reducing oppression. On the other hand, his political theory failed. Although many citizens were not in support of the fake Athenian democratic government, they saw Plato’s idea of philosopher kings and the concept of fate was called “the noble lie” which would keep order in the society with everybody stuck to their fate.
Knowledge is an essential trait when it comes to persuading people. Many people find it hard to change from what they were taught from childhood to completely different ideas and it takes people with enough information to convince them otherwise. Justice remains to a dream to the poor in the society as many obtain it through bribing of those in authority. Those who try to persuade people to oppose unjust situations and entice them to resist oppression are in most cases killed by the government. The society should unite to fight corrupt authorities in order to ensure justice is equally served to everyone regardless of gender or class.
References
Bloom, A., & Kirsch, A. (2016). The republic of Plato. Basic Books. United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Cooper, J. M., & Hutchinson, D. S. (1997). Plato: complete works. United States: Hackett
publishing Co.
Klosko, G. (1993). Persuasion and moral reform in Plato and Aristotle. U.S: Revue
internationale de philosophie.
Morrow, G. R. (1953). Plato's conception of persuasion: United States: Duke University Press.
Stalley, R. F. (2007). Persuasion and the tripartite soul in Plato's Republic. UK: Oxford
University Press.
