Three Interlocking Levels Of Justice In Plato's The Republic

The Republic is a fantastic work of art. As a dialogue, not just a treatise, it has three interlocking levels, of mythos [image], ergon [action], and logos [rational discussion]. On the level of mythos, or image,

Plato both invokes traditional myths like Hades and his own images, like that of the cave. On the level of ergon, or action, Socrates will perform just the sort of taming of a spirited nature (Glaucon) as the education of the guardians requires. Finally, on the level of logos, or rational discussion, Plato will lay out several very complicated conceptual schemes. What's fascinating is that sometimes all three levels come together, as in the tour de force of the Cave, which echoes the myths of descent and ascent from

Hades, performs

This is a cramped and private view of justice correlated with his metic position: economics, not politics. Glad to be rid of his bodily impulses, interested only in performing the rituals needed to assure his after-life reward, "Mr. Head" forgets passion and madness, so he's easily trapped by Socrates' counter-example of giving a sword back to a friend temporarily mad with anger.

2) Polemarchus ("Mr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces" or more simply, "Mr.

War Ruler"), the aggressive young man, was historically a leader of reistance against the Thirty, and ended up being killed by them. He follows the poet Simonides in thinking justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies. Here we see a mini-Socratic dialogue, as Socrates gets Polemarchus to see the conflict hidden in his poetically-inspired opinions. (Conflict of phil and poetry.) Socrates gets him to admit that this sort of active justice seems only good in guarding things, not using them. This seems innocent enough, but now comes the reversal: the just man would have to be a good thief too then, for guarding something lets you know how to steal it too! In the classic Socratic way, Polemarchus

(Here the modern problems of criminal justice: rehab v. revenge v. deterrance.) Having tied Polemarchus in knots Socrates is about to move on to lead him to a better conception of justice when ...

3) Thrasymachus ("Mr. Rash Fighter" or "Mr. Tough Guy"), the brutal sophist, suddenly breaks in.

Although the exchange takes several twists and turns the basic conflict is as follows: Thrasymachus argues from the perspective of non-shareable goods or society as a zero-sum game (the more one person has, the less everyone else has), while Socrates argues from the perspective of a common good for the city, so that the better the city is (the better the ruler), the better everyone will be, not just the ruler. We must also note a difference in the object of analysis: Thrasymachus examines the actual behavior of rulers w/ regard to physical necessities and luxuries, while Socrates examines how rulers should behave in order to produce justice. In other words, Thrasymachus describes real governments, while Socrates prescribes ideal governments. The real difference is that Socrates shows how physical necessities should be treated as mere pre-requisites for a communal good life, while