[BLANK_AUDIO] At the end of the last video, I pointed out that if you expect the world to look like a comic book, you're probably sort of naive. It's kind of obvious, so why is it interesting? The purple tights are just there to make something. Vivid. Polemicus is the guy who's relying on strong social cues. Not purple tights, but us versus them. A sense of sides. If he lost that sense, he'd be pretty lost. Put it like this. In defense of Polemicus, you might say that he's a proto-schmittean. What's that? Carl Schmitt is an important twentieth century political philosopher, 1888, 1985, who wrote an important book called The Concept of the Political. I quote a bit from that book on page 305 of my book. Brutally short version. Schmidt says you can't understand justice until you understand what politics is all really about. Justice is a political virtue after all. You can't understand politics if you don't see that it rests on the friend enemy distinction and ultimately, it's the enemy half that binaric that's most fundamental. We need friends, and politics because we got enemies, at least potentially. Justice is skipping a few steps here, a weapon for fighting enemies. So if Polemarcus really wanted to hold on to his whole helping friends and hurting enemies line. Maybe he could grow up intellectually to be Carl Schmitt. In practice, that would turn out to mean being a lot more like Thracimicus. Carl Schmitt, by the way, was a Nazi. The friends he picked were, not so good. Maybe it's Plato's point that Polemicus' philosophy is sort of proto-sinister in this way. But I don't think so. Polemarchus is interesting not because he's on the verge of becoming a sophisticated and cynical philosopher, he's not. He's the opposite of that. That's interesting, he's so normal. That's what makes his dad Cephalus interesting too. You know what I think is one of the best sections of my book, if I do say so myself? It's the bit of my Republic commentary in which I compare Celphalus to Alfred Nobel, the Nobel, of Nobel Prize fame. I'm not going to explain that in this video. Here's the short version. Being attracted to a hopelessly oversimple account of justice, doesn't mean you are a simple person. Uncomplicated, that is. People are drawn to oversimple theories for very complicated reasons. Back to Polemarchus. How does his mind work? He has a picture of what life is like. You got your friends, against your enemies. Otherwise, you're dead. A good symbol of this is the hoplite phalanx. Everyone locks shields and you rush the enemy. If everyone holds, it's a deadly weapon. If anyone breaks ranks and runs, it's a disaster. Whole formation collapses. Realism, in this context, means a kind of conservatism, non-conformity is a very serious threat. There isn't a lot of room for contemplating alternative lifestyle choices, shall we say? Let alone radical utopian schemes for justice. Now is not the time, and frankly it's never going to be the time. In a hop light failings. But that doesn't mean Polemarchus isn't an idealist, as well as a realist. It's just that his utopianism doesn't involve giving much thought to how doing it very differently might be better. His aspirational thinking centers around how what is realistically necessary, stick with your friends, could work out great. By fighting for your friends, you are virtuous, and win honor. You're the hero. All the pieces could fit together. But what if it turns out you picked the wrong friends? We've met the enemy? And he is us? Somehow? Polemarchus he isn't the sharpest spear in the phalanx, granted. But he's not a moron. Why hasn't he considered this obvious possibility. I think the answer is, he just doesn't know what to do if that pillar starts to crumble in either of a couple of ways that it could. This sounds like a really trivial result but actually I think it's psychologically very important. When normal people think about justice idealistically, they don't think about what thing might be much better than what they're actually doing. Rather, they start to reach for reasons why what they're actually doing is just fine. They don't want to see any obvious problems with their life, if they can't really imagine living any other way. Now, in his defense, Polemarchus is willing to go along with Socrates, he wants to be a good guy. He's honor-loving but he's not too proud to admit it when his arguments sort of, fall apart. That's a good character trait. What does Socrates suggest that's radical in this section of the dialogue? I'll be brief since I'll have more to say about it, next lesson. Socrates gives us just a hint of what I'm going to presume to call a medical model. If people are only unjust, if they're only bad, because they're confused intellectually, we shouldn't harm them. We should help them. They aren't evil, they're sick. My cartoon, please note, is at best half done. If the guy on the left is now a doctor, and the guy on the right is the patient, then I should lose the armor and weapons completely. Draw a lab coat, hospital bed, I'm too lazy and tired for all that. Let the half drawnness of my cartoon symbolize the half thought throughness of what Socrates is proposing. Justice doesn't make people worse. Justice doesn't do harm. It seems to follow that justice is not only not necessarily but necessarily not any kind of fighting. Polemarchus is going along with this stuff for now. Maybe because he doesn't get to see how much he's going to have to give up of his typical associations with justice. Justice isn't payback. It isn't punishment. It isn't fighting. It is, presumably, giving everyone their due in the sense that it gives people what they need to get better, to be better people. Thrasymachus, scowling over their shoulders, has other ideas. That's next lesson.