The following criticisms are dealt with in this article:
- Literary ploys to confuse readers.
- The use of lies to confuse readers further.
- The use of the good name of Socrates to confuse even further.
- Aristocratic prejudice.
- Tyrannical use of power to keep education for the children of the oligarchy.
- Censorship of Literature Works of Art and Music.
- Anti-democratic prejudice.
- A misuse of the word "justice" or "righteousness". (Gk. Dikaiosun?)
- The theory of the "forms" or ideas.
The Republic is a tract, it is designed to persuade people. In this it seems o have succeeded except with some scholars among whom are Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper. The latter writes of, “the spell of Plato”. It certainly seems that he has had generations of politicians, particularly those of an oligarchic persuasion, under his spell.
Using literary ploys is not unusual. When writing a story they can be used legitimately. When trying to persuade they may be tools of subversion in the hands of the skilled. Plato was a writer of great skill. He uses the esteem Socrates is held in to lead his readers down a dubious road of Socratic dialogue. Some scholars see works like the Crito and the Apology to be early works of Plato where we have the real Socrates. The one under review is, it is claimed, a later work. Certainly there is a difference between the Socrates who goes round the city questioning everyone he meets, including slaves, and the Socrates whose twisted argument with Thrasymachus seems out of character. (Book One) He is also out of character with the man who would only educate the children of the guardians and have them never to be able to acknowledge their biological parents. Contrast his own solicitude for his own children in The Apology.
Another ploy is that we are easily misled by sympathizing with the apparent gentleness of Socrates and the crudeness of his opponents, particularly Thrasymachus. The others we meet in the dialogue, Glaucon and Adeimantus are really there as stooges so that we find ourselves, with them, agreeing, “Yes Socrates, of course Socrates.” Any reader must stop immediately at such words and ask what it is that Plato is inviting us into agreeing with.
Socrates imagines a small city of farmers and suggests to his companions that this would have no culture of any worth. It would be, in his words, a "city of pigs". He develops from this the need for luxuries, and from that the need for all sorts of craftsmen and because of the increase in population the need to "take a slice of our neighbor's land and so, the need for an army and an even bigger city. This is hardly justice for those neighbors who are to lose out. Nor are a few farmers incapable of the arts of civilization. Plato is determined that justice shall be seen in a state (polis) not in individuals. That is why the lengthy exploration of the subject where Socrates shows every definition put up by his friends is at fault.
In Book two the idea of the division of labour is introduced as is the idea of the need for a professional ruling class. This is based on what some refer to as the "founding myth" but which is in fact "the founding lie", (pseudos). This is that God has introduced different metals into the natures of people. There are men of gold, of silver and of bronze and iron. The latter are the laborers, the people who do the dirty work, for even the "perfect" Guardians who have a "vision of the Good" need people to clean up after them and to cook their meals. Those with bronze are the craftsmen, traders and other professionals.
The two classes, silver and gold, are the Auxiliaries and the Guardians proper. The Auxiliaries are the police and the army and also need to stick to one trade, that of skill in weapons. The longest education is for the guardians who have to be men and women of intellect and wisdom while also, presumably, having the courageous spirit of the auxiliaries. To justify the need for these Plato uses an analogy of guard dogs who are also intelligent in that they warn off or attack strangers but not the family they serve. Readers will find this somewhat wanting but if we are to justify a Hitlerian ruling elite as the Nazi Party they too have their dogs of war, the Army, the SS and the Gestapo. These are really the Platonic elite of the 'righteous' polis, fitted to the modern state.
If we are to talk about education then we must believe that the state,s greatest and most valuable resource is its people. Therefore all the people need, and ought to have, the best possible education which the state, or private enterprise, together with parental guidance can give them. How that is to be done and what it consists of is beyond the scope of this paper.
