University of Cincinnati
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
. . . . Sex and the Soul: Plato’s Equality Argument in the Republic A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph. D.) in the Department of Philosophy of the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 by Michael L. Parker B.A., Anderson University, 1971 M.A., Cincinnati Bible Seminary, 1995 M.Div., Cincinnati Bible Seminary, 1999 M.A., University of Cincinnati, 2001 Committee Chair: Lawrence Jost, Ph. D. ABSTRACT: Plato is distinguished as one of the earliest Western philosophers to offer a philosophical argument for the equality of men and women. His primary argument for equality is presented in Book V of the Republic (451-457), and culminates with the claim that everything said about men applies equally to women in the sculpting of rulers for his ideal city (Republic 540c). He argues specifically that women are equal to men to serve as Guardians. Scholars have engaged in extended discussion over the meaning of this argument, including vigorous debate by modern feminist scholars. Not as much attention, however, has been given to the philosophical basis upon which Plato makes his case for equality. This dissertation is an inquiry into Plato’s philosophical basis for his equality claim. From the Guard Dog Analogy (Republic Book II), the Equality Argument (Republic Book V), and the Myth of Er (Republic Book X) the conclusion is reached that Plato’s equality claim is based upon his metaphysical conception of the soul. In part, Plato’s conception is that souls are equal in their origin and design; souls are the source of life and knowledge in the bodies they incarnate; and souls are asexual. From this foundation Plato makes his claim that men and women are equally capable to serve as Guardians inasmuch as the requirements of Guardianship have to do with features located in the soul, not the body. Since souls are asexual, sexual difference is irrelevant to Guardian service. This thesis is explored from three different perspectives: first, from within Plato’s corpus, primarily the Republic, although including the Timaeus; second, in relation to the broader nomos - phusis discourse, including Xenophon, Antiphon, and Euripides; and third, with respect to its continuity in Plato’s Laws. KEYWORDS: Plato, Republic, Equality, Feminism, Guard Dog Analogy, Myth of Er, Laws, Nature, Soul, Phusis, Nomos, Female Nature, Guardians (blank or copyright) Parker, Sex and the Soul 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 5 Hypothesis 10 Part One 11 Part Two 13 Part Three 14 Conclusion 16 Chapter One: Soul, Sexual Difference, and Equality 17 The Myth of Er, Rep. 614b2-621c9 18 The Soul, Timaeus 41d4-44d2; 89d2-92c3 22 The Role of Myth in Plato’s Works 27 The Asexual Soul and the Sexual Body 33 Timaeus - Middle or Late? 37 Summary 41 Chapter Two: The Guardian Nature 45 “Appropriate Natures” for Guardianship. Rep. 375a2-376c6 46 1. Physical Competence as a Guardian Requirement 47 Spelman’s Challenge to Soul-Body Relationship 49 2. Dispositional Harmony as a Guardian Requirement 52 3. Intellectual Achievement as a Guardian Requirement 54 Socrates’ Lists of Qualifications for Guardianship 56 Summary 58 Parker, Sex and the Soul 2 Chapter Three: Socrates’ Main Argument for Equality, Republic 451d3-457c3 60 The Equality Argument, Rep. 451d3-457c3 60 A Short Excursus on Phusis (Nature) 66 Socrates’ Demonstration of Proper Division, Rep. 454c1-455d5 67 A Broader Look at the Equality Argument, Rep. 451c3-457c3 68 Summary 73 Conclusion to Part One 76 Chapter Four: The Nomos - Phusis Background Debate 79 A Short History of Nomos 81 A Short History of Phusis 89 Antiphon the Sophist and the Supremacy of Phusis 93 Antiphon, On Truth Frag. F15(b) 93 Antiphon, On Truth Frag. F44(a) and (b) 95 Glaucon’s Speech, Rep. 358e1-359b5 97 Callicles’s Speech, Gorgias 483d1-e4 99 Euripides the Dramatist and the Search for Phusis 100 Euripides’ Medea 103 Summary 107 Chapter Five: Xenophon’s Portraits of Female Natures 110 Socrates’ Limited Egalitarian View 114 Xenophon, Symposium II. 9-13 115 Antisthenes’ Anti-Hedonistic View 118 Xenophon, Symposium IV. 34-44 119 Ischomachus’ Mostly Conventional View 124 Parker, Sex and the Soul 3 Xenophon, Oeconomicus VII. 10-32 126 Summary 135 Conclusion to Part Two 138 Chapter Six: Nomos, Phusis, Sex and the Soul in the Laws 140 Nomos - Phusis and the Laws 140 Drinking Parties, Drunkenness, and Nomos 143 Music and Nomos 145 “Nomes” and Nomoi 146 Plato’s Refutation of Phusis 149 The Athenian’s Metaphysical Conception of the Soul 151 The Athenian’s Ethical Conception of the Soul 157 Summary 162 Chapter Seven: Equality and the Laws 164 Equality 164 Proportional Equality and Property 167 Equality and Education 170 Equality and Communal Meals 171 Okin’s Challenge to the Continuity of Equality in the Laws 176 Summary 183 Chapter Eight: Conclusions 184 Bibliography 190 Parker, Sex and the Soul 4 List of Abbreviations AS H. D. Rankin, Antisthenes Sokratikos Ancilla Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers CT Terence Irwin, Classical Thought EE Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics EGP Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy Go Plato, Gorgias IPR Julia Annas, Introduction to Plato’s Republic J&C B. Jowett and Lewis Campbell, Plato’s Republic: Notes “L&N” John Burnet, “Law and Nature in Greek Ethics” Laws Plato, Laws Met Aristotle, Metaphysics Pl Plato Prot Plato, Protagoras NE Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Oec Xenophon, Oeconomicus PCC Glenn R. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City PEP J. A. Philip, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism “PLN” Glenn R. Morrow, “Plato and the Law of Nature” PSD Charles Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of Form Rep Plato, Republic TSM G. B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement Tim Plato, Timaeus Symp Plato, Symposium Xenophon, Symposium WIS Natalie Harris Bluestone, Women and the Ideal Society Parker, Sex and the Soul 5 Introduction The main goal of this inquiry is to answer the following question: “What is the basis upon which Plato makes the claim in the Republic that women are equal to men to serve as Guardians?”1 Plato’s claim of equality and his accompanying argument I shall refer to as the ‘Equality Argument’ (EA).2 By it I mean the argument Plato puts in the mouth of Socrates in Book V that results in the conclusion that women are equal to men in service to the State as Guardians, and that this is not contrary to but in accord with nature (456a7-c3). While considerable debate has ensued in the twentieth century over the meaning of Plato’s equality claim, not as much attention has been given to Plato’s basis for his claim. It is ------------------------------------ 1By “Guardians” Plato initially identifies a general class of individuals selected to protect the polis. Later (414b1-5) he divides the Guardians into two groups: rulers, whose responsibility it is to govern, and militia, whose duty it is to support the rulers in protection from external dangers and enforce internal policies enacted by the rulers. The primary focus in this inquiry is on the ruling class of Guardians, although at times both are meant. Context generally clarifies which group is meant. 2Technically, the claim that women are equal to men to serve as Guardians is what I refer to as the equality claim. The Equality Argument (EA) as I define it begins at Republic 451d3 and ends at 457c3. The equality claim is the conclusion of the EA. The EA is located in Book V of the Republic and is, for all practical purposes here, synonymous with the First Wave. The First Wave is a metaphor for the EA, although, according to Reeve (note to 457b6), the First Wave technically runs from 453c10-d7. Socrates concludes the first topic of Book V with the words, “May we claim, then, that we are avoiding one wave?” (457b6). Books V-VII treat three “waves”: the topics of equality, the community of wives and children (koinonia), and philosopher-kings. Throughout this dissertation I will use First Wave and Equality Argument as synonymous referring to the same argument. Parker, Sex and the Soul 6 my purpose in this dissertation to consider the basis for Plato’s radical and sweeping claim. A look at the history of interpretation of Plato’s EA leaves one wondering what the argument is really about - is it about ethics or politics? Is Plato an egalitarian or a misogynist or something in between? Is his argument a serious argument or a joke (as Straussians see it)? Is the EA about the human potential of individuals or the economic benefit of citizens to the State? A plethora of questions from diverse voices has driven and continues to drive this debate. Julia Annas addressed this problem and characterized it this way. Since the mid-nineteenth century Plato’s Republic has been the work which dominates most people’s view of his philosophy . It is likely that the way it is most frequently taught is as a contribution to political theory . and yet there is an obvious problem. The Republic is an extended answer to the question in moral philosophy: Why should I, an individual person, be moral? But it also brings in memorable proposals about the state: rulers should be philosophers, would have no private lives, and so on.3 Annas concluded, “Crudely put, is the Republic about ethics or about politics?” (p. 72).4 The 1970’s ushered in a flurry of frenetic responses to modern commentators and their polite if not diplomatic affirmation of Plato’s egalitarian proposal that women are intrinsically but not practically equal to men.