[BLANK_AUDIO] Alright, Republic. First, just the title. Plato's Republic has the wrong title in English. In Greek it's Politeia. Which is never going to be translated as anything other than republic, because that's traditional at this point. But it's kind of misleading. Politeia could be translated alternatively as, The Political Stuff. Or, if that sounds too informal, Political Matters or Public Matters, maybe the Body Public, or even Citizenship. But, our ancestors in their wisdom have stuck us with Republic. That's from Res Publica, Latin for political matters, or public matters. The Public Thing. Not a bad Latin translation of the Greek. But, what with political developments over the last several centuries in Europe, and around the world. Increasing popularity, voting, so forth, it's becoming more misleading. Republic. English transliteration of the Latin translation of Plato's Greek title, has come to name a specific form of government. And a philosophy, of government and politics, that isn't really what Plato has in mind. Let me just give you a couple of modern quotes, expressing political republicanism. That is, not the thing Plato wants. Political Republicanism. James Madison, quote. If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people, unquote. Tom Paine, quote. Monarchism means abritrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object, unquote. Let me try locate Plato against this more modern republican style thinking. Plato is famous for being in favor of something called Philosopher Kings. That makes it sound like he defends some form of monarchism. Yes and no. Not a hereditary monarchy, it's complicated. Here's a better way to put where he's coming from. Plato would say, Tom Paine, the problem isn't with kings who rule arbitrarily. Rather the problem is with arbitrary rule itself. Whether by kings, or anybody else. Arbitrary power in the hands of the body public is no better than arbitrary power in the hands of some powerful single person. For Plato, the symbol of this truth would be of course, the trial and execution of his teacher, Socrates. Socrates wasn't put to death by some king, acting in an arbitrary way. He was put to death democratically, by the Res-publica, or reasonable approximation thereto. Socrates was condemned by majority vote of 500-man jury, of good citizens and jurors. To repeat, Plato would emphasize that our political aim should not be to restrain arbitrary power in a single person. We want rather to restrain arbitrary power period. Tom Paine would fire back that yes he gets it. Life is complicated, and it's a damn shame about Socrates. But on the whole Republican style government is a better than anything like monarchy. In a sense, Payne and Plato are disagreeing about who we can trust. The people? The body public, or the elite? A few wise heads, philosophers. But, then again, that's not quite it, at least there's more to it. It's sort of a question of whether we should aim for first best. Or settle for second best. What do I mean by that? Republican style government isn't designed to be perfect. It's a form of insurance against things going really horribly. Government, writes Paine, is a necessary evil. Plato by contrast, wants us to aim for government that aims a bit higher than that. But that's still not quite it. Or still not the whole story. For one, it's impossible to talk about republicanism without talking about rights. Well, I'm not going to open that can of worm. In part because, interestingly, the discourse of rights doesn't map on to Plato very well. Also, we could debate the interpretation of Tom Paine's philosophy. Let's not. Let me just be very generic about Republicanism. Which, by the way, has no special connection with, for example, the Republican party in U.S. politics, in case you were wondering about that. Republicans, in it's generic sense, and Plato, will tend to disagree about whether you should philosophize politics by conceptualizing it realistically, as an arena of conflict, or ideally a kind of harmony. Put it this way. Plato is going to give us all these craft analogies. Who is the best at healing the sick? A doctor right? So if the body politic is sick, is out of balance, we need a doctor. Who is going to be a kind of expert. Plato is going to ask us who is best at piloting the ship. The ship's pilot of course. Who's best then at piloting the ship of state? Some kind of expert at piloting the ship of state. That is, someone who can see where we want to go, and has an idea about how to get there. If you don't put some particular person who knows what he's doing in charge, you're sure to get all sorts of confusion, and therefore, arbitrariness. By the way, you'll notice that my image is sort of fudge. Weather we're talking about the ship is a model for the state, or a model for the mind. Or maybe the state is a model for the mind? Yeah. We'll get to that. Republicanism doesn't see it this way. Politics isn't like studying geometry and getting the right answer, and then just applying it in practice. Why not? Because the best you can hope for is a kind of conflict, just decently managed. But then again, that's still not it. Every political philosophy needs to treat politics as both real conflict, and as ideal harmony. That is, is there some better way of dealing with real conflict? Political philosophy takes account of where we are, and tries to figure out somewhere better that we could go. Otherwise, what would be the point? Quote, the sovereignty in a republic is exercised to keep right and wrong in their proper and distinct places, and never suffer the one to usurp the place of the other, unquote. That's Paine, but it sounds more ambitious than that other thing about how government is a necessary evil, doesn't it? That sounds like a first best ambition, right? Reading on. Quote, a republic, properly understood, is a sovereignty of justice, in contradistinction to a sovereignty of will, unquote. Plato might have said that. In fact, that would be a good blurb for Plato's Republic, even though his philosophy is very different from Paine's. Are you completely confused? Good. So am I. Well, sort of confused. Let me try another angle. I used to teach Plato's Republic together with a book called On Liberty, by JS Mill. Famous 19th century English philosopher. I would show my students this slide. My eyes the goggles they do nothing. Words, so many words. And then, so the students will think I'm their friend, I say don't worry man it's cool. What you see here, even though its too small to read, is JS Mill giving us a thumbnail version of ancient Greek political history. If you want to read the stride, slide, get out a magnifying glass. Go ahead. But we only need this bit. Quote, to prevent the weaker members of the community from being prayed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But, as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the miner harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defense against his beak and claws, unquote. And you know what? Forget it now. Just roll the cartoon history of politics. Friends, do you suffer from big vultures? Just get an even bigger vulture. Now everything's great except, you know, maybe not? I know, we'll just keep him on a chain. Stay in your box. Or we'll bind him with words of power, laws, stay in your constitutional box. Vulture, you work for us. Why would that work? Well, I suppose because the vulture's gone a bit native. He's put on a tie, now he's giving speeches, kissing babies, running for office. He's almost like a regular old human being. In fact, after awhile, you can hardly tell the difference between the the vultures and the humans. You know why that is? Because they are human. You think the Greeks were constantly at war with giant birds? No, truth is we're all a little vulture inside. That was pretty simple right? Yes. But think how I flipped the monster movie script by the end, giving us that twist ending. I started telling a story about the nice little humans. Threatened by them, the monsters. But by the end, the problem isn't them, it's us. We have met the enemy, and he is us. Politics is dealing with the fact that there's something a bit monstrous about all of us, in all of us. The Republican will now say, yes, I know. I got the memo. I saw the matinee showing. This is why Republicanism makes sense, we're all little monsters. But at least we can prevent any giant monsters from running loose. No kings. Republicanism is a philosophy based on avoiding a bad monster attack, by any of us. But Plato will say, shouldn't we try to be better than merely not being killed by giant monsters? Do you truly want to be a vulture at heart? Will you settle for that? Can't we do better? Let me boil it down to some crude self-help titles. If Republicanism or a self-help book might have a title like, Coping with Your Inner Vulture. If Plato's political philosophy were a self-help book, we'll have a title like Overcoming Your Inner Vulture. Coping, overcoming, that's kind of a fine line, isn't it? In practice, these two strategies might just come to the same thing, but you see the distinction potentially. Let's finish off with a quick quiz. No right answer. But you should say what you think. Which of the following statements do you agree with more? A, ideally the best political philosophy takes people as they are, and doesn't try to improve them. Because seriously, you can't change people. People are people. You've gotta work with what you've got. B, ideally, the best political philosophy takes people as they are, but tries to improve them. Because seriously, they need improvement, Also, you did say, ideally. You know me, always asking you to pick A or B. Did I just give you a false dilemma? There may be something in between A and B? Maybe so.
