Scribes: Elaine
Barber and Mark
Brown
These minutes were not
spoken; for another version, go to the spoken minutes
The lecture began with Prof.
Hutchinson explaining why we read the Republic in small parts. The Republic is in fact the largest
artifact in Greek history and philosophy as well as being the most significant
work, so large Plato had to invent new structures to its content and
ideas. It also inspired other
works such as Aristotle’s On Justice. Also, Zeno, founder of the Stoic school, wrote a book called
The Republic based on Plato’s original work. This work was weird, odd and
scandalous, but most bizarre about it, was the idea of the abolition of the
traditional family form (a concept Aristotle strongly disapproved of). The family was to be replaced by a new
social form, which included an annual mating festival in which the children
produced belonged to all women and men, the goal being to maintain a social
unit of solidarity in which all gender differences were dissolved or
ignored. Women also participated
in all activities with men, including gymnastic exercises performed naked.
Some may come to the conclusion
after reading Plato’s work, that he was one of the first great
feminists. However, this is untrue
because Plato didn’t recognize individual rights or worth but rather the
use of human persons regardless of their sex and how they are best exploited
for the good of the republic, emphasizing that the community comes before the
private.
From such arguments as this, Plato
can be viewed as being a ‘totalitarian’. However, before jumping to the conclusion that this makes
Plato’s ideas evil or wrong, we have to understand that Plato did not
have the same experience of totalitarianism as we have in the last hundred
years. Therefore, Plato’s
idea of totalitarianism is not purely malevolent in nature.
Plato’s work further
illuminates the gaps, defects and inadequacies of what we now understand as
“the social contract theory” of autonomous freedom. For Plato this would be purely
fictional because it is impossible to govern a society where individual rights
take precedence over the community because humans are social beings, and must,
therefore, function as a collective whole.
Going back to the discussion of
Zeno’s work, The Republic, it is outrageous and absurd because of
the fundamental rules which are set aside. For example, in his republic, cannibalism and incest are
seen as socially acceptable activities.
Zeno makes this argument, not because he necessarily believes that they
are right, but rather to provoke discussion and highlight the assumptions about
society and politics that need to be reexamined and rethought. Although what Zeno suggests is
obviously fantasy, his work does give serious thought to the assumptions we
make in society.
Back to Plato’s Republic
– it is a huge work from which it is easy to select certain key ideas of
the whole text. Because of its
length, Plato makes the work easy to extract bits and pieces of ideas from it. Prof. Hutchinson then went on next to
show the transition between Books 1 and 2. As a side comment, Prof. Hutchinson told students not to
worry if on the first read they did not fully understand the text as it is a
difficult and complex one. He further
added that one can read the Republic a number of times over and each
time get new information and ideas from it that they had never noticed before.
Returning to his remarks in the
transition between Books 1 and 2, Prof. Hutchinson noted that the main ideas in
the Republic could be understood by comparing it to those in Gorgias. In Book 1 of the Republic,
Socrates is engaged in a debate of Socratic dialogue. Books 2-9 are totally different dialogues from the first
book. In Books 2-9, Socrates
takes a fresh start to approaching the subject of justice, which is to take a
large-scale model and then apply it to a small scale phenomenon, enabling one
to then understand what justice is in both the community and the individual
soul. Thus, the parts or order of
the community must be the same as that of the individual soul. By doing this, we are able to see what
it takes to create an ideal society and person at the same time.
Despite this, it is difficult to
produce a perfect person who contains the virtues of courage, temperance and
intellect within a system of education and laws. Therefore, the people who excel in all these virtues will be
few and will become the rulers of the society. Those who cannot fulfill these requirements become the
majority and are placed into subordinate roles of common tasks. Certain people are selected for the
guardian class in order to run military forces for the republic; these have the
best talent and training in military skills, however, lack the intellect with
which to rule.
Prof. Hutchinson then remarked that
the system which Plato puts forward is unlike the class system because it is
not based on hereditary inheritance.
Also, the class system tends to be wasteful of talent that could have
been beneficial to the common good, as it overestimates the talent of the
privileged, while underestimating the talent of the lower classes. In the republic, children are not born
into certain conditions rather they are picked based on their exemplified
abilities and, therefore, the talent is not wasted.
A question was asked by a student
who was curious as to whether Plato was an extreme left wing communist or
not. Prof. Hutchinson replied that
yes, Plato did have communistic principles that forbade individual property,
but it is different from Russian communism which did not further the goals of
the community. Instead of
releasing power to make decisions to the people, the rulers kept it for
themselves. The Professor further
commented that communism is not an entirely bad system; compared to other
systems it has been more productive.
However, communism is wasteful of talent and efficiency of the citizens
by withholding certain rights. If
we are to pursue the public interest, we have to give freedom to people that
will yield to the public good.
Comparing the Republic to Gorgias
again, Prof. Hutchinson stated that Book 1 is like Gorgias, which has a
three-part structure. As it
progresses, it gets deeper and more complex. In the first discussion of the Republic,
Socrates’ friends each give their definition of justice, which fail to
satisfy Socrates. Plato does this
so that the reader will also be unsatisfied, leading to a deeper discussion of
what justice is in the remainder of Books 2-9. Prof. Hutchinson then read a passage from the end of Book 1
(354a) where the discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus leads
us into the discussion of what justice really is in Books 2-9. Book 2 begins with Socrates sitting
down to discuss with Plato’s brothers on what virtue is. Books 2-9 demonstrate a philosophical
approach, which is superior to that found in Gorgias because it is calm,
leisurely, open and tolerant.
Next, Prof. Hutchinson spent some
time describing the beginning conversation between Socrates and Cephalus. He then read from a student’s
position paper where the point was made that religion and wealth have never
been and can never be related, as they are two of the most contradicting and
complex systems in life, and yet they are joined here in this discussion. Prof. Hutchinson then commented that
Plato probably wants us to disagree and see the shallowness of Cephalus’
idea of justice (which is that it is to pay off debts, right your wrongs and
buy your way to salvation by means of money) so that we will want to find the real
meaning of justice.
The next definition of justice which
Prof. Hutchinson discussed was that made of Thrasymachus, who believed that
justice is helping your friends and harming your enemies. Prof. Hutchinson made the remark that in
his view, he himself would rather simply leave his enemies alone instead of
harming them. A student disagreed
with him because she said we are, as individuals, a part of the state which
punishes criminals collectively.
Prof. Hutchinson said that he could see the relevance of this point, but
he believes we shouldn’t be punishing our enemies collectively and yet we
do so.
The lecture ended with a look at
Thrasymachus’ last definition of justice which was that of
self-expression. Socrates
criticizes this view and it is at this point that Socrates puts forward his
understanding of justice, which is the quality in the soul to rule and control
others. Prof. Hutchinson ended the
lecture saying that this is an idea which Plato does not agree with.