That Really Famous Fan-Fiction About Socrates You Keep Hearing About

By: Stewart

Or, That Time Plato Wrote a Fan-Fiction about his Teacher:

A Review of The Republic

Author: Plato

Translation and Commentary by: Desmond Lee

Perhaps this is a touch too presumptuous to start off a review with, but I would imagine that anyone following our little podcast here is like us in a few respects and is a life-long learner. Cursed with an insatiable appetite for learning, growth, and that continued work of sanctification, I would suspect that you and I share a desire and need to become greater. While the good Christian ethic would hold that this continuous process of change is one presided over by the Holy Spirit, there are still general forms of development that are not explicitly spiritual yet undeniably beneficial for the soul (albeit just not in a sufficient sense when considering eternity). This general development and learning however takes shape in different ways; a growing trend especially evident in young men with the rise of figures like Jordan Peterson who espouse values that are are intended to see one become something greater than they were the day before. These avenues of personal development take many forms and range from the mundane to the dramatic, but all are undeniably life changing. Many of the best thinkers for example held onto a special fascination towards history and the human condition that shines through, often inspiring their later works or contextualizing their thoughts as their thinking grew mature. Others dive into psychology and subjects that relate to the humanities as they investigate Man in intimate and introspective fashions. Others decide to devote themselves in increasing margins to hard work and the disciplining of their character in the hope to become someone with near absolute control over their will.

If you are like me however, you have a few dirty little secrets and all of them attest to the fact that you are not yet the person you want to be.You have not in fact read as much as you would have liked to by now, nor do you possess the character you so desire or know as much as you would like to think that you know. Perhaps you have not read the entire library of Greek-philisophic thought. What about the the existentialist nightmares of Kierkegaard or very real nightmares of Marx? I’ve not read Descartes, nor have I read Ibram X Kendi, Aldous Huxley, Tao Te Ching, Joel Osteen, Jane Austen, Sophocles, John Calvin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marcus Aurelius, Eusebius, Dickens, Hegel, or even Thomas Sowell. Now, for a regular person, this is likely of little concern. However, to you and I (I would suspect), this is a fact that never seems to go away. For no matter how many scholars you have read or how many changes you make in your life, there are always more things to learn, books to read, and habits that demand changing. Perhaps no single author (outside of the Bible, of course) reminds me of these facts in myself more so than Friedrich Nietzsche.

I have tried time and time again to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil but every time I begin, I am quickly stopped because of one crippling base failure. I am simply not enough to contend with such a work. Though reading Nietzche might not require you to “make your bed” and “clean your room” as Jordan Peterson espouses, it does demand a certain level of learning. Specifically, reading Nietzsche would force me to recognize time and time again that I had not read and learned from perhaps the most base texts for Western thinking outside of the Bible itself. Those of course being the works of Plato and Aristotle. It is for that reason that I recently relented my futile attempts at Nietzsche and turned to Plato’s seminal work, The Republic.

The reason why I open this review with such a lengthy introduction is because I suspect, like me, most of us are largely unfamiliar with the finer details of Stoic writing. The names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all ring bells in our minds but, for most honest people, we have likely viewed them as a singular entity rather than 3 distinct voices with notably varied opinions. That is why beginning The Republic was such an exciting endeavour for me. Not only would I finally have bragging rights about having read Socrates, but I would finally figure out why I could never find a book explicitly authored by Socrates.

Let’s then begin with the general formatting of the book and a synopsis of the story. For reference, I am using the Penguin’s Classics edition of The Republic, a version I would highly recommend not only for its incredibly well done translation but also for Desmond Lee’s thoughtful commentary and segmentation. That acknowledged, the story of The Republic is Plato’s account of one his mentor’s, that is Socrates, escapades in the city of Athens. While written with Socrates as the main character however, it is generally accepted that The Republic is a fictional piece by Plato since his mentor was famously against writing down lectures and arguments, a position his students clearly did not all share in. It is for that reason that the story largely revolves around three characters only, those being Socrates and his older brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. Those familiar with the Socratic style of dialogue are likely to suspect that the brothers are less characters and more sounding boards for Socrates and his thinking, an assumption you would be largely correct in. In general, the actual characteristics of Glaucon and Adeimantus are largely negligent as their true value is in their authentic pursuit for truth, much like their better renowned brother. However, this is not to say that there is not some element of narrative in The Republic. In truth, however, what story there is notably light and can be summarized in just a few lines:

#1 Socrates and company are going for a walk.

#2 Socrates and company see some folks they know and sit down for a friendly conversation in their front yard.

#3 Socrates is so annoying that his friends leave.

#4 Socrates and company are left alone in a friend’s front yard as they continue to discuss the conversation that their friends inspired.

It is understandable why this work is not exactly the most exciting in a narrative sense. However, and with relief, that is not to say that The Republic is boring. In fact, I would say that there are parts that are genuine page turners. While not exciting in the same way a Steven King novel is, The Republic proves to be just about as engaging as a philosophy book can be and it almost consistently stays that way throughout.

All this to finally broach the question, “what is it about though?” In short, the book is concerned with the question of justice. More specifically, is it better to live a just life or to live an unjust life.

This quickly turns into an expansive question and sees Socrates initially combating a cynic who is very convinced, though not especially articulate, in arguing that it is fact better for one to live an expedient life based on power and opportunity rather than some abstract code of morality. Socrates contends with the cynic throughout the beginning portion of the book before his opponent leaves the discussion entirely. This leaves Glaucon and Aidemantus to argue for a more sophisticated case for living unjustly, though not believing in it themselves. In fact, they make the case with such riviting fervour and thoughtfulness that Socrates is left amazed, noting “I don’t see how I can help you [believe contrary to the cynic’s thesis]; I don’t think I’ve got the ability” (p. 54). In spite of this however, Socrates can not but help feel a burning need to defend justice if only out of hope to see it justified, even if it is a battle he is unfit for and ultimately wrong in.

With the concept of justice then established as the focus of the discussion between the three, the parameters then begin to be put in place with Socrates noting early that it is simply too difficult to explore the nature of justice through the lens of a single person, as they are too prone to peculiar and particular variances in their life. For that reason, they must deal in generalities so that they can intuit general truths. In Socrates own words:

“Let us suppose we are rather short-sighted men and are set to read some small letters at a distance; one of us then discovers the same letters elsewhere on a larger scale and larger surface: won’t it be a godsend to us to be able to read the larger letters first and then compare them with the smaller, to see if they are the same?” (p. 55). To that end, rather than evaluating justice on the microscopic level of the individual, they expand their view to encompass a larger corporate body and then move on to explore the nature of justice and its many, many nuances. To that effect however, those interested in political or even sociological thoughts from Socrates will likely find themselves disappointed as the purpose of The Republic is one primarily focused on a moral hope and its practical realities.

The Republic then explores matters such as education, civil leadership, women and family, philosophers, kings, philosopher-kings, propaganda, theology, art theory, and even Greek eschatology. Throughout your read, you will find numerous sections that will likely stick out to you as they prove to be powerful images both within and outside of the context of The Republic. Of particular note is the Simile of the Cave; an image that is perhaps better known than the greater work itself.

While there are many sections of the book that are likely to be affirming and easily acceptable to most, there will certainly be others points in the book that will raise eye-brows in humor, cause offense, spur suspicion and possibly even disgust. That is not to say that these curious portions of The Republic are poorly reasoned or necessarily regressive though. Many that have read the book will likely tell you about several of Socrates’ curious thoughts such as his mathematical argument that tyrants are 729 times unhappier than philosopher-kings, or that children should be convinced that “no citizen has ever quarreled with any other, because it is sinful” (p. 70), or even the (arguably) misogynistic tone he adopts when talking about women. (For the curious, Socrates argues that women should be afforded every opportunity to develop themselves in what ever skills they are most inclined towards (an notably egalitarian and meritocratic thought, especially in that time). However, expectations for women should always be tempered since their potential will always be less than that of a man’s. While meritocratic values are indeed espoused throughout the work, going so far as to argue that some women should be allowed to pursue what is essentially military training and men less aggressive fields, he nonetheless holds that men broadly hold greater potential for excellence than women.)

There is one section that I would like to highlight specifically however, that being the role of the poet and propaganda in society. It is noted by Lee that poets in Plato’s time often filled the role of religious scholars with Homer being the author of works that might not inappropriately be compared to individual books in the Bible in regards to their social and religious significance. However, Socrates has issues with how the poets depict not only the gods but God as well. To that end, he argues that there should be a strict censoring of poetic works, though he notes that their abilities should be acknowledged nonetheless. The reason for their censoring is because poets, in their tales of gods and those chosen by the gods as heroes are often depicted in unjust fashions. More specifically, the gods and heroes are depicted as lecherous and despicable beings that relish in their immorality. While Socrates may go too far for some who would prefer a sense of absolute freedom, his assessment is followed-up with a passage that I believe is worth recording in full:

> “[Socrates speaking]’Roughly as follows,’ I said. ‘God must surely always be represented as he really is, whether the poet is writing epic, lyric, or tragedy.’

> [Glaucon]’He must.’

> ‘And in reality of course god is good, and he must be so described.’

> ‘Certainly’

>‘But nothing good is harmful, is it?’

>‘I think not.’

>‘then can anything that is not harmful do harm?’

>‘No.’

>‘And can what does no harm do evil?’

>‘No again.’

>‘And can what does no evil be the cause of any evil?’

>‘How could it?’

>‘Well then; is the good beneficial?’

>‘Yes.’

>‘So it must be the cause of well-being.’

>‘Yes.’

>‘So the good is not the cause of everything, but only the states of well- being and not of evil.’

>‘Most certainly,’ he agreed.

>‘then god, being good, cannot be responsible for everything, as is commonly said, but only for a small part of human life, for the greater part of which he has no responsibility. For we have a far smaller share of good than of evil, and while god must be held to be sole cause of good, we must look for some factors other than god as cause of the evil.’

> ‘I think that’s very true,’ he said.

> ‘So we cannot allow Homer or any other poet to make such a stupid mistake about the gods, as when he says that and that the man to whom Zeus allots a mixture of both has “varying fortunes sometimes good and sometimes bad”, while the man to whom he allots unmixed evil is “chased by ravening despair over the face of the earth”. Nor can we allow references to Zeus as “dispenser of good and evil”…

>[Socrates cont.] No: we must forbid anyone who writes a play about the sufferings of Niobe, or the house of Pelops, or the Trojan war, or any similar topic, to say they are acts of god; or if he does he must produce the sort of interpretation we are now demanding, and say that god’s acts were good and just, and that the sufferers are benefited by being punished. What the poet must not be allowed to say is that those who were punished were made wretched through god’s action. He may refer to the wicked as wretched because they needed punishment, provided he makes it clear that in punishing them god did them good. But if a state is to be run on the right lines, every possible step must be taken to prevent anyone, young or old, either saying or being told, whether in poetry or prose, that god, being good, can cause harm or evil to any man. To say so would be sinful, inexpedient, and inconsistent.” (p. 71-72)

While it would be incorrect to presume that Socrates, or any of the early Greeks for that matter, were Christian in all but confession (as some do), there are clear reasons why Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the modern masses. What Socrates began in his time was revolutionary and completely incompatible with other contemporary philosophies be they epicurean, gnostic, or sophist. What was presented by Socrates was a passionate and unrelenting desire for Truth. Furthermore, and perhaps just as importantly given his time, was that he was ready to abandon all incongruous thought that did not align with that which was evidently true; he abandoned all that which was proven false and contradictory to what he knew to be true. His conviction was so great that it led others to accuse Socrates of converting young Athenians away from the recognized religion of the day to what they could only describe as atheism.

While it would be incredibly misguided to conflate Plato’s writings to those of scripture, for the latter are divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, we can still recognize that Socrates (and Plato) were evidencing a process of general revelation that still attested to certain truths that are mirrored in Scripture, albeit in base and fundamental ways. To that end, The Republic is a testament to how, in good faith and in right mind, anyone can encounter reality and contend with it as it has been revealed to them and still find themselves directed to certain general truths that testify to God’s character and goodness. Though this general revelation does not reveal that hope which we have in eternal life through the grace afforded us by Jesus Christ, it nonetheless directs all mankind to the character and will of God. In the case of The Republic, that ultimate truth is that it is indeed better to live a just and moral life than to live unjustly as the latter is not only less beneficial but infinitely more damning. On the note of God’s character and sovereignty over good and evil, or in other words his adherence to his own moral code upon which we are courted against, I feel compelled to close this particular section with passages from Ecclesiastes, James, and 1st John.

“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins? Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the Lord! Let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven: ‘We have transgressed and rebelled, and you have not forgiven.”

(Ecclesiastes 3: 34-39)

“Everything good comes from God. Every perfect gift is from him. These good gifts come down from the Father who made all the lights in the sky. But God never changes like the shadows from those lights. He is always the same. God decided to give us life through the true message he sent to us. He wanted us to be the most important of all that he created.”

(James 1:17-19)

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”

(1 John 4:7-21)

As Socrates notes in one of his many monologues, a philosopher is simply one who loves wisdom. He holds that the best of kings are philosophers. That the best of men are those who love wisdom and truth. This mentality lends itself to the very characters in The Republic itself. Socrates and his brothers are able to engage in a conversation that others are incapable of. Why? Because they are not arguing to be right and prove the other wrong. No, they are contending with each other because they are lovers of truth. Though The Republic is not a salvific work, it is nonetheless a powerful piece of general wisdom that points to several amazing thoughts and conclusions that, though challenging, are rarely not worth the effort of contending with yourself.

To that end, The Republic is like no other work that I have ever read before and it is one that I have thoroughly enjoyed. If then you are like me, an aspiring lover of wisdom and truth that hopes to become a better version of yourself in a long-suffering process of sanctification, I would highly recommend the seminal work of Plato, one of the most important philosophers in human history.

What a daring, and inevitable, conclusion.