Justina's Writing Corner

In Book 5 and 6 of Plato’s Republic, the discussion shifts toward a deeper understanding of the soul (psyche) and its connection to justice. Prior books primarily deal with politics, which Plato suggests can sometimes divert people from understanding their true selves. It is possible for individuals to live fairly well without fully understanding their soul, and political actions such as acting justly can occur without deep reflection on the soul itself. 

Plato constructs a complex model of the soul that mirrors the divisions of the city. The rational part of the soul is analogous to the rulers of the city. It is tasked with wisdom and governance. The spirited part is parallel to the soldiers. It represents courage and anger directed toward just causes. The appetitive part is like the laborers. It embodies desires for physical needs such as food, sleep, and wealth. Justice, according to Plato, occurs when each part of the soul performs its proper function, just as each class in the city performs its distinct role. This reflects Plato’s broader metaphysical vision: harmony and order, both in the soul and the city, are key to achieving justice and well-being. However, while Plato’s vision is compelling, it raises questions about the limits of reason and the complexities of human nature that extend beyond mere rationality.

This model of the soul tends to oversimplify the human experience. While Plato asserts that the rational part of the soul must govern to achieve justice, it is difficult to accept that reason alone should always dominate human behavior. Rationality certainly plays an important role in guiding our actions, but emotions, instincts, and desires also play integral roles in shaping who we are. Plato’s insistence on rational control risks reducing the human experience to a mechanical adherence to logic. This strips away the spontaneity, creativity, and emotional depth that make life rich and varied. Complete rationality can even lead to a kind of emotional repression that diminishes our capacity for compassion, empathy, and other qualities that are fundamental to human nature. 

Moreover, Plato’s emphasis on the soul serving the body, ensuring its health and well-being, offers only a limited view of the soul’s purpose. The soul serves the body by maintaining justice, which, in turn, results in physical health and pleasure. However, this perspective seems to prioritize the body’s needs over the soul’s higher purposes. Acts of courage, self-sacrifice, and moral transcendence often involve risking or even forsaking the body’s safety and pleasures. For instance, standing up for justice in a situation where one’s life is at risk may not align with the body’s immediate interests but fulfills a higher, more profound sense of purpose–which is my belief of what the purpose of the soul really should be. Justice in the soul should and must account for higher moral goals that go beyond the mere health and pleasure of the body. 

Plato’s notion of communal living for soldiers where they share all goods and even children, raises further issues about human motivation and the nature of community. While Plato believes that communalism fosters unity and prevents division within the city, the idea of sacrificing personal ownership and family bonds for the sake of the city’s harmony seems very extreme in life. Human beings, by nature, form close emotional bonds with family members and others in their immediate social circles that will provide essential support and comfort. Plato’s vision of communal living might suppress these natural tendencies and lead to dissatisfaction and alienation within the city. Additionally, while the goal of unifying the city is admirable, it seems unrealistic to expect individuals to fully abandon their personal interests for the collective good– especially in matters as intimate as family life. The tension between individual desires and collective needs is a fundamental challenge in any political system. Plato’s solution of extreme communalism may be both undesirable and unachievable in practice.

Plato’s discussion of the hate tension between philosophers and the broader political community touches on the inherent conflict between knowledge and power. Socrates contends that ignorance often leads rulers and citizens to resist or even fear philosophical inquiry. This is because it threatens their authority and challenges their understanding of justice. Philosophers, by questioning the status quo and seeking deeper truths, undermine the complacency of those in power. However, this antagonism is not inevitable and unpreventable. In cases where rulers are open to learning, philosophers can serve as valuable advisors to help to guide the city toward more just and effective governance. The tension between philosophy and politics depends on the willingness of rulers to engage with knowledge and wisdom rather than viewing it as a threat to their power. Plato’s recognition of this hostility underscores the difficulty of integrating philosophical insight into practical political life. There is a potential for philosophy to contribute to the flourishing of the city when embraced.