Utopia and Lies in Plato's Republic - Essay Example

?Topic Why does the best in Plato’s Republic depend on lies? Consider the censorship required in the education of the guardians and the noblelie on which the city is founded. Utopia and Lies in Plato’s Republic Plato’s Republic provides fundamental concepts on the organization of the state, the execution of policy and the personal and societal values, on which they are based. In his most celebrated and studied dialogue, Plato introduces the concept of justice, the stratification of society and the distribution of power in his imagined community. Long before Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella, Plato contemplates the idea of the perfect city, which is an embodiment of the justly organized state, in the context of utopian society. Plato conveys concepts, which modern political scientists relate to the study of collectivism, the welfare state and communalism. His views on the connection between knowledge, virtue, and wisdom, surpass the confinement of philosophy as a discourse. In his Republic, they exist in an amalgamated entity, which is to become the basis of the modern state. This short paper will attempt to answer the question why Plato’s best city is based on lies. It will investigate the concept of the ‘noble lie’ and the censorship in the education of the guardians of the city – one of the three groups, in which Plato divides his imagined society. It will also critically approach Plato’s City in the context of the utopian society, and its existence as a political arrangement. In books III-IV Plato gradually conveys the idea of the perfect city, which is theoretical and is based on ‘noble lie’. The noble lie in the context of the Republic can also be understood as a myth, which has been created as a part of a philosophical discourse. In order to become loyal to the imagined state, the people in Plato’s Republic are told a noble lie, which is the basis of the utopian society the author describes. The noble lie is related with the stratification of society and the “different metals”, which the Gods pour into people’s souls (415a). The noble lie is therefore internalized by the people – a transformation, which soon has productive, rather than suppressive power (Foucault 1984, Shorey 1933, Hyland 1968). In this sense, the best city in the Republic is based on the notion of the invisible ideal, which would transform people’s potential to build into the material force of the state. As Desmond Lee argues, Plato’s noble lie exists as a myth, which has been accepted by all the members of the society. It was not designed for the purposes of mass deception or propaganda, but in order to re-establish the ideas, on which the Platonic society is based (Plato, transl. by Lee, 1979, 370-380, Popper 1945, Strauss 1987). As a result, the idea of the City becomes a discursive system, which is later transformed into a system of knowledge and becomes truth. Here it is important to draw a line between the noble lie, on which Plato’s best city rests, and the fabricated lie, which is related to propaganda in modern political discourse. In the beginning of Book V, Plato conveys basic ideas, related to the social and economic order of his City. He reveals the notions of collectivism, and common societal values for good and evil: Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity? […] And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains --where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow? […]Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized --when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens? […] Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the use of the terms 'mine' and 'not mine,' 'his' and 'not his.' (305a). The economic ideals of Plato’s best city are presented here in the absence of division of property and ownership. Based on his noble lie, Plato conveys the ideas of collectivism as a source of tranquillity and peace within the City, as well as the shared societal values of what is good and what is evil. Plato’s Utopia in this sense is based on the “the bond of unity”, which comes from the collectivization of pleasures and pains. In order to become loyal to the ideas of collectivism, on which the City is based, citizens need to believe that a domain of common values and beliefs exists. Plato’s theoretical city is based on a noble lie, which requires the de-personification of values, and their communalization. In this sense, Plato’s order of things as articulated in the Republic can be associated with modern political ideologies, such as socialism and communism. The main difference between Platonic utopianism and socialism is that the latter is not based on moral philosophy, but on a communalised mode of production. In addition, socialism falsely assumes, that individuals should be equal, and fails to acknowledge the different extent of their abilities and talents. On the contrary, the Platonic vision of ability is primordial, which serves as the basis for the stratification of society in the Republic. In this brief discussion on the notion of Plato’s Noble lie, it is important to mention his tripartite model of the society. Plato divides society in three classes – the workers/consumers, the military and the guardians. Of the three, the role of the guardians is the most important for understanding the main argument, presented in this essay. The guardians are seen by Plato as philosophers, who have the knowledge and wisdom to rule. According to Plato, in order to become fit for their role of guardians, these individuals need to be properly educated (376d; 395c). Proper education, in Plato’s terms, consisted of censorship on poetry and drama materials, which in his views could distort the future guardians’ rational and entirely logical perception of the world. Plato’s suggests that excessive knowledge of fictional characters could lead to self-deception and raise doubts and fears in later life (382b). With his ideas on education and censorship, Plato raises an important question about the intervention of the state in personal matters, and the transformation of his utopian society, into a surveillance society, as described by George Orwell in his novel 1984 (1949). The main difference between surveillance as described by Orwell, and censorship in the Republic is that the first one targeted the subordination of the individuals, and the second one – specialization of education, which is a prerequisite for the stratification of society. Unlike the world of Orwell in 1984, which is based on the exploitation of human potential, the City in Plato’s Republic is designed to turn this potential into a productive force, through the mechanism of specialized education and the stratification of society. The censorship in the education of the guardians can also be related to the philosophy of objectivism, as described by Ayn Rand. In Atlas Shrugged (2007), Rand concludes that reality should be perceived the way it is and any social constructions of this reality are rendered obtrusive for the productivity and rationalism of the individual. Plato’s guardians are led by logic and wisdom, and similarly, their perception of reality should be objective and straightforward. Any fictionalization of this reality could intervene with their rationality of judgement. Therefore censorship in their education is required. This essay has attempted to show why Plato’s best City in the Republic is based on a noble lie. It is designed to create the myth of the existence of an ideal world. The utopian society, which the City represents, is based on the “useful falsehood” that beings are made of different metals, such as gold, silver and bronze, and therefore they need to be assigned a different function in society (415a). In this sense, the Noble lie also serves as a basis for the creation of a political unity and collective identity among the citizens, who are bound by two common believes – that society is divided into three classes, and its members should live in the boundaries of a welfare state. Perhaps one of the biggest merits of the Republic is that it reveals the origins of any political order or system. In modernity, all forms of political content or discontent are based, more or less, on a noble lie, which can also serve as the basis for the formation of national identity, or conflict. For example, American national identity is based on the myth of exceptionalism of the nation and its superiority over other nations. Another example of how a noble lie can be brought to life is the war in Bosnia, which was entirely based on Milosevic’s exploitation of the myth of the greater Serbian identity. These two examples show that Plato’s Noble lie can have constructive, as well as destructive power. Its power is determined by the political and historical context in which it is articulated. Even to this day however, the Noble lie represents the people’s innate need to believe and trust in a superior authority, regardless of its shapes and manifestations.   Bibliography Campanella, Tommaso. The City of the Sun, Text derived from Ideal Commonwealths, P.F. Collier & Son, New York. 1901. Electronic text available online at: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/campanella/tommaso/c18c/ Accessed [06.10.2011] Foucault, Michel “Truth and Power” in The Foucault Reader, ed. by Paul Rabinow, Pantheon Books: New York, 1984 Hyland, Drew. “Why Plato wrote dialogues,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 38–50 More, Thomas. Utopia, London: Adamant Media, 2001 Plato, The Republic, London: Penguin Classics, translated by Desmond Lee, Revised edition, 1979 Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume I: Plato, Volume 2: Hegel & Marx, first published by Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1945 Orwell, George, 1984. London: Penguin Books, 1949 Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged, London: Penguin Books, 2007 Shorey, Paul. What Plato Said. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1933, pp. 1–57 Strauss, Leo. "Plato", 33–89 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 Read More