Plato On Happiness (Notes – not to be quoted verbatim) Plato’s dualistic theory of the self: Born in Athens c.428BCE of a wealthy, aristocratic family, Plato had political ambitions from a young man but fell under the influence of Socrates. When Plato was 31 Socrates executed by the democrats of Athens, ostensibly for corrupting the Athenian youth by teaching them to question and think. Plato’s political aspirations were finally destroyed by the death of his friend and mentor at the hands of politicians. Leaving Athens he travelled for ten years before returning to Athens and founding the Academy. Plato died in 347 BCE at the age of 81. In order to understand Plato’s theory of the self we need to contrast it with a modern understanding and then put it in context of the Theory of Forms. In the modern version the self is the individual; all people are born physically and emotionally whole and are or will become individual unless they fail to do so out of cowardice. A true individual stands out, stands alone maybe against the crowd, and looks into his heart to discover what is right. Often the individual is at odds with the state (a force determined to destroy individualism, aliens, communists, minority lovers, subversives, ‘perverts’. This belief system also sees individuals as having certain natural rights by virtue of being born. Society is little more than the totality of individuals, society has no life of its own. This version of self is an historical product. In America it is a conception that is partially cause and effect of the collective experience of an immigrant in a new and hostile land, and is bound up with violence. In ancient Greece the self in opposition to the collective body of the state was unthinkable. Plato claims that the social body (polis) is the individual writ large, but conversely the individual is a political unit, a ‘microcosmic reflection of the social macrocosm’ (p20 Palmer – Visions of Human Nature, Mayfield c.2000) typically in Plato’s time a small city state such as Athens had a population c.100K. Doctrine of Forms: Let’s start with the Simile of the Line in which Plato clearly shows division between the (A) visible world, and (B) the intelligible world – (A) being a poor copy, imitation/shadow of (B), implying that (A) is in some way inferior to (B). (A) and (B) are both broken down further in so much as (A) the visible world is divided into (C) images and (D) physical objects, and (B) the intelligible world is divided into (E) concepts and (F) forms. Forms are eternal, unchanging, templates of everything and anything that exists in the physical realm. They are understood by the intellect, not seen by the eye, but grasped intellectually by the mind in the same way that the eye ‘grasps’ the physical. Finally there is the analogy of the sun (G) which is supreme over the physical world allowing us to see all that there is via the senses; and (H) the form of the Good which is supreme in the realm of the forms and whose ‘intellectual light’ enables us to apprehend the forms, to become intellectually enlightened. Through the process of philosophical discovery we move from opinion (eikasia), through pistis and dianoia to intellectual enlightenment (episteme). The pursuit of knowledge is a moral one as the final goal is the Form of the Good, the source of all knowledge. From this light of the Good illuminating all else, Plato believed we are able to grasp the ideal city and following on form that the ideal human. Plato’s major work, The Republic, discusses the relationship between the individual and the polis. Socrates (Plato’s mouthpiece) explores the origins of the social unit in a discussion with Adeimantos: “A city, I take it, comes into being because each of us is not self-sufficient. Can you think any other being could found a city?” What is the implication here? We enter voluntarily but naturally (being social) into mutually advantageous relations with others: “Then one man gives a share of something to another or takes a share......because he thinks he will be better for it?” Cited in Palmer p25 ‘Visions of Human Nature’. Plato then describes a society based on a simple division of labour: each individual contributes their skills and reaps the benefit of others resulting in an uncomplicated ‘Spartan’ unit. In The Republic Socrates talks of how they will produce ‘food and wine’ and for winter ‘clothes and shoes’ because in the summer they will be ‘stripped and barefoot’. They will grow barley and wheat for the bread and cakes they will eat with small amounts of wine. But Glaucon interrupts Socrates and complains that this society and complains that this city is too austere, to which Socrates agrees and adds olives, salt, cheese, onions and greens, and maybe figs for dessert. “So they will spend their days in health and peace living to an old age.” Ibid p.26 This Socrates calls a healthy city! Glaucon complains it is still too simple and asks where are the couches on which to recline? This was a very Greek attitude and signified a latent opulence. Socrates acknowledges this question and asks how then does the luxurious city come into being? A city that is not about the bare necessities, but which is opulent by implication brings about corpulent and greedy individuals. Greed in the city leads to war and violence in the individual psyche! Social Divisions: The discussion now moves to one of war and the type/class of warrior needed to defend a city or wage war (presumably the healthy versus the greedy). This city imitates (is an imperfect copy) of the perfect form, and by extension this includes the ideal human. Within the ideal city there are three castes: • Working or artisan (the majority) • Military or police (protects from internal/external enemies) • Ruling class/Guardians (these people guide the city according to rational principles) • And above them all heading the oligarchy – The Philosopher King Although a Caste system is worrying in nature and despite his aristocratic upbringing it is to Plato’s credit that he places no ‘glass ceiling’ on women. He respected the intellect and capacity of women and saw them as equally capable of leadership. Plato’s republic was an elitist philosophical oligarchy where only the very best become a member of the ruling class, and where there was strict regimentation and censorship concerning the relationship and education of the classes. Essentially each class had its own kind of virtue or ‘excellence’ (aretê) and the truly good city is the truly just one resulting from each class predicating itself to its specific arête, and submitting to the rule of reason and law. • Artisan moderation or temperance • Military courage or spirit • Guardians wisdom or intellect Which all leads to a quirky sort of harmony: Wisdom+courage+moderation=justice! The Psychological divisions of the soul: As with the city, the soul is composed of a hierarchy of three psychical elements: • The Rational – capable of seeing beyond the flux and the world of illusion/appearance, and is able to grasp being itself and what is eternally true. Reason is impotent other than intellectual power; it can justify action but no real motivation. • The Spirited – transforms reason into action. It embodies the reason of Reason and acts upon them, but can also embody reason and appetite (a foot in both camps so to speak) • Appetitive – the animal self where reasons are derived from desire (sexual, nutritive, aggressive) which left on its own would produce chaos in the individual. In chapter Nine of The Republic, Socrates speaks of the ‘lawlessness of unnecessary desires and pleasures’. ‘....they are born in everyone, it is true, but when they are chastened by the laws and the better desires with reason’s help, some people can get rid of them wholly, or only a few remain...(These desires) are those that are aroused in sleep... whenever the rest of the soul, all the reasonable, gentle and ruling part, is asleep, but the bestial and the savage replete with food and wine, skips about and, throwing off sleep, tries to go and fulfil its own instincts. You know there is nothing it will not dare to do, thus freed and rid of all shame and reason; it shrinks not from attempting in fancy to lie with a mother or with any other man or beast, shrinks from no bloodshed, refrains from no food – in a word, leaves no folly or shamelessness untried...’ Ibid p30 It is hardly surprising that Plato thinks that the animal side of human nature should be shackled by reason and not given free rein. Interestingly Plato also relates the arts to appetite roughly in the same way that reason relates to philosophy, and therefore in the name of reason ruling the soul, the arts must be suppressed, or at the very best censored to the highest degree! Why? Because if not the arts may well motivate the passions to rebellion. The tripartite division of the soul is intertwined in the same way as the three social classes are. In the same way that the philosopher king and the guardians must guide and control the military and the artisans, so the rational soul must do the same for the spirit and appetite. Spirit must implement the rules revealed by reason and the appetite must submit to them. The truly good human self is the one that submits to reason: the person who has rationally mastered their passions, and equally this is mirrored in the truly good state where the three social classes have the same virtues as the soul, and where the animal appetites of the masses are ruled by the rational mastery of the guardians.