बेतरतीब 176 (बुकसेल्फ)

कविता पर प्रो. Pankaj Mohan की एक सारगर्भित पोस्ट पर एक हल्का फुल्का कमेंट:

मैं भी उसी कोटि का कवि हूं जिसे छंद-लय और शब्दसैष्ठव तथा काव्य विन्यास का पता नहीं है। वैसे छपास की इच्छा तो है लेकिन छपास की वैसी आत्ममुग्धता नहीं है, न ही किसी प्रतिष्ठित प्रकाशन से छपवाने की जुगाड़।

एक बार एक अजीज लेखक-शायर दोस्त (अब दिवंगत) ने फेसबुक पर तुकबंदी में मेरे एक कमेंट पर पूछा कि वह कविता थी कि वक्तव्य मैंने कहा था कि मैं तो वक्तव्य देता हूं कभी गद्य में तता कभी पद्य में। लगभग हजार तुक-अतुकबंदियां हो गयी हैं, एक संकलन के छपास की इच्छा तो मेरी भी है, लेकिन उनमें से 100-150 चुनने की जहमत नहीं उठा पाया। एक कवि मित्र ने 7-8 साल पहले कुछ 'कविताएं' छांटा था जिन्हें एक फोल्डर में कागजों के बियाबान में किताबों की ही तरह कुछ कबर्ड्स में ठूंस दिया है। बुक सेल्फ बनवाने का जुगाड़ होने के बाद उन फोल्डरों को भी सहेजने की कोशिस करूंगा। कैंपस की कोठी की अपनी झोपड़ी की लाइब्रेरी में बहुत जगह थी, रिटायरमेंट के बाद पूरी पेंसन बहाली का इंतजार करते हुए बुक सेल्फ के लिए कुछ पैसे जुटाता हूं, फिर कोई काम आ जाता है और जुटने के पहले ही वे खर्च हो जाते हैं। एक प्रोफेसर की बुकसेल्फ शीर्षक से कहानी लिखना शुरू किया लेकिन फिलहाल वह भी बीच में ही अटकी पड़ी है, देखिए वह बुक-सेल्फ की जुगाड़ के पहले पूरी होती है कि नहीं?

दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय प्रशासन के परसंताफी सुख ही प्यास कितनी अधिक है कि 5 साल से अधिक समय से मेरी नृशंस, अमानवीय प्रताड़ना तथा निर्मम मानसिक उत्पीड़न करने पर भी नहीं बुझ रही है। यह तो मैं जानता हूं कि इस नतमस्तक समाज मे सिर उठाकर जीना मंहगा शौक है लेकिन नौकरी मिलने तक; नौकरी के दौरान तथा रिटायरमेंट के बाद अब तक इस शौक की काफी कीमत चुका चुका हूं, जान से चुकाने मन नहीं हो रहा है। लेकिन लगता है अन्याय के प्रतिरोध और न्याय पाने का वही रास्ता बचा है और इज्रायल द्वाराफिलिस्तीनी जनसंहार के प्रतिरोध में जान देने वाले अमेरिकी सैनिक आरोन बोस्नेन की मौत की ही तरह मेरी मौत का भी दुनिया पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ेगा। मेरे पास आमरण अनसन के अलावा कोई रास्ता नहीं बचा है, जिसमें जान जाने का खतरा ही नहीं है, जान जाना सुनिश्चित है। मैं दिल का मरीज हूं तथा नियमित दवा खाना अनिवार्य है और उससे पहले कुछ भोजन। यह महज संयोग भी हो सकता है कि रिटायर होने के लगभग 2 महीने पहले दिल का दौरा भी उसी दिन पड़ा था जिस दिन पता चला कि प्रशासन मेरी पेंसन के साथ गड़बड़ करने वाला है। लेकिन अन्याय सहते हुए जीने से बेहतर न्याय के लिए लड़ते हुए मरना बेहतर है, वैसे फिलहाल इस कदम पर अभी नहीं सोच रहा हूं।

क्षमा कीजिए टेक्स्ट के बीच में फुटनोट से टेक्स्ट गौड़ हो गया, जो अच्छे लेखन का दोष है। यदि थोड़ा अधिक जिंदा रहा तो बुकसेल्फ का जुगाड़ नहीं हो पाया तब भी मित्र द्वारा छांटी हुई कविताओं में से और कुछ नए सिरे से छांटकर, 10-20 हजार खर्चकर 80-100 कविताओं का संकलन छपवाकर कवि होने का आत्मसंतोष हासिल करके रहूंगा। हा हा।

फुटनोट 372 (सूरत में चुनाव)

 सूरत के विपक्षी उम्मीदवारों के नामांकन खारिज करवाकर तथा निर्दलीयों के नामांकन वापस करवाकर आरएसएस-भाजपा ने अपने फासीवादी मंसूबे साफ कर दिया है और चुनाव आयोग ने अपनी मौत का इजहार कर दिया है। आइए दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के लॉ फैकल्टी के छात्रों द्वारा आयोजित चुनाव आयोग की मौत के मातम में शामिल हों।

25.04.2024

शिक्षा और ज्ञान 354 (समानुभूति)

 Ashok Verma की इस पोस्ट पर इसके नीचे मेरा कमेंट:

यह कहानी हम सबने कई बार पढ़ी है, लेकिन यह इतनी महत्त्वपूर्ण है कि आज एक बार फिर:
केन्या के सुप्रसिद्ध धावक अबेल मुताई आलंपिक प्रतियोगिता के अंतिम राउंड मे दौड़ते वक्त अंतिम लाइन से एक मीटर ही दूर थे और उनके सभी प्रतिस्पर्धी पीछे थे। अबेल ने स्वर्ण पदक लगभग जीत ही लिया था, इतने में कुछ गलतफहमी के कारण वे अंतिम रेखा समझकर एक मीटर पहले ही रुक गए। उनके पीछे आने वाले स्पेन के इव्हान फर्नांडिस के ध्यान में आया कि अंतिम रेखा समझ नहीं आने की वजह से वह पहले ही रुक गए। उसने चिल्लाकर अबेल को आगे जाने के लिए कहा लेकिन स्पेनिश नहीं समझने की वजह से वह नहीं हिला। आखिर में इव्हान ने उसे धकेलकर अंतिम रेखा तक पहुंचा दिया। इस कारण अबेल का प्रथम तथा इव्हान का दूसरा स्थान आया।
पत्रकारों ने इव्हान से पूछा "तुमने ऐसा क्यों किया ? मौका मिलने के बावजूद तुमने प्रथम क्रमांक क्यों गंवाया ?"
इव्हान ने कहा "मेरा सपना है कि हम एक दिन ऐसी मानवजाति बनाएंगे जो एक दूसरे को मदद करेगी ना कि उसकी भूल से फायदा उठाएगी। और मैंने प्रथम स्था नहीं गंवाया।
पत्रकार ने फिर कहा "लेकिन तुमने केनियन प्रतिस्पर्धी को धकेलकर आगे लाया।
इसपर इव्हान ने कहा "वह प्रथम था ही। यह प्रतियोगिता उसी की थी।"
पत्रकार ने फिर कहा, "लेकिन तुम स्वर्ण पदक जीत सकते थे।"
इव्हान ने कहा,
"उस जीतने का क्या अर्थ होता! मेरे पदक को सम्मान मिलता ? मेरी मां ने मुझे क्या कहा होता ?
संस्कार एक पीढ़ी से दूसरी पीढ़ी तक आगे जाते रहते हैं. मैंने अगली पीढ़ी को क्या दिया होता ? दूसरों की दुर्बलता या अज्ञान का फायदा न उठाते हुए उनको मदद करने की सीख मेरी मां ने मुझे दी है."

मैं अपने स्टूडेंट्स को ऐसी ही मानवीय समानुभूतिक संवेदना की सीख देता था। इह्वान की मानवीय समानुभूतिक सोच प्रशंसनीय है। ज्यादातर भारतीय मजबूरी का फायदा उठाते हैं, मजबूरी में सहायता नहीं करते। कोरोना काल में अस्पताल 500 की दवा 500 में बेच रहे थे। ऑक्सीजन की कालाबाजारी कर रहे थे। एक बार मोटर साइकिल दुर्घटना में मेरे पैर में प्लास्टर लगा था, ऑटो वाले मनमाना किराया मांगते थे, मैं उन्हें डॉंट कर बैशाखियों पर चल देता था।

गिरने की चमत्कारी प्रतिभा

 गिरने की उसकी चमत्कारी प्रतिभा

 गिरने की उसकी चमत्कारी प्रतिभा का

कवि का महिमामंडन कुछ कम है

उसके लिए गहरी-से गहरी खाई की

गहराई भी बहुत कम है

कवि सोचता है गिरने की थकान में

गिर सकता है उसका निक्कर

लेकिन यह कवि का निरा भ्रम है

पहना था जब उसने

पपू (परम पूज्य )गुरुजी की कृपा से यह निक्कर

फेवीक्विक लगा लिया था उसने कमर पर

कम पड़ने लगेगी जब गिरावट की अतल गहराई

स्मरण कर पपू गुरु जी को

कसकर कमर पर निक्कर

खोदेगा और भी गहरी खाई

और गिरता ही जाएगा

अनादि-अनंत सनातन प्रक्रिया में

मुल्क के फिर विश्वगुरु बनने तक

गिरता ही जाएगा

खोदता जाएगा नई खाइयां

और गिरता जाएगा

गारंटी के पूरी होने की गारंटी के साथ

(ईमि: 26.04.2024, सुलेमापुर आज़मगढ़)

मार्क्सवाद 300 (आरएसएस और जेपी)

 1974 के स्वस्फूर्त छात्र आंदोलन में नेतृत्व का निर्वात सा था, जिसे जयप्रकाश नारायण ने भरा। जेपी 1950 के दशक से भूदान, सर्वोदय, दलविहीन जनतंत्र के अपरिभाषित अमूर्त शगूफों के राजनैतिक विभ्रम के दौरों से गुजरते हुए 1970 के दशक के शुरुआती दिनों तक राजनैतिक अप्रासंगिकता से ग्रस्त हो चुके थे। 1934-42 का दौर संयुक्त वाम का दौर था और इस दौर में वामपंथी तत्वाधान में किसान-मजदूर-छात्र संगठन बने और राष्ट्रीय आंदोलन में प्रभावी भूमिका निभाया। कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी अवैध घोषित थी कानपुर-मेरठ मुकदमों में ज्यादातर कम्युनिस्ट नेता जेल में थे, बाकी के लिए 1934 में गठित कांग्रेस सोसलिस्ट पार्टी (सीएसपी) की सदस्यता उपलब्ध थी। नंबूदरीपाद संस्थापक सहसचिव थे, आचार्य नरेंद्रदेव अध्यक्ष और जेपी सचिव थे। आचार्य जी और जेपी मार्क्सवाद से प्रभावित थे तथा अशोक मेहता, लोहिया आदि मीर्क्सवाद विरोधी थे। सीएसपी के संस्थापना दस्तावेज की प्रस्तावना में लिखा है कि कांग्रेस सोसलिस्ट पार्टी का गठन मार्क्सवाद की विचारधारा से प्रभावित कांग्रसजनों ने किया। सीएसपी के सबसे उम्रदराज नेता 35 साल के आचार्य नरेंद्रदेव थे। 1972 में जेएनयू सिटी सेंटर (35 फिरोजशाह रोड) पर जेपी की एक मीटिंग में 40-50 लोग थे। जेपी ने तथाकथित संपूर्ण क्रांति में आरएसएस को विशेष प्रश्रय देकर सामाजिक स्वीकार्यता प्रदान की। लोहिया-दीनदयाल समझौते के तहत 1967 में समाजवादियों ने जनसंघ के साथ मिलकर संविद सरकारें बनाई और 1977 में जनता पार्टी ने आरएसएस की संसदीय विंग के प्रसार का पथ प्रशस्त किया।

शिक्षा और ज्ञान 353 (ईश्वर और मनुष्य)

एक पोस्ट पर कमेंट:

गोलमोल तर्क स्ष्टता की बजाय भ्रमित ज्यादा करते हैं। ईश्वर ने श्रृष्टि की रचना नहीं की, वह ईश्वर के पहले से है। उसकी रचना श्रृष्टि के सदस्यों ने की। ईश्वर ने मनुष्य की रचना नहीं किया, मनुष्य ने ईश्वर की रचना की। ऐतिहासिक रूप से मनुष्य ईश्वर के बिना यानि उसके पहले से रहा है और ऐतिहासिक रूप से मनुष्य ने अपने खास ऐतिहासिक संदर्भ में अपनी खास ऐतिहासिक जरूरतों के अनुरूप अपने अपने ईश्वरों की रचना की और यही कारण है कि उसका स्वरूप और चरित्र देश-काल के अनुसार बदलता रहा है। पहले ईश्वर गरीब और असहायकी मदद करता था अब सामाजिक डार्विनवाद के तहत जो अपनी मदद कर सके उसकी यानि समर्थ की। अगर श्रृष्टि का रचइता कोई ईश्वर होता तो उसके विभिन्न स्वरूपों के भक्त आपस में खून-खराबा क्यों करेते? एक दूसरे के खिलाफ जहर क्यों उगलते? वह उन्हें रोक क्यों नहीं सकता।

Plato's Political Philosophy

 

Plato’s Political Philosophy

Ish N. Mishra

The troubles of mankind will never cease until either true or genuine philosophers attain political power or the rulers of the states by some dispensation of providence become genuine philosophers. 

(VII Epistle, quoted in Sean Sayers, Plato’s Republic: An Introduction. P.3)

 

The Context

Out of clans and the tribes arose a very advanced kind of political system, the Polis, translated as city state, and headquartered in a city surrounded by the peripheral countryside. The word politics is considered to have been derived from the polis. Ancient Greece consisted of several poleis (plural of polis), Athens, with a population of around 400, 000 inhabitants, was the largest and most prosperous by the time of Pericles (5th century BC). The basic units of a polis were the Demos, from which is derived the word democracy. In pre classical Greece the various poleis had various kinds of constitution. Most of the poleis (city states) were monarchies, the rule of one in consultation with the elders of the polis, except Sparta. They subsequently changed to the Aristocracy, the rule of virtuous few. The rule of aristocracy was followed by tyranny in which one person abrogated the authority to him and suppressed the rest of the aristocrats and eventually turned the ire to the whole population. The erstwhile aristocrats mobilized the common citizens and this temporary alliance overthrew the tyrants one by one and established the rule of the people, the democracy and refused to abdicate the power to the select few. Ever since, the history of Greek poleis has been the history of conflict between democracy, the rule of all the people and the Aristocracy/oligarchy, the rule of the wealthy few. Athens was the most noteworthy democracy. 

Sparta was a kind of military aristocracy, the refined improvisation of which seems to be reflected in Plato’s Ideal State. 

During 492-449 BC the Military Aristocratic Sparta and Athens, forgetting their jealousies and political differences, joined hands to fight the Persian designs under Darius and Xerxes to colonize Greece. In this war Sparta had provided the army and Athens the navy. After repelling the Persian aggression, “Athens turned its navy into a merchant fleet and became one of the great trading cities of the ancient world. Sparta relapsed into agricultural seclusion and stagnation, while Athens became a busy mart and port, the meeting place of many races of men of diverse cult and customs, whose contact and rivalry begot comparison analysis and thought.” (Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Garden city Publishing Co., New York, 1927, p. 8) The wealth provided them the leisure and security giving rise to the development of science and philosophy. 

The early philosophers and scientists were concerned with the natural phenomena. The representative thinker of this materialism was Democritus (460-370 BC) who considered the universe to be made up of atoms and space. “But the most characteristic and fertile development of Greek philosophy took form with the Sophists, traveling teachers of wisdom, who looked within upon their own thought and nature, rather than out upon the world of things”. (Durant, 9) One school of Sophists argued for natural equality and supported democracy. Another argued for natural inequality and supported aristocratic rule by virtuous few. In Athens there was an oligarchic party that opposed democracy and thrived for the oligarchic rule by the wealthy, though the direct democracy in Athens excluded the large population of slaves, women and aliens from citizenship rights. Out of about 400,000 of the total population only about 150,000 free men had the citizenship rights and were members of Ecclesia, the general assembly, the supreme legislative and administrative body, the supreme political power. The Heliaea, the supreme judicial body consisted of over 6,000 members, known as the Heliasts or the Dikastes, selected by draw of lots. During the long drawn Peloponnesian war with Sparta, the Oligarchic Party secretly supported the Spartan military aristocracy and came to power after the defeat by Sparta in 404 BC with Spartan support under the leadership  of Critias, one of the Plato’s uncle and a pupil of Socrates, which was overthrown by democratic forces in 400 BC and democracy was restored.  Socrates was tried in the Athenian judicial assembly in 399 BC and sentenced to death by a majority decision. (John VA Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A critical History, Harvard University Press, 1983 pp.528-33)      

Introduction

The intellectual world is teleological. That is to say nothing is written without purpose and each intellectual responds to; reflects upon; provides intellectual explanation and justification or critique and alternative to the issues and circumstances prevailing in his contemporary time-space. Plato’s Republic is not an utopia addressed to no-one but a passionate appeal to fellow Athenians to overthrow the existing democratic governance that is in his opinion, the government of fools, which he “vows” to overthrow and replace it with the ideal state. Though he could not overthrow it, Roman aggressors did, a few centuries later.

Plato (427—347 BC) remains a reference point of the history of Western Political Philosophy. His Republic is considered to be a classic and the foundational text of the western political thought. Plato’s area of interest and intellectual concern were varied. He produced a huge corpus of writings, which are still discussed and debated by the intellectuals in the fields of political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, linguistics, education, art, love, science, mathematics and religion. He was so fascinated with mathematics that the entry of those not knowing mathematics was prohibited inside the Academy, the educational institution he had founded in Athens. Here we shall be concerned mainly with his writings on political philosophy, the Republic, the Statesman and the Laws. 

Even after over two and half a century of being authored, Plato’s works remain relevant to the students of Political Philosophy, which would not have surprised Plato, as according to his theory of Ideas or Form the truth is eternal, where as his one of the predecessors, Heraclitus had said the only constant is the change itself. Plato conceived the philosophy as a discipline of distinctive nature and of central importance to human life and to the life of the political community. (Richard Kraut (Ed), The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 1)   

  The theoretical edifice of the Ideal State of Plato’s Republic, though never put in practice, continues to be a matter of controversy in the modern political discourse. During the last century, particularly the cold war period, it was considered to be an early prelude to the Soviet type communism (Popper, Crossman) or an early warning against it (Strauss). Plato has been made a participant in the ideological battle between modern communism and liberal, individualist free market of the so-called capitalist “Free World”( Sean Sayers, Plato’s Republic: An Introduction, Edinburg University Press, Edinburg, 1999, viii), though as shall be seen in the forthcoming discussion that Plato’s theory of communism is aimed at the egalitarian collectivity among the ruling classes to consolidate the class rule over the producing masses, whereas the theory of the modern (Marxian) communism is the egalitarian collectivity of all the people aimed at abolishing the class rule leading to the withering away of the state.

Though, in ancient Greece, the systematic reflection about politics did not begin with Plato as the intellectuals get their ideas not from nowhere but they react, reflect upon and respond to their own context and preceding and the existing conditions. His predecessors were generally concerned with the continuity of the various conditions and the changes in them; the worlds of the Gods; the nature of the natural world; domestic life; treatment of fellow men by men and morality etc. They tried to answer the question how, before why? Plato began to systematically theorize politics as an independent subject of political philosophy by beginning with answering the questions of what and the why? Thus though the history of reflection about politics did not begin with Plato yet he may be considered to have laid the foundation of the history of political philosophy as he emphasized upon the political community by assigning it central position in human lives governed by the reason of the Ideal State as theorized in the Republic, rightly considered to be the foundational text of the history of the western political philosophy.     

Life Sketch

Plato was born in about 427 BC in Athens, the most powerful polis (city state) of the ancient Greece, about 60 years after the death of Buddha (487 BC), one of the greatest teachers in the history of humanity and a year after the death of Pericles, who institutionalized democracy in Athens. (Ernest Barker Plato and His Predecessors, Methuen's, London, 1960 127).  Plato was born in an aristocratic and well-known family (AE Taylor, Plato, the man and His Work, Methuen, London, 1960, p.i). His father, Ariston’s   lineage is traced to Poseidon, one of the seven sages (6th-5th century BC), considered to be a collective of wise men and lawgivers and mother Perictione’s to Solon (630-560 BC)  one of the most famous law givers and democratic leaders of Athens (Braj Kishor Jha, PRAMUK RAJNAITIK CHINTAK, Bihar Hindi Granth Academy, Patna, 1979, p.3) . His brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus are among the interlocutors described in the Republic. Critias, one of the oligarchical leaders of Athens, was one of his mother’s close relatives. He belonged to a political family and in childhood he too aspired to be active in politics (CL Wayper, Political Thought, The English University Press London, 1954, p. i) but it seems he changed his mind after the execution of Socrates in 399 BC.  

Plato grew in Athenian democracy during its prolonged Peloponnesian war (330-300 BC) with Spartan military aristocracy. [1] In 404 BC Spartans defeated the Athenian forces and installed an oligarchical government, known as the reign of 30 tyrants. The tyrannical rulers under the leadership of Critias conducted purges of the democratic leaders and citizens on a large scale. Over 1500 citizens were butchered. Many democratic leaders fled to reorganize their strength to overthrow the rule of tyrants and restore democracy in 303 BC. The city state was economically wrecked and pushed into the state of social turmoil, the usual after effects of the wars, as war itself is a serious issue and thereby cannot be a solution to any other issue. After the restoration of the democratic government, most of the oligarchical rulers fled or were killed. Many oligarchical rulers including Critias had been associates of Socrates, who considered governance as an art to be practiced by only the knowledgeable and that the knowledge is the virtue. Plato too was offered to join the short-lived oligarchical government but refused. Some scholars of Greek political history feel that had it not been restored but Periclean  democracy, maybe Socrates was not tried and sentenced to death, probably the first political trial by the judicial assembly (Helia) consisting of 6000 judges, annually elected by lot, in the history of European civilization. Every free born over 18 years of age was eligible to be a member of the legislative assembly, Ecclesia and above 30 for membership of Helia, the judicial assembly. The slaves, women and the foreigners did not have political rights.  There is no scope for going into the details of ancient Athenian legislative, administrative, judicial systems and institutions, which are a subject matter of a separate discussion. Socrates considered being Plato’s philosophical mentor and the protagonist of all the dialogues except his last work, The Laws, was tried, convicted and sentenced to death in 399 BC on the charges of corrupting the youth with atheism. Plato’s one of the early dialogues, The Apology [2] is a vivid documentation of the proceedings of the trial of Socrates and Socratic argumentation. After the death of his beloved Guru, companion and mentor, Plato left Athens with the declaration, “I vow to destroy democracy” and wandered around various parts of the known world enhancing his information and ideas about the places and the people. Also, he must have been apprehensive of trial for his association with Socrates. One of the scholars on Plato’s philosophy, George Klosko underlined his hostility to democracy to his “economic and social background”, the landed aristocracy, which considered the “rise of commercial economy as threat to their economic position”. This class looked at the “democratic government” as undermining its “traditional claims to political preeminence”. His critique of Athenian democracy is clearly oblivious in the Republic, which gives an alternative blueprint in the form of the Ideal state ruled by philosophers. (George Klosko, The Development of Plato’ Political Theory. Methuen, London, 1986, p.10).  

  In his 12 years of wandering, Will Durant suspects him to have traveled up to the banks of the Ganga [3]. Whether he visited India or not, should not detain us here. His Ideal State, the proposed alternative to the democratic governance, looks like a close improvisation of the Varnashrama system of the social division.  During his wandering in Sicily he met with Dion the son-in-law of the tyrannical ruler of Syracuse Dionysius I. On the request of Dion Plato agreed to teach philosophy to Dionysius I and he taught him about the misdeeds of a tyrannical ruler, which angered him and he handed him over to the ambassador of Sparta, who sold him as a slave in Aegina island. There Plato met an old friend, who got him freed and managed to send him to Athens in 386 BC. 

As education occupies a prominent role in the Platonic scheme, after returning to Athens in 387 BC he founded the Academy with the aim of imparting scientific education. The Academy is considered to be the foundational basis of the European university system and the earliest precedent of public education. Academy attracted students from far off places. Aristotle was among the luminaries of the Academy.  He spent the rest of his life teaching philosophy and writing about it and died in 347 BC. In between he made another unsuccessful attempt to train another ruler into philosophy, Dionysius II, son of Dionysius I, who became king after the death of his father, again on the invitation of Dion. It seems that his experience of failure in training the existing rulers into philosophers and philosophers not becoming kings, made him to reconcile to the rule of law that is known as the second best state, in his last work, the Laws   in place of the Ideal State ruled by philosopher king as depicted in the Republic. 

The Intellectual Prelude: The influences on Plato

Every generation critically consolidates the contributions and achievements of the previous generations and further builds upon them. It is rightly said that every philosopher is product of his own times and is overtly-covertly influenced by the intellectual traditions inherited from the past. Like all the philosophers in history, Plato’s writings also reflect the socio-economic conditions obtained in his contemporary time and space and bear the influence of the prevailing intellectual traditions. In the context of the war wrecked economy of Athens Plato propounded the theory of the division of labor and functional specialization. The condition of the women was miserable; Plato addressed the problem by theorizing the communism of women. In the intellectual inheritance, the list of pre Platonic philosophers is quite long but Plato, in various dialogues mentions Heraclitus, Xenophanes, and Parmenides. The philosophers with overwhelmingly noticeable influences on Plato are, Pythagoras; Parmenides; Heraclitus and Socrates. 

Pythagoras (570-495 BC) from Samos, known as the father of mathematics and the founder of Pythagoreanism, underlined the importance of mathematics and believed in the immortality of the souls and their transmigration from one body to another after death. Plato also believed in the immortality and the transmigration of the souls. He thought that everything was full of souls and as souls were equal, “Pythagoras believed that men, women, children, were all equal.”  He envisioned an invisible “perfect unity of reality". This was God. It sounds analogous with the Platonic intelligible realm of Forms or Ideas. With his emphasis on mathematics, he sought to find truth with pure abstract theory. He considers the numbers to be the final truth and divided society into individuals of three categories – lovers of knowledge; lovers of honor and the lovers of gain, analogous to three classes of Plato’s Ideal State. (Bertrand Russel, History of Western Political Philosophy, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1951, pp.47-55). 

The ideas of Heraclitus (530-470 BC) of Ephesus influenced Plato’s thought by way of negation. According to him, everything in the universe is in “continuous state of change and flux. The only constant is the change itself.” “We cannot step in the same river twice”, that is to say that the second time it is not the same but the changed river. Apart from the permanence of the change he also believed in the permanence of the natural order. He considered fire to be the origin of the universe. All the objects of the universe arise like the flames of fire after the demise of the others. He regarded the soul to be a mixture of the fire and the water.  He considered that “war is the father of all and the king of all; some it has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.” He viewed the unity of the universe to be the combination of the opposites.  (Russel, 56-65)

Parmenides is thought to have lived during the early years of the fifth century BC and is believed to have taught young Socrates in his old age. Parmenides believed that reality is permanent and nothing changes. The sense perceived observations are illusions. He distinguished between the truth and the opinion. He said that there can be thought only about what exists. Since there is no change, everything we talk about is permanently unchanging. He viewed the truth as one, infinite and indivisible. According to him, thought and language both need objects external to them for their expression. (Russel, pp. 66-70) Parmenides’s echoes can be heard in Plato’s theory of Ideas or Form, the objects of knowledge, which are universal and permanent. 

  

Plato’s theory of Ideas or Forms seems to be a dialectical unity of the views of Heraclitus and Parmenides. The realm of visible, sensible, particular objects is ever changing and its essence, the invisible, intelligible realm of the universal Ideas or the Form is permanent. 

The influence of Socrates (470-399 BC) on the philosophy of Plato is immense. In fact, Socrates is the protagonist and the chief spokesperson of all of Plato's dialogues except he Laws. As Bertrand Russel writes, “that it is very hard to judge how far Plato means to portray the historical Socrates, and how far he intends the person called Socrates'' in his dialogues to be merely the mouthpiece of his own opinions.” The essence of his teachings can be summarized as: Virtue is knowledge; good means reason; governance is an art; everyone is not capable of practicing that art, only the knowledgeable have that ability. (Russel, 73-82)    None of his writings have come down to us, probably he did not write. His two pupils Xenophon and Plato wrote “voluminously” about him. “He taught philosophy to young but not for money like sophists.” He used the dialectical method of each.  He was tried on the petition by the democratic leader Anytus and executed in 399 BC. (Russel, 73-82)     

Methodology

Plato used various methods for presenting in his theorization. He uses dialectical; analytical; teleological; deductive; inductive; analogical; mythical and historical (precedents) methods. 

A. Dialectical Method

As is well known that Plato’s all the writings are in the dialogue form i.e. in the dialectical form of discussion and debate, which means he uses the dialectical method in all his writings. Dialectical method involves the discovery or determination of truth on the basis of questioning; counter questioning and arguments. Socratic dialectic method used in Plato’s dialogues is the method of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.  By this method the interlocutor arrives at conclusion with the help of participants in the discussion. The dialectical method involves the process of discussion and debate in which the participants give their arguments and listen and peruse other’s arguments. It presumes that only those can express their views on a particular subject, who have some knowledge and information about that subject. Asking questions is as much art as answering them. Ancient Greeks had the tradition of discussion and debate in search of knowledge. In ancient India too there this method by the name of Shastrarth was quite prevalent.

The purpose of the dialectical method is not only to arrive at a specific conclusion but also to expose the contradictions and inconsistencies in other participants’ arguments. This helps in getting acquainted with the views and beliefs of the participants without taking anything for granted.  Socrates is said to have spent his whole life in teaching through such methods of debates and discussions. According to Socrates, the dialectical method became prevalent when people started collectively discussing the issues and that everyone must practice this method, as it makes them better human beings. These help in developing the leadership qualities and convince the opponents. (AL Nettleship, Lectures on the Republic of Plato, Macmillan, London, 1901 p. 270)  Plato’s dialectics to discover the truth seems to be rooted in this Socratic understanding of discovering knowledge through debate and discussion. This dialectical approach was further developed, refined  and expanded by Hegel and Marx in the modern times. Thus Plato’s purpose of dialectics is not for the sake of debate and discussion but to acquire the understanding of virtue, which is knowledge. Plato’s dialectics is based on and derived from his concept of the constitution of World. According to him, the universe is an articulated whole of its organically linked parts, any of which can be known in the context of its relationship with the others. In his view, the methodology of the thought should be in accordance with the organic totality of the world. For him the purpose of the knowledge lies in locating the “one in many” and the “many in one”. This implies that every organic entity can be expressed in terms of “one in many” and "many in one” and therefore in order to know one part the knowledge of the other is necessary. According to hum, the dialectics emanates from the basic fact that all the objects are a combination of unity and variety. Therefore it can be said that Plato’s dialectical method consists of the union of the two processes – the process of combination and the process of division. He adopts the process of combination in locating the intelligible, universal essence of various visible or sense perceivable particular objects, which he calls the Form or Idea. He adopts the process of division in showing that these invisible, intelligible Forms or Ideas express themselves through various visible, particular objects. Thus we see that he uses the processes of combination and division to establish the relationship between the intelligible and the visible realms of the objects. Plato uses the dialectical approach for the discovery; expression; propagation and definition of the truth. (Nettleship, 227-87) 

Plato extensively uses dialectical methods in his dialogues including the Republic to propound the principles of justice and to prove that the political and social problems can better be addressed by scientific deliberation and not by force or he number. (William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers: Plato to Present, Oxford, New Delhi, 1969, 2)  The study of dialectics is the core of the Platonic scheme of higher education.

B. Analytical Method

Plato uses analytical methods to resolve the basic elements into their constituent parts and analyzes them to have the perfect knowledge of the totality. For example, in order to have the comprehensive knowledge of the Idea of the soul, he resolves it into its constituent parts: reason; spirit and appetite and analyzes them to determine the nature of the individual personality. Similarly for studying the state, he resolves it into its constituent parts (classes) – the philosopher; warrior and producers and analyzes them.  On the basis of which, he analyzes the nature of the state, their composite totality, the Ideal State.  

C. Teleological Method  

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena in terms of the end or the purpose they serve. Everything has some end or purpose, towards the realization of which it moves. In other words the motion of anything is determined by its end. Anything it achieves its perfection by realizing its natural end. The philosophical basis of Plato’s theory of education is teleological. The mind of an individual moves purposefully. To say that an action is rational is to say that it has a purpose. The purpose of Plato’s dialectical education is the comprehension of the Idea or the Form of the Good. The human mind moves to comprehend the knowledge of some object only if that object has some purpose. According to Plato, those objects cannot be the subject of knowledge, which do not have specific end. The end of human mind is to comprehend the Idea of Good. That is why the end of Plato’s theory of education is the acquisition of the knowledge of the Form or the Idea of the Good. (Barker, 218-19) The end of the state it acquisition of the perfection as the Ideal State as the perfection is immanently innate attribute of the Ideal State. The end of Plato’s philosophy in the Republic is the theoretical construction of Ideal Sate. 

 D. Deductive Method

Plato extensively uses deductive method in his political theorization.  In deductive method, particular is deduced from the general. For example if we accept the general fact that all humans are mortal beings and Plato was a human. Then the deductive inference would be that Ish Plato was a mortal being. According tom Plato, Virtue is knowledge and the philosopher is knowledgeable, therefore the philosopher is virtuous. Again if we accept that the virtuous should rule then the deductive inference is the philosopher should be the ruler. One of the general principles in Plato’s Republic is that everybody has a nature; therefore by acting according to one’s nature for which one is intended, a human being can be just. Plato extensively uses the deductive method in theorizing the ideal state ruled by philosophy; the theories of communism and education. 

D. Inductive method

In deductive method, the particular is deduced from general and in inductive method the general principles are derived from particular. Plato’s idealism is not just imagination but is inferred from observations of the real situation existing in his contemporary Greece. His observation of strife; miseries and imperfection of the existing states and arrived at the conclusion that salvation lies in the states governed by virtuous philosophers. In this method on the basis of the observations the facts are collected, comparatively classified and on the basis of which general principles are arrived at. We find extensive use of the inductive method in Aristotle’s works but Plato has also used it, when needed. Plato, disillusioned with the feasibility of the Ideal State in his last days wrote the Laws, based on inferences drawn from his experienced observation of particular states.

E. Use of Analogies or allegories; myths and precedents or examples 

Plato frequently uses analogical or allegorical methods. He draws analogies between parts of the soul and the classes of the society. Plato’s cave allegory and the sun allegory are well known. Plato considers governance as an art, that is to say he draws analogy between governance and art. The way a skilled sculptor makes beautiful sculptures or an artist makes beautiful paintings, in the same way a prudent ruler ensures the wellbeing of all the people. He compares the warriors with the watchdogs. The watchdog is friendly with the family members and furious to intruders.         

Plato uses not only the analogical or allegorical methods but to prove his point he also uses myths and historical precedents and examples. As one of the scholars on Plato tells, “A myth is not known to be something natural but something felt to be morally rather than naturally true”. (Christopher Morris, Western political Thought: Plato to Augustine Vol.1, Longmans Green & Co. Ltd., London, 1967, p.6) “Plato used the myths to illustrate what he could not demonstrate”. (H.D.Rankin, Plato and the Individual, Methuen & Co., London, 1964, p.124). He uses the myth of metals (Republic, book III, which he calls the royal lie to convince the lower classes about the superiority of lower classes. The king should propagate that God has created humans with the qualities of different metals – the philosophers with the qualities of   Gold; the warriors with those of silver and he produces with the qualities of bronze and his arrangement is irreversible. This he calls royal lie or medicinal lie. Plato at times also uses historical examples and precedents. 

From the above discussion it is clear that Plato uses various methods in his theorizations. His methodology is a collage of dialectical; analytical; teleological; deductive; inductive; allegorical and historical methods along with the use of myths and examples.          

Chronology of the Plato’s Works

Chronologically Plato’s works can be divided into 4 categories: 

In the first category are his early writings, like Apology; Crito; Euthyphro and Gorgias, which seem to be related with the life and the death of the historic Socrates.   

The second category of the works consists of the writings related with Plato’s theory of Ideas. The works in this category are: Meno (on education); Protagoras (on knowledge); Symposium (on art and love); Phaedo (on eternity); Republic (on justice) and Phaedrus (on eloquence) etc.

In the third category are books related to dialectics. The works of this category include: Parmenides, which reflects on the notion of many and one; Theaetetus deals with the epistemology; Sophist is on logic and the Statesman (Politicus).

In the fourth category are those works, which are partially in dialogue format. Among these, Philebus is on ethics; Timaeus deals with cosmology and the ‘Laws’ is about the second best state ruled by law in place of the Ideal State ruled by philosophers . The Laws is considered to be his last work. The Laws is the only dialogue of Plato, in which Socrates, as a character, is totally absent. Here we shall focus on the Republic and the Laws with a cursory glance on the Statesman.             

              

In this essay we shall mainly focus on the works underlining the political ideas in the Republic followed by a glance at the Statesman and a brief discussion on the Laws for his views on the Second Best State. 

       

I

The Republic: The Ideal State

1. The Setting

Plato’s most important work and the reference point of the history of the western political philosophy is republic is the Republic. It consists of 10 books.  The central concern of the Republic is justice, as is evident from its subtitle, “concerning justice”. Like his other works, this classic too is in the dialogue form, a long conversation between Socrates and others, which with progress of the work, becomes less conversational and by the end of it it becomes almost a Socratic monologue. The whole discussion, as presented in the text, takes place at a dinner meeting at the place of an old business man, Cephalus. The text opens with Socrates being invited by Cephlus’s son Polymarcus, while walking back from Piracus to Athens after attending a religious festival. After greetings the conversation begins with Socrates asking Cephalus about his life journey from young age to old age and the process of the conversation Cephalus tells that he has been just to his fellowmen and friends and Socrates shifts the discussion on justice. The rest of the discussion is focused on justice. Other participants in the conversation are, Polymarcus Galucon, Adeimantus and Thrasymacus, a sophist. After setting the agenda, Cephalus retires to pay sacrifices to God, leaving the responsibility of host to his son. After he rejects all the notions of justice prevalent in that time’s Greece expressed by the participant characters, Socrates, on being asked his own view on justice, Socrates tells them that he does not know and proposes to find out beginning from the beginning of the establishment of the society. (Mac Cleland, 25-29). Glaucon and Adeimantus, overtly-covertly remain yesmen of Socrates in the entire conversation.  

     

2. The Theory of Soul

As justice is the central theme of the Republic. Plato is interested in both -- the justice in individuals and the justice in society. And the essence of the individual is his soul. Plato views individuals as “State Writ Large” and he draws an analogy between the justice in individual self, i.e. the individual soul and the justice in society (Book IV). The hierarchical ordering of the classes in a just society corresponds to the hierarchical arrangement of the faculties of the soul. It is imperative to briefly discuss the theory of soul. In book IV Plato discusses the parts of the soul in political terms, i.e. in terms of the relationship of ruling and being ruled. In book IX he discusses the parts of the soul in terms of their attributes but as we shall see, the two descriptions of the tripartite division of the soul are compatible with each other. 

 By the end of book I, Socrates refuted various definitions of justice, presented by the other characters of the dialogue. In the beginning of book II, about his own definition, begins to theoretically construct the Ideal State. “Because justice of a city (polis) would be larger and easier to discern than the justice in a single human soul, Socrates proposes to discuss the latter by means of the former.”(George Kolosko, The Development of Plato’s Political Theory, Methuen, New York and London, 1986, 64-80). Therefore he theoretically constructs a just polis (city state) and uses the analysis of the virtues of the soul, in terms of its different elements suited by nature to “rule” and to “be ruled” and accordingly locates the virtues of the individual and their position and role in it. (Republic, 368-69) After analyzing the virtues of the well-ordered, harmonious just city he uses the analogy to analyze a just soul. (Republic, books VIII-IX).

Plato argues that the justice, individual and social can be attained in a just city (the ideal state), which is a harmoniously well-ordered three class structure, based on the division of labor in accordance with the dominance of a particular part of the soul in particular individual and functional specialization, accordingly. The underlying principle of which is “one does one’s own and one has one’s own”. The just city or the Ideal State is to be ruled by wise rulers with the help of their courageous auxiliaries, the fighting force, economically supported by the producers – the farmers, craftsmen etc. In Plato’s view anyone can perform only one task appropriately to which he is best suited by nature. (Republic book IV). Plato draws an analogy between virtuous state and virtuous soul. 

  As the state is the institution of managing the common affairs of humans, Plato, like the modern liberal political theorists, begins with the dissection of human psychology but with a tripartite assumption of the human soul.  Plato’s assumptions and views regarding the soul constitute the foundation of his theory of Justice and thereby of Ideal State, the exclusive abode of Justice.

 Plato avoids defining soul in terms of empirically verifiable facts but explores the world of desirable philosophical abstractions in search of perfection. Plato’s theory of Soul, not only lays the foundation of his theory of justice to be attained in Ideal State ruled by the philosopher king/queen but is intimately related to his theory of Idea or Form, the subject matter of knowledge and the essence of the phenomenal world.  In fact, soul is the means for the acquisition and comprehension of the Idea or the Form of good.  Plato considers the soul to be above and beyond the visible, bodily person, which is just the appearance. The essence lies in its immortal, eternal, infinite, invisible but intelligible soul. The soul does not belong to the visible phenomenal world, but to the invisible, intelligible world of Ideas or Form. For Plato, the soul and conscience, as human attributes, do not exist inside but outside human person, in the world of Ideas. The analogy between state and soul are extensively discussed in the book IV of the Republic. 

Plato, like Pythagoras believed in the eternity and transcendence of soul, that is also one of the key messages of Gita[4]. According to him the soul is divine and eternal that roams in the world of Ideas and not in the visible phenomenal world. Theorists of the eternity of soul and its transcendence from one to another body do not explain the source surplus souls required for the bodies of the increased population! To quote him from Phaedo, “The soul is infinitely unchangeable; even the most stupid person would not deny that.”[5] He further adds, “What is the definition of that which is named soul? Can we imagine any other definition than ……..the motion that moves by itself”. The motion of the soul is first in origin and power that moves by itself.” He reaffirms in his last work, the Laws, “Motion of the soul is the first in origin and power.” And, “the soul is most ancient and divine of all things whose motion is an ever flowing source of real existence.”[6]   Plato uses his tripartite assumption of the soul as consisting of the reason; spirit and appetite and their respective virtues as philosophical tool for his division of society into three classes.

The Elements of Soul

Plato divides the soul into three hierarchical faculties – the reason, the spirit and the appetite, in descending order. In fact this trilogy of the soul provides the philosophical foundation of his hierarchical order of the Ideal State, the abode of justice. The abode of the lowest faculty, the appetite is stomach and those of spirit and the reason are chest and the mind respectively. The appetite is identified in both the Republic as well as Phaedo with desires; greed; economic gains; physical comforts and sensuous pleasure. The spirit is identified with fearlessness, valor and warrior-like qualities. The highest faculty of the soul is the reason – simple and indivisible, eternal and immortal. The reason is beyond time and space, whereas spirit and appetite are within time and space. The reason is, according to him, immortal and divine whereas spirit and appetite are mortal and mundane. (Republic, book IV & IX)

The Virtues of Soul

After defining the soul in terms of its constituent elements, Plato delves into their respective virtues and then derives the virtue of soul by integrating them together. Every particular object has its particular nature and realizing that nature is its virtue. The nature of a teacher is to induce students into critical thinking and help them in molding themselves into fearless, responsible citizens and in their attempts to invent newer knowledge. If a teacher satisfactorily does that he is a virtuous teacher. Virtue of a student is to study and discourse to acquire knowledge and expand. In the same way as the virtue of the eyes is clear vision and of mind is clear thinking and reasoning. A soul is virtuous if its elements realize their nature, i.e. be virtuous. He first discusses the particular virtues of particular elements and combines them to construct a new virtue, superior to them and their coordinating force – the justice, Plato’s central concern in the Republic. The virtue of reason is wisdom, that of spirit and appetite are courage and temperance respectively. A soul is just or virtuous if it has the virtuous faculties and the inferior elements are regulated and directed by the superior ones. In other words, the spirit and appetite must take directions from, and obey the dictates of, the reason.

•         Wisdom or Knowledge

Particular virtues correspond to each faculty of the soul. The virtue corresponding to the faculty of reason is knowledge or wisdom. Plato conceptualizes wisdom or knowledge in specific terms. The knowledge of mundane affairs or the knowledge of particular skill falls outside its ambit. Knowledge of varieties of soil fit for cultivation of particular crops or knowledge of medicine for particular disease is not wisdom. Plato calls them opinions or technical knowledge. Even the knowledge of mathematics (arithmetic), geometry, astronomy or any other science disciplines, which Plato places in the realm of the intelligible world, too is not knowledge, as they too use assumptions based on the objects of the visible world. He explains it through his, oft-quoted, line diagram. Wisdom does not come from the study of the objects of the visible world, as if the ideas come from some vacuum, in opposition to the fact that ideas are abstractions from the objects and have been historically emanating from them. According to him wisdom comes from the ability to reason and analyze; discus and debate; deliberate and discourse. Plato’s pessimism does not allow him to accord these potentialities to anyone but to ‘gifted’ few ‘endowed’ with imminent innate qualities of excellence in the realm of reason. Hence the virtue of the reason is knowledge or wisdom. The theory of knowledge shall be discussed below as an independent subtitle.

•         The Courage

Courage is the cardinal virtue of the spirit. It finds frequent mentions in the Republic. Traditionally, courage meant manliness. For early Greeks, courage meant fearlessness, even of death; patience in difficult situations; valor etc. For Plato courage is not just warrior-like bravery but also to firmly defend the correct stand. The spirit whose virtue is courage, sides with the reason but is capable of going against it also, hence must be reined in. 

•         Temperance

The third particular virtue is temperance or restraint that has been elaborately described in books III & IV of the Republic. It simply means control of the desires. “To be stronger than one-self”; “To be master of oneself”; doing not as one wishes but what one ought to.

•         Justice

Apart from the above three particular virtues there is 4th virtue, justice, a superior virtue that harmoniously coordinates and relates them and probably that is why it is the central concern of the Republic. Plato argues that justice is not just a different virtue but a different kind of virtue, which he calls the virtue of the virtues, the political virtue. The other virtues are, in a way, auxiliaries of justice. He tries to show that a just man possesses all the other virtues but that justice is the central political virtue. Mac (Cleland, 23) He argues that justice is the integrating and principle of the both – the Soul ruled by reason and the Ideal state by the philosopher.   

3 Theory of Idea or the Form

   Plato’s theory of Idea or the Form constitutes the philosophical foundation of Plato’s political theory. The central political theme of the Republic is the justice, which can be attained and preserved only when the society is ruled by ‘philosophers’ in accordance with the rational principles and for Plato the philosophy encompasses the whole rational knowledge (book IX). To discuss the principle of rational knowledge, Plato introduces the world of intelligible Ideas or Forms different from the visible, sense perceivable phenomenal world. The theory of Ideas concerns the “absolute, timeless, immutable essences, completely removed from the sensible world” (Klosko, 82), to be perceived by application of mind and hence he locates them in the intelligible realm. Thus Plato creates an invisible, intelligible realm separate from but not unrelated to the visible, sensible realm. To illustrate this Plato uses the allegories of the Sun, the line diagram and the Cave (books VI & VII). 

The problems of continuity, variety and the change have been common questions for ancient Greeks, who were trying to discover the uniting element in the variety, i.e. the one in many; and the permanence in the ever changing world. Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy generally addressed the observations of life and motion of the natural, particular objects and phenomena and their patterns from which they tried to generalize and derive the universal qualities of particular.  Socratic search in the Republic begins with the analysis of human psychology. Various philosophers came up with varying answers; Plato conceptualized the world of Ideas, in his answer and propounded the Theory of the Idea or the Form of Good. In doing so, he dialectically unites the two opposite views of Heraclitus and Parmenides. For the former, the world is in the continuous state of change and flux and the only constant is the change itself. According to Parmenides, world is permanent, unchangeable and that the change is an illusion [7]. Plato combines the two and propounds that the visible, phenomenal world, which we empirically observe and sense-perceive is changeable/perishable, but the   world of Ideas or the Forms is permanent. The commentators on the subject use the Form and Idea interchangeably, for the sake of convenience; we shall be using the word Idea only henceforth. Plato makes a distinction between the worlds of objects, the visible world, which can be known by sense-perception; and the invisible world of the Idea that could be known only by reasoning. The permanent element of the changing object is its Idea that is eternal; infinite; final and independent reality. According to him it is beyond time-space but being the progenitor of the objects of the visible world, is represented through them. Plato’s dialectical description of the world and the dialectical unity of opposites, like Hegel many centuries after him, are in inverted order. The Idea cannot be the progenitor or creator of the object, but emanates from it. Newton’s law of gravity does not make the apples fall down vertically, but explains the phenomenon of falling objects from particular height. First let us see what Plato means by the term.

A pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Thales defined the things with changing appearances as substance, the existing state of affairs. Plato declares these substances to be of momentary importance, mere shadows of their essence, which is their Form or Idea. Plato cites the example of triangles. Many triangles could be drawn and omitted but the quality due to which all such particular geometric figures are known by this name, the triangularity, which is permanent and universal. Similarly he cites the examples of various particular horses and girls with horsiness or girliness as their respective permanent, universal Ideas.

  I will share one of my experiences with my daughter when she was very young, to explain the Platonic Idea of the object and their inter-relationship. She demanded to eat a fruit. She was offered the particular fruits. She refused to accept mango, banana etc., the particular objects; she had already known through her sense perception and would have thought that fruit must be some particular edible like them. “Not banana; not grapes; not guava, I want to eat fruit”. I did not know how to satisfy her demand. There happened to be a vendor selling raspberries, which she had not seen before and she took it as a fruit. This is to say that the universal Idea of particular kinds of objects is their universal common quality, through which they are known by that name. Thus, for Plato, the Idea is absolute or the perfection to which the objects try to achieve or approach its proximity.   

To sum up the above discussion, Plato argues that there are two realms, sensible and intelligible. The sensible realm of visible objects can be perceived by senses, which he calls the realm of opinion or belief and the things of the intelligible realm can be known only by reasoning or thought, which he calls the realm of knowledge. Plato uses this distinction elaborately while discussing higher education in book VII. Through sense perception, we come across many particular things like particular fruits but their essence lies outside them in their universal Idea or Form. Similarly we encounter many particular objects which might appear beautiful, good or just but their essence is distinct from and independent of them, i.e., the Idea or Form of the beauty, the goodness or the justice. The former are the subjects of opinion or belief, whereas the latter are the subject of knowledge. The sensible objects are not unreal but occupy an intermediary position between the perfectly real that is the Idea or the Form and the illusion, their shadows.

  To explain the two realms Plato uses the line diagram.

   

The line diagram

To demonstrate the distinction between essence and appearance, Plato uses the line diagram to demonstrate that the essence of the phenomenal world lies not in itself but outside it, in the world of Ideas. He divides a vertical line into four sections. Each section correlates with different aspects of intelligible and visible realms. At the top is the realm of knowledge 

                                        

If the universe is represented by the straight line AB and C is its midpoint and AC as the invisible world of Ideas. D and E are points on AC and CB respectively so that AD: DC = CE: EB. AD is the world of Ideas, i.e. the realm of knowledge; DC of understanding like the studies in science, mathematics etc.; CE the area of existing world, knowledge about which in Platonic parlance, is not knowledge, only technical knowledge that he calls opinion. EB is the image or the shadow of CE, which he calls imagination or the illusion. 

In the realm of intelligible world Plato argues the superiority of knowledge to understanding or thinking as it relies on visible objects or assumptions. As in geometry, for instance, the theorems are proved on the basis of geometrical figures like triangles or squares and unexamined axioms and postulates and the knowledge “entails a full consciousness of the assumptions on which it is based”.  Similarly he argues the superiority of opinion or technical knowledge over the imagination as it is about the perceived “appearances, the images or reflection of the objects than the objects themselves”. (Klosko, 87) Thus moving upwardly from bottom to top on the Line through various stages gradually, entails the journey from completely uncritical imagining to a perfect condition of rigorous examination of all the premises and assumptions, that is the comprehension of the Ideas via the stages of technical knowledge or the opinion about sensible objects and the understanding gained through the analysis of sensible objects based axioms and assumptions. 

From the discussion on the line diagram two things are clearly discernible about Plato’s views on the relationship between opinion and knowledge. First, the sensible world cannot be the subject matter of knowledge as in his view; sensible things are not fully real, since they are in a constant state of change and are transient and perishable. The subject matter of knowledge can be only the timeless perfect realm of Ideas. Second, the subject matter of knowledge cannot be even the intelligible realm of science and mathematics despite being proved by using axioms, definitions, assumptions and empirical facts, like the sum of three angles of a triangle is 180 degrees or the Pythagoras theorem about right angled triangles.  Plato terms these as understanding, though it is superior to opinion or technical knowledge about the sensible world, as he considers that the imperfection of the sensible world makes knowledge of it impossible. (Klosko, 89) Nevertheless he recognizes the importance of mathematical studies as they help the mind to move from the imperfection of the sensible realm to the intelligible realm of Forms or Ideas but is not the knowledge but only understanding inferior to knowledge. That is why mathematics occupies an important place in his educational curriculum, as it prepares the mind for reasoning and ability to grasp the Idea or the Form.   (Republic, book VII). But the study of mathematics falls short of knowledge that extends to the comprehension of the entire range of the Ideas. 

Similarly, in the moral sphere too, the moral actions observed in the sensible world cannot be perfect and hence cannot constitute the subject of knowledge. The subjects of the knowledge are the Ideas those actions represent. To sum up, according to Plato, the knowledge attained by sense perception of the sensible world is not knowledge but only opinion or understanding whereas knowledge is only of the Ideas that could be comprehended by pure thought, as he depicts through the line diagram. (Republic, book VI).   

    

 Like the line diagram Plato demonstrates it through cave allegory or the myth of Cave too [8]. 

The Cave allegory

Plato likens the people unaware of the Ideas with prisoners chained in a cave with a bonfire outside it.  The chained prisoners think the shadows of the objects moving outside the cave in the light of fire as real. And after one of them is freed, he is amazed and amused first by the sight of the fire and then the real world in the sun-light. Plato portrays the darkness of the cave as ignorance (illusion); the fire at the gate the visible object, and the sunlight as an intelligible Idea. But he does not care to explain the fact that how the prisoners got chained and reached the darkness of the cave? Were they born chained together? They would have been taken into prisoners in war or mob lynching. Logic of Plato’s highly eulogized cave allegory appears very illogical. Nevertheless the message it conveys is: the fulcrum of one’s knowledge depends upon the limitations of her/his exposures, as the mind reacts to the sense perceived reality of the existing things. Sometimes inadvertent consequences become more substantial than intended ones, as this implication of the Cave allegory .

From the above two allegories, we may conclude that Plato supposed the reality to be essentially or "really" the Idea and that the phenomena of the visible world were mere shadows, the momentary portrayals of the Idea under different circumstances. The Idea, as a distinct singular thing causes plural representations of itself in particular objects. For Plato, Ideas, such as beauty, saintliness etc. are more real than any objects that represent them.

These Ideas are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form, the tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.   Socrates of Plato’s Republic holds that the world of the Forms or the Ideas is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms or the Idea are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.  For Plato the Idea is transcendent to space and time. “The Ideas make the things what they are”.[9] The abstract, invisible Idea is the model or perfection of the visible objects, its appearance, so they resemble not only with it but also among themselves, like the siblings of the same parents. For him not the objects but the Ideas are the subject of episteme, the knowledge. 

   

There is no problem with his assumption of dialectical composition of the world but his priority and portrayal of the relationship between the worlds of ideas and the phenomenal world can and must be questioned and contested. Objects have historically existed without ideas and the ideas have historically emanated from the object. Plato projects a derivative half- truth as truth. The total truth is dialectical unity of object and idea with priority to the object. The word fruit as universal identification of particular objects would not have come into being, if there were no particular, perishable objects like mango; banana; grape et.al. That is to say that the Idea in particular, the universal form of the object emanates from it and hence cannot be prior to it or its progenitor. It is the sense-perceived reality that stimulates the faculty of reason to discover the laws governing its motion. For example, had there not been the perceived reality of vertical fall of the objects from the height, the mind of Newton would not have been stimulated to discover its Idea – the gravitational laws.

Sense perceived reality is not unreal but also not the totality of the truth, but partial. It answers the question, what? But it does not answer the questions why and how? Newton’s laws of gravity do answer the questions why and how about the falling objects, but had there not been the sense-perceived answer to what, the questions, why and how would not have arisen and the infinite, eternal idea could not be born, contrary to Plato’s claim that they exist by themselves. Therefore the Idea cannot be the only or entirely the “real” reality. The totality of reality or truth is the balanced combination of the two – the sense perceived reality and it’s contemplated or the philosophically abstracted Idea. Anyway, the mind too is one of the human senses and thinking is a practical act. As Marx and Engels have theorized, the truth is constituted by the dialectical unity of the object and the idea; the material conditions and corresponding form and level of social consciousness.         

 The Idea of the Good

The Idea of Good is the Idea of the Ideas, the supreme Idea. The Idea of Good enjoys the same status in the world of Ideas, as the Idea among its particular objects.  As, by now, we know that Plato locates the essence of particular, sense perceivable, changeable and perishable objects not into objects themselves but outside them, into their permanent, eternal, unchangeable universal Ideas or Forms with capital I and F respectively. We also know that Plato accords priority to the Idea over the object, as it is the progenitor, the model, the ultimate reality of the object and is beyond time and space. The objects resemble not only their Ideas but among themselves, as the children of the same father not only resemble the father but among themselves also. The visible world, as it is changeable and perishable, cannot be really real but not unreal either. It lies in the middle of the real, its Idea and unreal, its shadow. It is semi-real. This philosophical assumption would be reproduced in an improvised and more sophisticated form by Hegel many centuries later and contested and reversed by Karl Marx.

After theorizing the Idea of the objects, Plato moves to his main point, the basis of the Ideal state ruled by philosopher king, the Idea of Ideas, the superlative or the supreme Idea, the Idea of Good. Comprehension of the Idea of Good is the ultimate knowledge and the knowledge is the virtue and the ideal state must be ruled by the virtuous and hence deduction of the need of philosopher king automatically follows. The Idea of Good is the final and independent reality, “existing itself by itself”. The way he traces the source of existence of particular objects into their Ideas, the same way he locates the source of existence of the Ideas into the Idea of Good. Plato argues it to be the ultimate basis of knowledge.

Plato generally emphasizes on definition but leaves the final reality, the Idea of Good, the ultimate subject of knowledge undefined, which would be subsequently replaced in the medieval period by another ultimate, undefined reality, the God, in theology. Plato confesses that the meaning of the Good cannot be clearly defined but only known through reason. Knowledge, wealth or happiness are not Good themselves but just the conditions of Good. The Good is the final end of anything. It is the basis of knowledge and ethics and the source of all the virtues, like truth, beauty and justice. The final objective of human life is attainment of the Idea of Good. Where Plato cannot define, illustrates with similes; analogies and prevalent or constructed myths. He demonstrates the Idea of Good by the allegory of the sun. 

The Simile of the Sun

 Plato uses the slimily of the Sun to illustrate the Idea of Good. The Idea of Good in the intelligible world is the same as the Sun in the visible world. “The Good presides over the intelligible world, in the same way as the Sun presided over the visible world.  According to him, the Ideas live not in the visible but intelligible world and hence form the subject of contemplation and the objects of the phenomenal world reside in the visible world and are the subjects of sense perception and not contemplation. In the visible world eyesight things only when they are exposed to the light and the source of the light is the sun. Plato argues that the sun is neither light nor the objects of sight but their source and cause. Sun, as said above, according to him, occupies the same position in the visible world, as the Idea of Good in the intelligible world. As sun is the source of light that makes things sightable to the eyes, similarly Good is source of vision that makes mind to contemplate the objects of knowledge.  He explains this simile by following diagram:

Visible World               Intelligible world

Sun ------------------------ Idea of the Good

                    Light ---------------------------- Truth

                Objects of Sight (Things) --- Objects of knowledge (The Ideas)

Sight ------------------------------ Knowledge.

To sum up Plato’s Theory of undefined Idea of Good, we can say that it is related to the world of Ideas in the same way as the Sun to the visible world of objects in terms of being progenitor; finality; absoluteness and supremacy. Plato does not answer the question, what is the Idea of Good? It cannot be described but can only be realized through dialectics or contemplated through the application of reason. Can everyone comprehend the Idea of Good? Plato’s answer is a clear no. Only those, who have ability and training in dialectics imparted in the highest stage of educational scheme can. Who have this ability and how is that determined? Those people whose innate domain of excellence is Reason, described in his theory of the trilogy of the soul.  How is that determined? Through elimination tests conducted at various stages of his rigorous educational scheme. Thus Plato not only gives the idea of state regulated public education but also is the first political philosopher to conceptualize meritocracy. As has been mentioned before, in medieval times, also known as dark ages, the Good was replaced by God and only the true devotees can know Him.

     

4. Theory of Justice

The central question of the Republic is justice but Plato’s theory of justice is quite different from and contrary to the justice as we understand it in constitutional-legal terms. It can be precisely summed up in the following two quotes from the Republic:  “Justice is having and doing what is one’s own” and “A just man is a man just in the right place doing his best and giving the full equivalent of what he receives”.

Intellectuals react to and reflect upon their own conditions. Plato’s immediate ambience was the democratic Athens, which had been in the state of a prolonged Peloponnesian war with Sparta (431-404 BC) that had ended in Athenian defeat; overthrow of democratic government and banishment of the prominent democratic leaders in 404 BC. No one is a winner in a war; both are losers, as far as the people of warring countries are concerned.  It wrecks not only economy and society but also the individual and social psyche. Before that Athens and Sparta were allies in Greco-Persian war (499-449 BC). It was a dilapidated post war economy and demoralized society. With the overthrow of rein of thirty that was installed by Spartan victors, democratic leaders, in the restored democracy were taken over by a sense of insecurity and in desperation tried and executed Socrates, Plato’s teacher. To salvage Athens from its economic and political strife that is from injustice, Plato presents a blueprint of an alternative system -- the Ideal state ruled by professionally trained rulers, the philosophers, the political class, with the help of strong coercive apparatus, the warrior class.

For Plato the governance is not only an art but supreme art to be practiced by the virtuous few whose virtue is wisdom. In modern democracies too, there is political class. Plato’s political class consists of the philosophers, whose realm of excellence is reason. They undergo a 50 years long rigorous education to acquire the wisdom, the ability of comprehending the Idea of the Good and thereby the competence to practice the art of governance. The virtue of this political class is wisdom, the comprehension of knowledge. They are deprived of the private family and property as a safety measure against any possible chances of their being corrupt; indulgent; sectarian or sloth. They do not live in palatial houses but in the barracks with their likes and the members of their auxiliary, the warriors, whose virtue is the courage. In contrast the virtue of the modern political class is the ability to win the election by any means, verifying Machiavellian maxims; the end justifies the means and the end is, attaining; retaining; expanding power. [10]. Many of its members, particularly in the present India, have good records of criminal cases against them. Most of them are billionaires and spend huge amounts, in election campaigns. The US President, contesting for the second term, spends only 3 years in office, the 4th year is spent in fundraising. One’s ability to raise funds generally corresponds to ability to win the elections. There is no scope here for detailed comparison, the political class as envisioned in Plato’ republic has the single motive of practicing the art of governance with perfection, i.e. selflessly pursuing the good of the people. Modern political class is concerned with its own wellbeing and perpetuation of the ruthless exploitation and oppression of the people by the global capital [11]. Members of the modern political classes are not Platonic philosophers but Machiavellian Princes. Unlike the modern political classes, which appeal to sentiments while trying to blunt rationality for seeking power at any cost, even at the cost destroying composite culture of the country, the Platonic political class, the Guardians of the Ideal State appeal to the reason and seek to ensure justice for the entire society, of course the justice as envisioned and defined in the Republic.  Here we shall be talking only about Platonic ruling classes.

The central concern of Plato in Republic is justice, as mentioned above and as is obvious from the subtitle of the text, “A treatise concerning justice”. It begins with the question of justice and concludes with the answer that justice lies in the harmonious, hierarchical well-ordering of society. Platonic concept of justice is not based on equality of humankind but just opposite of it. It is not equality but the harmonious, well-ordering that institutionalizes the inequality. According to Will Durant, during the 12 years of his wandering after the execution of his Guru, Socrates in BC 399, Plato would have wandered up-till the banks of Ganga. Even if had not he would have come in contact with Indian scriptures via Egyptians. [12] Plato’s “harmonious well ordering” of the inequalities takes me to the childhood memories of my village in 1960s. It was a “harmoniously well ordered” village society without any tension, at least over the surface. Though, the cracks in the prevalent social order had begun, but were only microscopically visible. Everyone was doing their respective works, as ordained and prescribed by the Shastras, the four-fold Varnashrama social-social division and the corresponding code of conduct. Plato’s Ideal state, the rule of Philosopher over the economically productive classes, with the help of the armed auxiliaries, appears to be a refined and improvised version of the Varnashrama code of conduct. In the Varnashrama paradigm, the leader of the armed classes (Kshatriyas) rule over the people on the advice of the intellectuals (Brahmins). In Plato’s Ideal State, the intellectuals (philosophers) do not take any chance, they rule themselves. The equivalent of the intermediary class of the Varnashrama model, the Vaishya, is missing in Plato’s Ideal State, it may be considered to have been  clubbed with the Shudra, which together  represent the class of economic producers. In the Platonic class structure no one is untouchable as the lowest strata of Shudra in Varnashrama system were. The class of slaves treated as the property of the master, an ‘animate tool’, in Aristotle’s words [13], is conspicuously absent from Plato’s discourse. Either he took it for granted or did not find the ubiquitous institution of slavery in ancient Greece worth reckoning.

For the defining justice, Plato theoretically constructs the Ideal State, from the beginning, from the point zero, of the human association, in a teleological manner. Though Plato’s imagined, ‘naturally evolved’ first human association, the First City is nothing but the fictionalized version of the then existing democratic Athens. The Varnashrama code of conduct, with reference to the Manusmriti [14], was created as a philosophical justification and source of validity of an already existing, institutionalized order. [15]. The Ideal State of Plato’s Republic was a plea for a desirable alternative to the existing democratic government, which he considered a government of fools and “vowed to destroy.”[16] To philosophically validate the Varnashrama social order, the myths of the Gods Brahma etc. were created. Defying all the biological laws, Brahma, “the creator”, created from his different organs four hierarchical classes – Brahmins (intellectuals) from the head; Kshatriyas (the warriors) from the arms; trading classes from the stomach and the lowest, the Shudra  from the feet[17]. Plato, to convince the people of lower classes of their innate inferiority, invented the myth of metals -- the medicinal lie or the Royal lie. The philosopher king should propagate that the God has created people with the qualities of different metals – gold; silver and the inferior metals, like bronze and copper. Those who are created by God with the qualities of gold are destined to be philosophers; those with that of silver are destined to be warriors and the rest the economic producers [18]. And this arrangement is irreversible. As the doctor can lie to the patient and patient cannot to doctor, in the same way the king could tell lie to the people but people cannot. The right to spread lies is a royal prerogative.

Plato’s project of the Ideal State remains unrealized, as envisioned in the Republic. He himself was disillusioned with its feasibility in the last days of his life and theorized the “Second Best State” based on law, in his last voluminous work, the Laws. As his student Aristotle had pointed that he thought about only the theoretical best without taking into consideration, the practicality and existing reality. Idea of the ideal emanates and is related to the existing reality, not the other way. The universals do not create particulars but existence of particulars determines the nature of the universal. Plato’s Ideal state ruled by the philosopher still remains an idea and the Varnashrama system, as an idea and institution has yet not been totally banished.

After this slightly longer introduction, in the following pages I shall try to critically summarize the initial (Book I –III) processes and points in Plato’s philosophical journey in search of the ‘truth’, the ‘justice’. 

Basic Assumption

            Everything has an end corresponding to its nature, says Plato. The end of eyes is to see clearly; similarly the end of the state is to govern well. Like everything else the philosopher too has an end, ensuring the wellbeing of society. With that end in mind, he makes certain axiomatic assumptions. Plato’s envisioned end is to have a state with ‘good governance’, the Ideal State in place of democratic governance in which the entire population of the freemen is the member of the political community. As has been discussed in the section dealing with the theory of Ideas, for Plato the essence lies not in the object but in its Idea. Object is just the shadow, the appearance of its invisible essence. A visible human is only appearance of his essence – the soul. 

      

•         Men (Humans) are, by nature, interdependent for their needs. Everyone is intended with nature and the realization of that nature ought to be the end of life.

•         One can do only one thing appropriately and hence one ought to do only what he is intended by nature.

•         Governance is an art, which needs specific ability.

  1

As is well known, Plato’s works are in “dialogue” format, i.e. in the form of debate and discussion, with Socrates as the protagonist, except in the Laws [19]. This dialogue, Republic, is in the form of reminiscence of Socrates. As a very systematic scholar, Plato first critiques the prevailing views, rejects them and then gives his own views. He puts views he rejects in the mouth of other characters in the narrative and puts the views he supports in the mouth of Socrates. In the first scene, as discussed before, Socrates, while returning from a festive fare, is on the way intercepted and invited by Polymarcus for a dinner-discussion at his place. Public discussions and debates (Shastrarth in the Indian context), in ancient societies, provided platforms for dissemination of knowledge, as well as for intellectual duals. Apart from Socrates, other characters of the drama are: Cephalus, an old rich businessman; his son Polymarcus; Thrasymachus, a Sophist scholar; Glaucon and Adeimantus, Socrates’s pupils; and Cleitophon.

After exchange of the greetings, Socrates asks Cephalous about his feelings of being wealthy. Apart from other things, he included that being just as one of the attributes of being wealthy and gives cue to Socrates to initiate the discussion on justice, the reminisces of which is Republic. Cephalous answers in terms of prevailing notions of morality that justice was paying back one’s debts and retires to offer sacrifice to Gods, leaving the stage for the next generation and his son Polymarcus takes entry to supplement the father’s answer. The views Plato criticizes and rejects are categorized as, traditional; radical and pragmatic views of justice.

Traditional view of justice

The spokespersons of this view in the Republic are Cephalus and Polemarchus. Cephalus replied in terms of prevalent moral values that justice lies in telling the truth and paying debt. To this Socrates says that  in normal conditions these are the normal morality, not justice. “Suppose that a friend, when in his right mind, has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition”[20]. As mentioned above, Cephalus after giving his opinion retires for performing sacrifice and his son Polemarchus enters the scene. He added “justice is giving to each man what is proper to him” and that “justice is art which does good to friends and evil to enemies”[21]. 

Plato, through Socrates, extensively argues against the traditional views expressed through father-son duo by using various ancient sayings; examples and metaphors and rejects them. Socrates uses the simile of sickness, which is cured by a physician by giving the sick person medicine, “what is proper to him”.  “But when a man is well, … there is no need of a physician, in the same way as one who is not on a voyage has no need of a pilot” in the same way as there is no need of a war ally in time of peace. But justice is not situation centric, it is infinite and universal.  

Justice is the quality of soul, it cannot be art. Art can be good or bad but justice, being the highest virtue of the soul, is always good. It is difficult to distinguish between friend and enemy, as one’s appearance does not really reflect his real essence. A just soul follows the path of goodness and cannot do evil to anyone. He considers it as sadism and sadism is a contradiction in terms with justice. He argues that doing good to friends may be a just act but harming anyone, even an enemy, cannot be the objective of justice, as evil cannot be removed by counter evil. Tit for tat is not justice. Moreover, this view presents justice as a relationship between two individuals. Justice is not the quality of only good individual life but also of good social life [22].     

Radical View of Justice

The views expressed by Thrasymachus, are called radical view of justice. Thrasymachus, who was at unease and “He roared out to the whole company: What folly, Socrates, has taken possession of you all? ……”. He expressed his observation as “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” [23]. This is like ‘the might is right’ that historically has not been very far from reality, but Plato was a philosopher of what ought to be. As the rulers are most powerful in any society, they make laws in their own interest and hence working in the interest of the ruler is justice and following one’s own is injustice. Wise men can follow their own interest by being unjust. He concludes that an unjust man is wiser; stronger and happier [24].  Socrates through point-to-point arguments rejects this view [25].

             Firstly Socrates of the Republic rejects his view that self-interest of the ruler is justice. One of the key contributions of Plato to the world of political philosophy is his idea of governance as an art. And an artist does not follow self-interest but the interest of the subject. The subject of the ruler is the people and his interest lies not in pursuing the self-interest but in ensuring the well-being of the people. The way the physician does not pursue the self-interest but that of the patient. Teaching is an art. Objective of the teacher is to help students in becoming critical, responsible citizens with theoretical clarity; to help them in acquiring abilities to scientifically comprehend the world and determine his role to better it.   Plato rejects the concept of politics or governance as a consequence of force or muddling of numbers but of scientific deliberations. The interest of the ruler lies in the interest of the people.

            Secondly, the unjust person cannot be happier than the just. According to Plato, happy is one who knows his nature, ability and limitations and places himself accordingly and does not enter into the race of competition. Happiness lies in realizing one’s nature. A teacher feels happy by realizing his nature, that is, by having a good engrossing class with the students’ active participation. Quoting a section of a dialogue would not be inappropriate.

“Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good soul a good ruler?

 Yes, necessarily.

And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul?

That has been admitted.

Then the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man will live ill?

That is what your argument proves.

And he, who lives well, is blessed and happy and he who lives ill is the reverse of happy?

Certainly.

Then the just is happy, and the unjust miserable? So be it. But happiness and not misery is profitable.

Of-course.

Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than justice”[27].

            Thirdly, the unjust cannot be wiser than just as wisdom lies in realizing and knowing one’s ability and limitations and acting accordingly and not in indulgence into competition. And acting according to one’s nature is justice and hence a just man is wiser than the unjust.

            And finally an unjust person cannot be stronger than the just. For Plato, strength lies in unity and unity is possible only if people living together in a community have commitment to certain common principles and common wellbeing of all. The consensus to these principles is possible only in a just society.

            With the refutation of Thrasymachus’s views ends the Book I and also vocal presence of Thrasymachus.

Pragmatic view of justice

            The spokespersons of this view that considers justice to be the “child of fear” and the “necessity of the weaker”, [28] are Glaucon and his brother Adeimantus. Anticipating Hobbes, many centuries later, it assumes a state of nature where everyone is free to do injustice and become a victim of it. To get out of it people enter into an agreement of not doing injustice to anyone and thereby not being victim of injustice from anyone. A code of justice is created to make the agreement functional. Thus men recognize their natural tendencies of injustice but pretend to be just under the fear of the force of law. [29]

            Socrates refutes and rejects this view with systematic arguments that justice is not an artificial virtue that emanates from a contract. Justice is an innate quality of soul and conscience. It does neither depend upon a contract nor needs any external recognition; it exists by itself [30]. After saying this he begins to theoretically construct the Ideal state to define justice. 

 2

Plato’s Concept of Justice

    After arguing against the above three views of justice, on the request of Glaucon and Adeimantus, Socrates in the Republic sets out to define justice in society and in individuals. “Justice, which is the subject of our inquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State” [31]. Plato applies teleological and architectural methodology to explain the concept of justice beginning from the starting point of human association, on the basis of his basic assumptions.  Above quote indicates that justice operates at two levels – at the level of Individual and at the level of state or the society as in his opinion, state is individual writ large. Then in the larger unit, the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible. “I propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them.”[32] He begins to construct the society from the beginning, with different people of interdependent natures for meeting their survival needs on the principles of functional specialization; division of labor and exchange. He calls this naturally evolved association as the First City.    

The First City

All the writings are reflections on the contemporary state of affairs, great writings become all time classics. The Republic being the foundational text in the history of western political philosophy, still remains relevant even after around two and half a century. “One of the main causes of Plato's pervasive and persuasive influence throughout history is the ablest exponent of the aristocratic theory of state and the acute critic of democratic way of life”[33]. History of evolution of civilizations, hitherto, has been the history of evolution of inequalities. Plato provides their rationalization on the basis of presumed innate abilities or nature. Someone’s nature or ability may be that of a farmer and someone’s that of a carpenter and so on. As mentioned before, Plato’s one of the basic assumptions is that one should do only one thing suited to his nature and accordingly he theorizes the principle of division of labor.

“A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficient, but all of us have many wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined?” tells Socrates to Glaucon. Justice is the original principle laid down at the foundation of state, “that one man should practice one thing only and that thing to which his nature was best adapted. ….. And if we imagine the State in the process of creation, we shall see the justice and injustice of the State in the process of creation also.”[34] As people have many needs and wants “and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State”[35]. He begins with basic necessities of food, dwelling and cloth and the like. “Barest notion of state must include four or five men.”[36] If everyone produces everything himself to fulfill his needs one would not be able to do it efficiently and hence one should do only one thing to which his nature is suited [37]. This community based on the principle of division of labor and exchange of economic needs is called the First City. The principle of division of labor enhances productivity and gives rise to more specialized crafts. Plato’s theory of division of the labor anticipates Adam Smith centuries later for the enhancement of the Wealth of Nations but not the equivalent exchange. The entire product of producers is appropriated by the non-producer capitalist; the producers get meager wages to be able to survive to reproduce [38].

With refinement of crafts people develop new tastes and wants that he calls artificial needs. “Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter with substantial clothes and shoes. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine, which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war.”[39]  And “of course they must have a relish–salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.”[40]

The above mentioned First City is the edited version of the existing system in which the entire population was the part of the economic class based on the system of division of labour and exchange and the market. But governance, in Palo’s view that he repeats so often in Republic, is a superior art, not a matter of force or number but ability to comprehend the Idea of Good and act accordingly. And only wise, highly educated philosophers have that ability.

The Ideal State

After describing this gathering as a rustic, happy egalitarian First City, he cleverly extends the principles of division of labor and exchange to create a hierarchical second city --- the Ideal State. The first city is unguided by the reason.[41] Thus evolved luxurious and prosperous first city gets into “feverish condition” caused by “expansion of human wants”, as “the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now and not enough”  for the extended population describing this gathering as a happy egalitarian First City, the community of “pigs'' [42], he cleverly extends the principles of division of labor and exchange to create a hierarchical second city --- the Ideal State. For extension of territory and saving the prosperity from the neighbors, a new class functionally specialized in war is needed.

“Then without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, this much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States, private as well as public”. [43] As one person must do only one thing, there is a need for a specialized class that is good at the art of war -- the class of warriors, the “watch dogs”. “Then it will be our duty to select, if we can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city”. [44] Using the tripartite theory of soul he proves that those who excel in the faculty of spirit, the virtue of which is courage, are ideally suited for it. “The feverish condition is, however, not limited to the threat of external war but also implies the internal disruption or dissolution of the health and the balance of the first city through internal unrest.”[45] And hence there arises the need for a special class of warriors. But this class drunk with power might degenerate into praetorians and quarrel continuously among themselves and with the members of producing classes. As mentioned above Plato compares the warriors, the defenders of the city as watch dogs, which are friendly with the insiders and furious over outsiders by instinct. So to make the perfect watch dogs they need training to imbue them with the principles that make the city worth defending.

Thus the need of the class of the warriors (auxiliaries), leads to the need of another class to recruit and train this class as well as future guardians. The characteristic virtue of this class is wisdom in the same way as the characteristic virtue of fighters and producers are courage and temperance respectively. The first city according to him was the result of the natural evolution, the “second” or the “Ideal” city of the Republic is the product of rational planning and direction. This Platonic community is the first example of the planned state. The recruitment and training is done through education. To convince the auxiliaries and producers Plato advises the ruling class, the wise, the philosopher to spread the medicinal lie (the myth of metals) as described above.  Thus he theoretically constructs the Ideal State for justice, in which everyone has his own and does his own. In the first city the entire population was part of the division of the labor economy, like the entire population was the members of the political community in Athens, in Ideal state only around 80% remain into the economic community and rest distinguish themselves as the ruling classes – the guardians and the auxiliaries. Thus Plato divides the egalitarian, ‘happy’ first city into three exclusive classes – economic; coercive and political. In fact the coercive class is the state apparatus and that is why the upper two classes are clubbed together. The existing states are the degenerated form of Plato’s Ideal. The personnel in the state apparatuses, though belong to working collective in the capitalist state, yet are not part of working class in Marxist sense, but a class apart, like Plato’s auxiliaries.

Thus Plato cleverly extends principles of the division of labor of material production and exchange to divide the society into hierarchical order of the classes of producers and non-producers, in which non producers rule over the producing masses. The relationship between carpenter and the farmer is not the same as the relationship between a farmer and the philosopher kings. This ideal virtually boils down to being an aristocracy. The society is just if it is harmoniously united, i.e. one doing only that for which he is ordained to. 

                The main difference between a craftsman and a philosopher in the Republic is the difference between political wisdom and technical knowledge as he explains in the theory of knowledge. Only philosophers have the insight of a highly specialized learning, needed to comprehend human affairs and deal with them. Material and exposure of a craftsman is finite, limited to only the visible world in contrast to the material and exposure of philosophers to the world of Ideas, which is infinite and unlimited. Effectively Plato’s notion of justice is creation of the Aristocratic community, in which the Aristocrats, emanating from planned breeding and education, a special theory of eugenics, as is dealt in detail in the section dealing with the theory of communism. Communism and education are two pillars of the Ideal State.

Thus we see that for Plato, the just or the ideal state is the arrangement of the social classes in accordance to the unalterable human nature, polished by rigorous educational planning. As is clear there are three types of men in accordance with the virtues of their souls, which he describes as wisdom, courage and temperance. He also describes them as lovers of wisdom, honor and gain or those with the qualities of gold, silver and bronze in their souls, respectively. The state is just or the ideal are located in their appropriate class and perform their specialized functions following the principles of division of labor based on the functional specialization. Justice will flourish if and only if the true philosophers, excelling in the virtue of wisdom rule with the help of auxiliaries excelling with the virtue of courage supported by the well skilled economic classes. The virtue of temperance is common to three classes so that no one quashes the boundaries of their functional specialization. Plato does not provide any separate safeguard for restraining philosophers or warriors from abusing their power except the education, which enlightens them towards their duties and communism, which deprives them of the private property that enables them to look after the social interests. Education of the rulers harmonizes their souls and refrains them from the abuse of their power and communism refrains them from indulgence and insures their commitment to the public good.  

The Social Justice

                  

                        Plato’s theory of justice, i.e. the theory of the ideal state is organic theory. As mentioned above, Plato considers ‘state’ as ‘individual writ large’. Therefore he theorizes not only social justice, i.e. the justice in society, but also individual justice, i.e. the justice in individual and links them. A just state is the state ruled by philosophers; defended by warriors and material needs supplied by the producing classes. A state can be just only with just individuals, who are ready to accept the order in conformity with their nature. How to convince the inferior classes? Plato gives the theory of meritocracy through his theory of education. Also he invents many myths, like the myth of the metals. It should be noted that Platonic social justice is not only different from but the reverse of the contemporary discourse on social justice in India aimed at ending the class/caste hierarchy. Platonic social justice is aimed at creating and perpetuating class hierarchy.

            Individual Justice

                        “The state is not known by the quality of oak and rocks but by the character of individuals living in it” [46].  He draws an analogy between individual self and society. As the society consists of three basic classes and in a just society each class accomplishes their respective functions suited to their nature. In the same way, there are three analogous elements in the individual self – the reason, spirit and appetite. The justice in an individual is possible only if the elements of soul are well ordered and harmoniously united in conformity to its tripartite structure. The inferior elements, the spirit and appetite are controlled by reason, to which they willingly obey, in the same way as the classes, the warriors and producers, whose realms of excellence are spirit and appetite respectively willingly obey the dictates of the philosophers, the class, whose realm of excellence is  reason.

Some observation

                       

            Before concluding this discussion with a critical note, let us see major points emerging from the above discussion.

•         It is not a legal but moral concept that does not need any legal code of conduct to guide the philosopher king. He is the embodiment of wisdom.

•         It involves division of labor among the producers – non-hierarchical,    technical division of labor on the one hand and the hierarchical class division on the other.

•         It is functional specialization in accordance with one’s nature

•         It is a theory of non-interference. Respective classes must not encroach into the realm of other classes.

•         It is also architectonic. To define justice, Plato constructs the edifice of the Ideal state beginning from the laying of the foundation.

•         It is neither just functional specialization nor departmental excellence, these are just the conditions. Justice is the coordinating virtue of all the virtues of the soul.

Conclusion

            Plato’s concept of justice is not the justice, as understood in the modern juridical-legal sense. There is no law. The ruler, being the perfect embodiment of wisdom and virtues, is the law in him-self. He is capable of grasping and ensuring people’s wellbeing with the help of state’s coercive apparatus, the class of warriors. There can be no limitation of law over the ruler. This has given chance to his critics to call him the first fascist [47]. His unselfish commitment to his duty, ensuring the wellbeing of the people, is projected as unchallengeable as he has no property and family under the scheme of communism of property and the family. Defying Platonic link between honesty and family and property, we find many examples in modern democracies, bachelor or married bachelor members of the political class ensuring the wellbeing of capitalists on the cost of people’s well-being [48]. Effectively it is a theory of a social code of conduct in a hierarchically divided society, like Varnashrama system. The source of validity in Republic is relativity of rationality and not divinity. It is a theory of temperateness, a moral value and not the legal justice.  It prescribes the code of conduct for various classes of limiting their acts within their respective spheres and not to invade that of others in the tripartite social structure. What if “the harmonious well-ordered unity”, the epitome of justice is disturbed by clash of wills or interest? Plato does not take cognizance of this possibility, but implication of his discussion on the need of a specialized class of fighters, is that it shall be dealt with coercion. It is a theory of total subordination of individual to state that is ruled by philosophers whose authority is infinite and absolute.

            This theory emphasizes excessive unity of the ruling classes -- philosophers and the soldiers -- and excessive separation from the masses, the vast majority of the economic classes, which are conditions and not part of the state.  Republic pleads for creation of such social division in the context of his contemporary social and political equality, though economic inequality did exist apart from the inhuman institution of slavery. Aristotle takes its cognizance and stated that there were two cities in every city, the city of the rich and the city of the poor. Plato, an aristocrat, belonging to the “class of gainfully unemployed” [49], is not bothered about economic inequality but political equality, notwithstanding the intellectual inequality. His main concern was opposition to participatory democracy, as it existed in his contemporary Athens, in which all the freemen were members of the political community. His problem was the problem of political parity of intellectually ‘unequal’ people. How can a cobbler; carpenter; farmer or so sit on judgment on the generals at par with intellectually superiors like philosophers?  In his view, politics is an art to be practiced only by the virtuous, whose virtue is knowledge and the subject of knowledge is the world of Ideas and the Idea of Good. His pessimism about the potentiality of perfection in ordinary people makes him feel that only a small number of people have aptitude for knowledge that is refined by education. Hence his famous statement that philosophers should be kings or the existing kings and princes must be instructed into philosophy. He tried to teach philosophy to the king of Syracuse, Dionysius I and subsequently his son Dionysius II and failed [50].

            To conclude, it can be said that Plato’s vision of a just society and just individual is well ordering of the classes and faculties of soul respectively on the basis of the hierarchy of knowledge. Plato was against the democratic rule full of corruption, but instead of reforming with equal universal education, he opined for its destruction and replacement by the Ideal State, the rule of philosopher with the help of armed auxiliary. If the Republic is taken out of its historical context and placed in the general context of the class societies, in which a political class and a coercive state apparatus have been historical realities, Plato’s scheme could be welcomed. Politically educated rulers without conflict of interest should be preferred as they do not have private property and family and live together in barracks and thereby devote themselves to ensure the wellbeing of the people. Gandhi’s advice to the legislators to live in hostels and to travel together to parliament in buses bears Platonic influence.

                        

5

 Theory of Education

Introduction

            “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of the society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls at the same time the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age; thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.” —-Karl Marx in German Ideology [51]

Education is the key to Plato’s scheme of a just and virtuous society. Education, for the ruling classes of all the epochs following the disintegration of the primitive communism has been the most reliable and effective instrument of producing ideas and thereby shaping the form and level of social consciousness. Not only has it historically played the role of the ideological apparatus of the state but also of revolutionary changes, depending on the character of education [52]. Plato realized this with his experiences during the 12 years of wandering after Socrates’s execution in 399 BC. To realize his conceived notion of the Ideal State, first task he undertook was to establish Academy in the natural ambience at the outskirts of Athens, the first anticipation of the modern university system [53].   Plato talks about social justice and individual justice and the just individual is creation of an appropriately just education. The edifice of Plato’s theory of the Ideal State ruled by the philosopher kings/queens rests on the pillars of his theories of education and the communism. Plato realized the importance of education in defining and controlling knowledge for a hegemonic social order. Our Vedic and Buddhist ancestors had this realization much before Greeks, though for contrasting goals.  Former for restricting the acquisition of knowledge defined by them for the upper strata of the social order and monopolizing it for the perpetuation of social hegemony and later for ubiquitous spread of knowledge defined by it in terms of real life situations aimed at the destruction of the hegemony.

  Education is so immensely vital in Plato’s scheme that it is the subject of focus in all the books (chapters) from II to VII except book V of the Republic. Rousseau describes the Republic as “the finest treatise on education that ever was written” [54]. Through a state controlled and maintained education system, the rulers could create such mindsets that would help retain the social order and harmony. For Plato, the State’s priority must be education that shall take care of all the other issues. Ever since, education has remained the most effective ideological apparatus in the hands of the ruling classes. Plato is the first western philosopher to theorize the concept of institutionalized public education system and put it into practice through the establishment of Academy.  China and India had already well-established systems of institutionalized education. In ancient India, there were two competing educational systems. The Brahmanical Gurukul system, an authoritarian system of instruction in which the Guru (teacher) was beyond question. In some Sanskrit maxims, he is equated with God [55]. Neither questioning nor any debate-discussions were allowed, whereas knowledge comes not from what is taught, but from questioning what is taught.  It imparted the education of conformity; conformity with the established Brahmanical hierarchical social order. The children of only the ruling classes in the fourfold social division were allowed the access of education. In contrast to it, Buddhist tradition was a revolutionary, dialectical system of debate-discussion, and democratic discourse. There is neither scope nor the need of distraction into Buddhist and Brahmanical schools of education; it is just to allude to the historic fact that education may be an instrument of revolution as well as of reaction. The modern education of scientific revolution and Enlightenment in the west played a revolutionary role by emancipating the knowledge system from the clutches of theology. It was essential for the bourgeois democratic revolution against regressive feudalism. The liberal capitalism based on the industrial revolution needed scientific temper and an inventive mindset to question and invent. The logical corollary of scientific education is questioning everything. Need of neo-liberal global capital is no more rationality but conformity. There is no scope of going into the history of changes in the nature of institutional education in correspondence with the changing needs of the ruling classes.   Plato is also the first philosopher in the western tradition to conceptualize state maintained and controlled education. In recent times, particularly since the globalization, states have been abdicating their maintenance responsibility in the realm of education while intensifying the control over it. [56] 

            History of knowledge is much older than the history of education. In fact the history of knowledge is as old as the history of humanity itself. Knowledge is a continuous dialectical process of learning and unlearning ever since humans began to distinguish themselves from the animal kingdom by producing and reproducing their livelihood through the application of the reason, a human species-specific attribute. In ancient primitive societies, those considered to be knowledgeable were entrusted with positions like priest or commander of the army and consulted about righteousness of particular views or acts. The journey of knowledge through the learning-unlearning process from experiences and experiments has covered a long distance, to put it metaphorically, from Stone Age to cyber age. The intellectuals of every generation critically consolidate and build upon the achievements of previous generations. There is no scope of detailed discussion on the history of knowledge; I have dealt with it elsewhere. [57] The history of education is almost as old as the division of society into classes of haves and have-nots with the disintegration of the egalitarian primitive communities. The transformation of the subsistence economy into surplus economy and appropriation of the surplus by few led to their control over the society’s means of production. Systems of education began to construct the knowledge in the interest of the dominant classes and provide validity to their hegemony. Plato believed that knowledge is the highest virtue hence pleaded for the supremacy of knowledge but not the knowledge of worldly things, the knowledge of the Idea of Good, as defined by him. Out of the huge population only a very few have the potentiality and ability to know and comprehend the Idea of good. How is it determined and realized?  It is done through elimination tests at the various stages of education lasting up to the age of 50 years for the philosophers.

            The importance of education in Plato’s political scheme

            Plato’s priority for education can be easily understood as about half of the space of the Republic is devoted to education. He considered education to be the panacea of the all ills of the society. Like his theory of communism, the theory of education is also a logical corollary of the theory of ideal state that he theoretically constructs for his central concern in the Republic, the justice. Justice for him is everyone’s acting according to his nature. And one can know and realize one’s nature though education. The basis of the ideal state is philosophy and study of philosophy requires the well planned educational system. Buddhist education was aimed at breaking an established class society of Varnashrama order based on the hegemony of knowledge. Brahmanical system of knowledge was to defend the existing class society while Plato’s aimed at creating a class society on the basis of the hegemony of the knowledge. For him taking care of education is state’s foremost responsibility, as it is instrumental to create politically unequal classes and maintain it.  

In the Republic, the authority of the ideal state ruled by the philosophers is absolute that requires absolute subordination of individuals to the state. Therefore, education must be so designed that molds the public mindset to suit the structural needs of the Ideal State. Discipline and unquestioned obedience to superior is underlined in the beginning of the discussion on education for the preparation of future Guardians [58].  This is done by habituating them to think into just one way, perceived to be the righteous way. There is no scope of any dissenting ideas in the Ideal State ruled by philosophers. Such ideas of the past must be strictly censored. “Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only. Let them fashion the mind with such tales, even more fondly than they mold the body with their hands; but most of those which are now in use must be discarded.”[59] The present fiction writers or poets who do not sing the prescribed tune shall be banished or denied platform for performance [60]

.

Plato’s apprehensions of the danger from and intolerance to the dissenting ideas have been relevant through all the historical ages across time & space in varied forms. The contradiction of theory and practice is not the monopoly of capitalism that never does what it says and never says what it does, but an imminent innate attribute of all the class societies. Plato’s notion of education as a determinant of meritocracy is full of such contradictions.

On the one hand he says that the mind is an active element that is attracted to its subject on its own. The mind has the eyes, the teacher’s task is not to interfere in its motion but only to make its object sightable, i.e. to provide exposure and create conducive ambience for the free realization of its nature. On the other hand, he proposes a strictly censored course curriculum with many prescriptions and proscriptions.    

As can be inferred from the above discussion, the theory of ideal state is the logical corollary the theory of justice and so is the theory of education, one of the two pillars of the edifice of the ideal state, the other being, the theory of communism. Justice means everyone acting towards the realization of one’s nature. Education is to determine and thereby make the individuals to know their nature on the one hand and also train them towards perfection of it, on the other. He draws a comparison between the relationship of the soul and education with that of growth of a seed into plant with the variety of the soil and climate [65].  He considers education as the spiritual food of the soul and hence a lifelong process. Theory and practice both, according to him, are products of mind, even state is product of mind. That means one of the aims of education is to train the mind to remain in touch with the theory and practice both. The inverted priority of matter and mind has been discussed in the theory of ideas; the state cannot be product of the mind as mind abstracts the universal ideas from the particular objects not the other way round. Plato has a teleological (purposive) conception of mind that aims to comprehend the Idea of Good.  But not everyone can reach that stage of knowledge, only few with an imminent innate attribute of excellence in the realm of reason, can.

The Education system

In ancient Greece, two systems of education were prevalent -- Athenian and the Spartan. In Athens the most lucrative field was politics. The education was private and the Sophists were, as is said, the robbing universities, who taught for a fee. Protagoras (BC 490-420) was a prominent Sophist of the Socratic era [66]. He was an atheist, a rarity those days in Greece. One of the false charges against Socrates in the Athenian judicial assembly was corrupting the youth by spreading atheism. Sophism, in Greek, was equivalent to wisdom. Sophists taught natural philosophy, mathematics and the subjects related to, what was considered by them, wisdom and virtue -- from practical knowledge and prudence in public affairs to poetic ability and theoretical knowledge; oratory; eloquence; articulation; argumentation; logic etc. In Republic, the sophist, Thrasymachus, is demonized and ridiculed and is shut up by the end of book I.  The realm of education was family centered with no intervention of the state.  Sparta was a military aristocracy and had a state controlled education system that imparted mainly military education and discipline. Plato synthesized the two and added the study of the dialectic at the highest stage of the scheme. 

Plato divides the education into two parts – elementary and higher.  As the “early life is very impressive”[67] and the children are like wax and can be molded in the shape, one wishes to. Hence the education begins from the birth itself. “……  also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken”[68]. Hence the education begins from the time of birth itself.  

     

The elementary education

The elementary education is divided into 3 parts:

1. 0-6 years of the age;

 2. 6-18 years and

3.18-20 years.

The First stage (0-6 years)

The scheme of education is the same for both boys and girls. Education of women is a revolutionary contribution of Plato, as it was unheard of not only in Plato’s time but up to many centuries after him. though he did not totally refute the prevalent notion of superiority of men to women, yet allowing women the right to education was a radical step. The first stage of the education of the children, both boys and the girls, begins from the time of birth and lasts up to age of 6 years. Plato is quite correct to note that early childhood is a very impressionable age and the children are keen observers; quick imitators with thinking faculty at the early stage of its growth, and also vulnerable to indoctrination. Purpose of education at this stage is to provide appropriate exposure and examples. The teachers must teach by example, the same is true for parents outside Plato’s commune. Convinced with correctness of his views of good and bad and the ‘real interest’ of the society at large, Plato overtly-covertly resorts to indoctrination. In the early stage the children are taught morality and goodness through lyrics, tales and historical or mythological heroic examples.

“But what shall their education be? Is any better than the old-fashioned sort, which is comprehended under the name of music and gymnastics? Music includes literature, and literature is of two kinds, true and false. …… . I mean that children hear stories before they learn gymnastics, and that the stories are either untrue, or have at most one or two grains of truth in a bushel of falsehood. Now, and children ought not to learn what they will have to unlearn when they grow up; we must therefore have a censorship of nursery tales, banishing some and keeping others. Some of them are very improper, as we may see in the great instances of Homer and Hesiod, who not only tell lies but bad lies; stories about Uranus and Saturn [69], which are immoral as well as false, and which should never be spoken about to young persons, or indeed at all; or, if at all, then in a mystery, after the sacrifice, …..”[70]

This is a very sticky wicket. There is no denying that the early exposures and tales and lyrics influence the growth of the child’s brain and its directions and dimensions, which shape their consciousness. The choice of the kind of exposure in the hands of the rulers is tricky and subject to be widely misused. Let us give the benefit of doubt to Plato as the ruler of his deal state is an all knowledgeable philosopher, who is able to comprehend the Idea of Good and would not allow its misuse. But historically, philosopher rulers have been exceptions; most of them have been the artists of power games, as realistically claimed by Machiavelli, many centuries later. [71] As quoted above from Marx’s German Ideology, in each historical epoch, the ruling class ideas influence the level and form of the social consciousness through particular value systems. These value systems have reference source/sources for the validation of human acts and opinions. In ancient Greece these sources were the mythological writings of Homer and Hesiod; works of the socially recognized poets and fictions, as the bible in the medieval, theological era in Europe, also known as dark ages, or various scriptures like Manusmriti and other Puranic (mythological) scriptures in India in the aftermath of Buddhist revolution and Brahmanical counter revolutions [72]. Plato questions the pervading value systems and proposes an alternative value system.  In book II, after convincing his assenting companions, Adeimantus and Glaucon about the need of the tripartite social structure corresponding to tripartite composition of soul for the establishment of social and individual justices, Socrates in Republic proceeds to chalk out the scheme of education for the future guardians. From here to the next book, he does not say so much about what is to be taught as what is not to be taught. Why was Plato so much against the value system based on mythological Homeric tales about various Gods and divine order? All the communities create their language; idioms and phrases; Gods and Goddesses according to their historical needs and the divine order in their own image. Evils of war; incest; patricide; quarrels and wars among the Gods were the fictionalized reflection existing mundane world of the time. “First of all, I said, there was that greatest of all lies in high places, which the poet told about Uranus, and which was a bad lie too,–I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how Cronus retaliated on him. The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible, they had better be buried in silence.”[73] 

For Plato Gods cannot do anything bad but only good. “But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect” [74].  Plato insists that they should not learn things of bad influence, what they have to unlearn, when they grow-up and goes on to ruthlessly analyze the existing intellectual resources, the poems of Homer and Hesiod and works of other poets and dramatists and their evil influences on the children in their tender formative stage of life. “Then, although we are admirers of Homer, we do not admire the lying dream which Zeus sends to Agamemnon; neither will we praise the verses of Aeschylus in which Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials ’was celebrating in song to her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the strain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this – he is who has slain my son.’ These are the kind of sentiments about the gods which will arouse our anger; and he who utters them shall be refused a chorus; neither shall we allow teachers to make use of them in the instruction of the young, meaning, as we do, that our guardians, as far as men can be, should be true worshippers of the Gods and like them” [75].

The purpose of this long quotation is just to underline that the literature of the past must be strictly censored and the present writers must write only those things that are recommended by the state. Those poets and writers not following the state prescription are to be banished from the ideal state or denied the platform for performance. The future guardians must not be exposed to those stories and songs, which may arouse fear of death or erode devotion to Gods or hatred towards the truth. Therefore, on the one hand Plato, in principles, maintains that the education’s task is not to instill anything from outside but to provide only exposure and mind on itself would find its way, that should mean the exposure to the totality of the reality, on the other hand limits the exposure to only what he considered to be desirable. The knowledge process involves not only learning but also unlearning, questioning and unlearning the irrational social values that one has acquired through socialization independent of one’s conscious will. On the other hand, Plato’s educational scheme does not leave any scope for choosing what one has learnt via a strictly censored and regulated course-curriculum. Early exposure is quite important in building up the mindset and Plato seeks to expose children only to the good aspects of society and God

. But the problem arises when they confront the existing reality that does not consist of only virtues but vices also, they are not taught how to deal with them. Like his theory of the Ideal state, the theory of education, it’s one of the pillars, is also a theoretical construct to eliminate the vices in coordination of its other pillar, the theory of communism. 

The second stage (6-18 years)

In the first stage of the education the emphasis is to develop the appropriate orientation through music that develops and refines the soul. In the second stage the gymnastic is added to the music for the simultaneous development of body also along with the soul.

The Music

As quoted above, the music includes literature; poetry; songs; dance and instrumental music. The censorship of music that includes literature continues in the second stage also. At this stage the scope of the music takes a higher form by including selected harmonies and rhythms. “Next in order to harmonies, rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of meter, or meters of every kind, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to the words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody” [76].  Further that “the  musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognize and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar” [77]. This means the censorship of literature is similarly applied to the harmonics and rhythms of instrumental music. Plato firmly believes in the influence of music in character building, though it does not impart any scientific knowledge but promotes thinking in the right direction. The wildness of passions is calmed down by the rhythms and the harmonies and fills the minds of the youth with a sense of conviction to justice. “When the modes of the music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them”.[78] It fills in the sense of discipline and devotion to God and protects the soul from evil influences. It shall not be inappropriate to conclude this section with yet another quotation.

“And therefore ……..  musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognize and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.”

The Gymnastics

Gymnastics is about health care – maintenance of a healthy body. It includes the prescription of a simple diet and cure of the body. He forbade spicy and heavy food. He is against cures of illness as in his opinion; death is preferable over living with illness. In his Ideal state there is no space for physicians, who instead of curing increased illness like non-conforming poets and artists they too are banished [79].  The soul in the weak and ill body, according to him, cannot realize its nature. He holds that indulgence and indolence are the basic causes of illness. The physical training and exercises keep the body so fit that illness keeps away from it. The exercises not only keep the body fit but also help in building the moral character, as its final goal. It makes the youth temperate; courageous and disciplined. It is basically aimed at enabling the youth for military duties.

It is to be noted that though the reasoning is the philosophical basis of Plato’s political theory, there is a hint that apart from censored music and gymnastics, nothing is taught in which the students have scope for application of reasoning abilities. The main aim seems to induce in the students the sense of discipline and obedience to the state, that is, to the directions of the philosopher, whose authority knows no limits of any law.

The third stage (18-20)

Last two years of elementary education are devoted to military training. This phase is very important as music nurtures and nourishes the soul and gymnastic the body. In the choice of rhythms, as quoted above, Plato prefers warlike rhythms.  Through appropriate music and drills; sports; exercises as the parts of the gymnastics, the elementary education prepares the youth into a disciplined soldier, the courageous watchdog knowing well on whom to be fierce or friendly. The dogs depend for knowing this on their instincts, the soldiers by training. Training of personnel of security forces of the states through the ages, not perfectly, but approximately fit into the Platonian framework of elementary education.

After 20 years of education in music, gymnastics and warfare, there is a first great elimination test, those who clear it are admitted to higher education and the rest take up the responsibility of warriors as disciplined soldiers.

The higher education

There are three stages in higher education also.

1.    The scientific education (20-30)

2.    Education in dialectic (30-35)

3.    Practical education in dialectics (35-40)

The first stage (20-30 years)

In this stage the students are given scientific education, which Plato, in his theory of knowledge diagram marks as the realm of understanding. After 20 years of elementary education in music and physical training, the successful candidates are introduced to subjects like mathematics (arithmetic); geometry; astronomy; astrology and harmonics. Scientific education orients the youth towards the truth. Emphasis is on mathematics and not wrongly as it trains our mind for clear thinking; reasoning; logic and analysis. In underlining the importance of various subjects, Plato emphasizes their utility in war formations and strategies.  

In nutshell there are two major advantages of scientific education, according to Plato. Firstly it orients towards reasoning and secondly it introduces the soul to the principles and ideas essential for the comprehension of the final knowledge, the knowledge of the Idea of Good. 

At the end of the 10 years of scientific education, there is the second great elimination test. Those who clear this final test are recommended for further higher education in dialectics and those who fail are selected for the responsibilities of the subordinate administrative and military offices. As mentioned earlier, Plato does not consider the knowledge acquired from scientific education as real knowledge but only understanding.

Second stage (30-35)

The students selected for higher education are taught dialectics – the philosophical journey into the invisible, intelligible world of ideas -- for the next five years. This has been briefly discussed in the section, dealing with the theory of Ideas. The training in the dialectics enables them to comprehend the Idea of the Good.

Third stage (35-50 years) 

After 5 years of training in dialectics, the students become only potential philosopher kings and queens that they become in reality only after testing their philosophical theories into practice for a 15 year long apprenticeship by working on higher administrative and military positions.  Those who prove their worth in handling the tough tasks working on these positions, become philosopher kings/queens, at the age of 50. Thus, the 50 years long strenuous education results into creation of the rulers, who are high quality scientists and philosophers. After the completion of education, the philosopher kings/queens devote themselves to the contemplation of the truth and the wellbeing of the people and guide them to just ways of life.

Women’s Education

Though it has been already mentioned in the beginning itself that the education is meant for boys and girls both, yet it deserves additional treatment as the society was rigidly patriarchal, and women were confined to only domestic chores. They were not even citizens. In England, women got full citizenship rights only in 1929 after a prolonged feminist struggle and scholarship, beginning with Mary Wollstonecraft, in the last quarter of the 18th century [80]. Allowing women to uniform and equal upbringing and education with men was an innovative, revolutionary idea. His student Aristotle was so upset that he questioned Plato’s wisdom of giving away the enslavement of women with one stroke of pen, which has been a historic achievement of mankind. In book V of Republic, Socrates meticulously argues with Glaucon and Adeimantus, the equal potential in women if given the same upbringing and education as men. According to him, confining the women into the domestic chorus implies depriving the society of the utility of half of its intellectual resources. Let us conclude this discussion with a long quotation from dialogues between Socrates and Glaucon.

“Then, if women are to have the same duties as men, they must have the same nurture and education?

Yes.

The education which was assigned to the men was music and gymnastic.

 Yes.

Then women must be taught music and gymnastic and also the art of war, which they must practice like the men?

 That is the inference, I suppose. I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous. No doubt about it. Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women naked in the palestra, exercising with the men, especially when they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty, any more than the enthusiastic old men who in spite of wrinkles and ugliness continue to frequent the gymnasia.

Yes, indeed, he said: according to present notions, the proposal would be thought ridiculous. But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women’s attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing armor and riding on horseback!” (Book V)

Plato argues that once people see the results of women’s performances in public offices or in the field of war, they shall begin appreciating it instead of ridiculing.

Concluding Remarks

The educational scheme is only for the ruling classes, not for children of the majority of economic producers. Though, Plato theoretically constructs the ideal state by extending the principles of the division of labor and exchange in the egalitarian First City, the city of various kinds of producers, he excludes them from the political community, to be ruled by educated philosophers with the help of trained, armed auxiliaries. Plato’s aristocratic education, not totally but largely resembles the Brahmanical, Gurukul, education system in the same way as the structure of his ideal state largely resembles the Varnashrama social system. The Brahmanical education was reserved for only the ruling classes, the intellectuals (Brahmins) and the warriors (Kshatriyas).  The education of warrior classes generally focused on military education and politics (Dandniti). The higher education that is the knowledge of scriptures was reserved for the intellectuals, the Brahmins.  Plato theoretically picks up children at the time of the birth and subjects them to selected tales and lyrics. RSS in India picks them up little later and inducts them as Shishu ( child) Swamsevak and trains them further as Bal (boy) Swamsevak; Kishor (Adolescent) and Tarun (young) Swayamsevak and then graduation to full-fledged Swayamsevak after attending two camps ITC and OTC (Officers Training Camp). Like Plato it too emphasizes, in belief in the God, discipline and obedience along with indoctrination in selected ways of thinking. Through the RSS training is for just one hour a day, whereas Plato primary education is a round the clock affair, yet similarities of orientation can be drawn. There is no scope here of comparison between Platonic and RSS education systems, which is subject matter of separate discussion. But unlike Plato, it does not allow women in its scheme. 

From the above discussion, we can conclude that Plato’s education system is an aristocratic system, aimed at maintaining the strict class division of the rulers and the ruled that educates the philosophers to rule over the majority of the producers with the help of well-trained armed auxiliaries.               

        

6

Plato’s Theory of Communism

Plato’s theory of communism is just opposite to the Marxian theory of communism that seeks to eventually establish a classless and hence stateless society, as according to it, the state is the  instrument of the domination in the hands of ruling classes. Plato’s theory of communism is used as one of instruments of consolidation of the hierarchically ‘well ordered’ state through perpetuating class-division and class-domination, the other instrument being education. Plato’ Republic seeks to establish justice, i.e. the Ideal State where the philosophers, selflessly, rule with the help of the armed auxiliaries, over the masses involved in the material production of the society. Plato’s theory of communism is based on his belief of corrupting influences of family and property over the people holding the public offices that remains a historic fact and continuing norm. It is aimed at freeing the ruling classes, i.e. the philosophers and the warriors from the institutions of family and property. The vast producing masses are kept out of the realm of communism.  The longings for the family and property make the rulers self-seeking, indulgent, greedy and hence corrupt. This would be a diversion from and impediment to appropriate performance of their duty to rule not in their own but in public interest.

As noted before, the intellectuals react to and reflect upon their own time and space, i.e. their surroundings and conditions. They do not create justices/injustices, they only analyze; critique; explain; justify or challenge and provide alternatives to the already existing conditions. The war torn Athens in Plato’s time was in miserable conditions.  The City ( polis)  was divided into two cities, the city of the rich and the city of the poor and the rich could influence politics through money power. Sophists, “the roving universities” were professional teachers and would teach the children for a fee that only the rich could afford. There were no public educational institutions. The main subjects taught were eloquence and oratory and the demagogues influenced the public opinion. Corruption was quite rampant as is clear from the fact that Plato and other pupils of Socrates had bribed the civil and jail officials to facilitate his escape from the jail but Socrates had refused to.  The status of women was miserable as in any patriarchal society. They were forced by the custom to be consumed in domestic chores and child rearing.  Plato recognized the potential talent of women that was being wasted in marriage and the girls were married off in childhood itself. They were deprived of their public presence and were merely instruments of sexual satisfaction of husbands and looking after the kitchen and children. Hence his theory of communism seeks to abolish the institutions of property and family among the ruling classes to keep them incorruptible and dedicated to governance.

The Communism of Property

“Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent.” (IV, 278) 

The gist of Plato’s communism is the deprivation of all the members of the ruling classes, the guardians and soldiers from having any private property including private house, land or gold and silver (wealth). Their survival needs shall be taken care of by the commodities collected from the producing classes in the form of taxes. They shall live in the state managed barracks and eat in the common mess.  Plato’s communism is ascetic and aristocratic simultaneously. As has been already mentioned, communism applies to only the ruling classes and not for producing masses. The private ownership of property by ruling classes is to be replaced by their collective ownership of property and collective domination over the producing masses under the direction of the philosopher king with the coercive apparatus of the armed auxiliaries.  The ruling classes are forced to leave the longing for gold and silver and also of private families in the larger interest of the state. According to him, those classes which have the qualities of gold and silver within need not external silver or gold. They are the servants of the people and not the masters, a contradiction in terms. 

They shall be paid no salary or allowances, their essential needs shall be taken care of by the state. The longing for property corrupts the rulers and makes them greedy and selfish that would lead to instability of the state. The involvement of rulers into economic activities shall be a deviation from their role and commitment to justice, i.e. to serve the people by way of maintaining the class-divided social order. Also, in his opinion, family and property were the chief sources of disunity and social tension.

Plato’s arguments in defense of abolition of the institution of property among the ruling classes are not only economic in terms of the nature of ownership of means of production and exchange, but also moral, political and psychological. According to his basic assumptions of human nature and the principle of functional specialization, he opines on the moral grounds that everyone must accomplish one’s nature of achieving the requisite end by transcending self-interest. Contrary to the Sophist view that one exists and acts in the self-interest, Plato holds that individuals do not exist and act as individuals in the self-interest but exist as parts of collectivity (state) and must subordinate the self-interest to the collective interest. As the theory of communism is a corollary of the theory of justice of which the non-interference is one of the specific features, Philosophers and soldiers must not interfere in the economic activities, the prerogative of the ruled classes – the producing masses. Therefore it is imperative on the classes of philosophers and the warriors that they selflessly devote themselves to their duties of ruling and defending the state.

The philosophers and warriors are the embodiments of the cardinal virtues, wisdom and courage respectively; therefore they must save themselves from getting trapped into lowly faculty – the apatite, of which the desires and passions are the mean attributes. Appetite would blunt their reason or spirit and disturb the balanced equilibrium of the relationship between individual and the collectivity that would be detrimental to justice. Moreover the rulers are endowed with the inner qualities of gold and silver respectively and must not long for the external gold and silver. Plato during his visit to Egypt was impressed by his observation that the clergymen living ascetic life were the revered rulers. In India the supposedly ascetic priests enjoyed superior status in deciding the socio-political code of conduct. Hence he finds the discipline of communism essential for proper and just conduct of the rulers. He is pragmatic in concluding that the combination of political and economic power in the same hands is a deadly combination, destined to lead to corruption, dissension and hence instability of the state. Philosophically, people equipped with specific virtues of wisdom and courage must emancipate themselves from worldly longings and lead exemplary disciplined lives in accordance with the principles of communism. Plato’s primary purpose of abolition of private property among the ruling classes is political, i.e. stability of his Ideal state. Communism applies only to the ruling classes, a miniscule minority of the population. Plato is of the firm opinion about the wealth corrupting influence on politics; hence the rulers must be kept away from it, so that that the words ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ disappear from their vocabulary.

Communism of Wives

“…if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to a proof that a woman differs from men in respect of the sort of education she should receive; and we shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians [and] their wives ought to have the same pursuits.”  In the book V of the Republic, Socrates first convincingly proves the possibility of the equal potential in women at par with men, after considering all the possible objections and arguments against it,  arrives at the conclusion of the need of the abolition of the family. This was a revolutionary, novel idea to his time where women were married in childhood and confined to four walls of family and domestic chorus all their life. On the question of women stripping off in front of men and exercising with them, Socrates, though stops short of absolute equality on the ground of perceived weakness of physical strength, yet placed in its historical context, it is insignificant. “The wives of our guardians, then, must strip for exercise, since they will be clothed with virtue and they must take their share in war and in other social duties of guardianship. They are to have no other occupation; and in these duties, the lighter part must fall on the women because of the weakness of their sex. ………”. Plato in a way pleads for women’s emancipation from patriarchal families on the ground of their equality with men in all aspects if given the same conditions of bringing up, education and opportunities. Therefore confining women into the domestic chorus was wasting half of the potential social talent. “So far then in regulating the positions of women, we may claim to have come safely through one hazardous proposition that male and female guardians shall have all occupations in common. The consistency of the argument is an assurance that the plan is good and also feasible. …. .” And henceforth he moves to argue the indispensable need to abolish the institution of family itself for the ruling classes. His student, Aristotle, was furious over his giving away the “historic victory” of mankind in “enslaving women”, while declaring, “Dear is Plato, but dearer is the truth”.  

  The nomenclature, ‘communism of wives’ does not suit the content that is not about arrangement of ‘wives’ among the ‘husbands’ but abolition of the institution of family itself for the Guardians. There is no privacy and no scope of individual men and women forming any regular or permanent bond. Plato argues for the abolition of family on two counts. Firstly, family, according to him, is linked with property and is equally distractive and corrupting as property. Secondly, rulers must not waste time and energy in familial responsibility but devote themselves in the invention of the truth, i.e. in the comprehension of the Idea of the Good. Before coming to his idea of the regulated sexual intercourse and unique eugenics, let us quickly glance through Plato’s arguments against the family of guardians, apart from wastage of female social potentialities.

•         The emotive and impulsive attachment to the family fetters the absolute devotion to the state and concern for their offspring causes selfish tendencies detrimental to social unity and harmony. 

•         Family education is limited and inappropriate to instill the sense of absolute commitment to the state in future guardians. 

•         Family is a hurdle for women’s equal education and function as guardians and hence an obstruction in their emancipation.

•         Abolition of the institutions of marriage and family is essential for the moral development of guardians. Due to marriage men and women carelessly indulge into sexual intercourse, whenever they wish to instead of controlled and disciplined sex devoted to the procreation of the worthy children.

•         The maintenance of family needs wealth implying that the involvements of the guardians in economic activities interfering into the realm of economic producers, deviating from their political duties in violation of the principle of justice.

After critiquing the family, Plato proposes his new scheme, “…. A law that follows from that principle (male and female guardians having all occupations in common) and all that has gone before , namely that, of these guardians, no one man and one woman have to set up house together privately: wives have to be held in common by all; so too are the children. No parent is to know his/her own child or any child his parent.” All the children are brothers and sisters and all adults are their mothers and fathers. Aristotle had pejoratively commented that he would be happier to have even one distant cousin than hundreds of real brothers and sisters. Plato recommends discipline of asceticism not celibacy. The Ideal state would need future guardians. Plato recommends a state regulated sexual association of men and women on festive occasions for procreation and not for pleasure. “The worthy men and women, who have special accomplishments in the service of state must be coupled together more often for superior offspring.  Plato’s this scheme is based on his genetic conception, “bad crow lays bad eggs”. “….. . If we have to keep our folk at the highest pitch of excellence, there should be as much union of the best of both the sexes and as few of the inferior as possible and the offspring of the better unions should be kept (as future guardians). And no one else but the rulers must know how all this is being effected; otherwise out herd of guardians may become rebellious.” Rest will be “thrust out among the artisans and farmers”. The paring is done at festive occasions with all the enthusing activities of poetry and songs (befitting the occasion) and of course prayers and sacrifices. For the best unions the Ruler should intelligently maneuver the draw of lots. “They would have to invent some ingenious system of drawing lots, so that at each pairing off the inferior would blame his luck not the Rulers.” Plato undermines the emotive and impulsive aspects of human personality and subordinates them to rational aspects and considers sex not as a human need but only an instrument to produce future guardians. Let us conclude this discussion before going into their merits and demerits with a long quotation from the Republic (book V):

“As soon as children are born, they will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose, who may be men or women or both, because offices are to be shared by both the sexes. The children of the better parents they take to crèche to be reared in the care of nurses living apart in a certain quarter of the city. The children of inferior parents and any children of the rest that are defective are hidden away in some appropriate manner that must be kept secret.” It is to be noted that infanticide of the defective children was practiced in Sparta. What a unique eugenic theory and family planning scheme! “They must be if the breed of our guardians is to be kept pure”    

Conclusion

Ernest Barker calls Platonic communism as half communism. “It affects less than half of the persons and less than half of the goods of the society to which it belongs.” Barker’s quantification is very generous; it does not apply to even a hundredth of the population. Moreover, slavery, the specific feature of Greek glory, is completely missing from the discourse. Either slavery is abolished in his Ideal State or Plato finds slavery so insignificant and to be taken for granted and not worth reckoning. In the case of the first probability, he never tells about how it was abolished and nothing happens on its own, according to Newton's law of motion. His theory applies to only a parasitic (non-producers), miniscule minority of rulers, who rule over the vast majority of economic producers and traders, who in the then contemporary Athens were free and equal citizens with the right to participate in legal and juridical deliberations. If the Ideal State was to be established, in Athens, it would have involved the-enfranchisement of a large number of the free male population and disbanding the families of the first band of rulers. When he talks of the unity and the purity of the state, he simply means the unity of the ruling classes so that the philosopher kings could consolidate their rule over the producing masses with the help of the armed auxiliary. If property and family are the corrupting influence and vices for the ruling classes, why not free the entire population of these vices?

Plato’s concept of sexuality is not as a normal human attribute and need but simply as a tool of procreation of future rulers, whereas the toiling masses are left without education and subordinated to be fooled by myths  and illustrations, like the myth of metals. There is no scheme of upward mobility of the lower classes, though there is scope for downward mobility, as we have seen above that offspring of inferior couples and those born by unauthorized coupling are secretly thrust over the producing community, if not abandoned or buried in some remote corner. After through education and elimination tests, by way of meritocracy, Plato talks about taking to state crèche and state nursery only the legitimate children born out of state sponsored and manipulated temporary marriages. The Republic is silent about the education of the children of producing masses, condemned to remain deprived of Platonic scheme of education. Thus the Ideal State practically turns out to be an aristocracy without private families and property, living in a commune with unified domination over, and extracting surplus from the economic classes, the producers and the traders. Plato’s idea of abolishing the institution of family would have been a welcome gesture had it not been qualified by so many regulations, restrictions and manipulations over sexual intercourse between garrisoned elite men and women, not for mutual feelings, pleasure and passions. It is dehumanizing and mechanizing the emotive humane sensibilities under his superstitious genetic assumption, “bad crow”. His eugenics and family planning proposals are unique but cruel to physically handicapped and illegal children. Also he has no scheme for abolition of family for the vast masses. As an idealist he begins from scratch and theoretically constructs the Ideal State, i.e. from the perspective of the circumstances of his own choice and not in the given circumstances, transmitted from the past. Out of ignorance of genetic and biological laws, he links the restrained and regulated sexuality with one’s moral development that is not a product of the biological accident of birth. His student and first critic, Aristotle criticizes the common ownership of property and abolition of family, for wrong reasons, there is no scope here to go into details. The family is certainly a conservative institution that breeds unfreedoms and inequalities but abrupt abolition of family would not be readily accepted and would lead to socio-economic anarchy. To abolish the family, a particular form and level of consciousness in needed. The first step towards it would be democratizing the family by rejecting the patriarchal social values and sense of possessiveness. This would be possible only in a classless society of human emancipation and not in a hierarchical society of class consolidation.

Though he allows theoretical equality of women with men but contradicts himself by his many remarks in the Republic and elsewhere. For instance, “I am fortunate to be born as a free man not a slave; a man and not a woman….” Apart from his acknowledgement that women are physically weaker (Rep.  V, 170), at places he brackets them with the duffers and slaves (IX 341). He advises the superior men not only against following the example of rascals and criminals but also not that of women (II, 96-97). The sinner men of this life are born as women in the other. (V, 195-96). Everything said and done, despite his regressive notions of transcendence of soul, paradoxes in his views on women and restricting this equality only to the ruling class women, given his historical context, Plato’s views on women’s potentialities of acquiring education and holding public offices, are quite radical. A text can be better understood by placing it into the appropriate context.   

   

Comparison with modern Communism – the Marxian Communism

Comparison between two diverse things belonging to different time and space separated by over 2,000 years is not only inconvenient but also irrelevant. Plato was writing in a time and space characterized by slavery in democratic Athens aimed at creation of ‘meritocracy’ based classes and replacing the democratic governance with an Ideal State ruled by the wise (and only few are endowed with the ability to wisdom) with the help of its courageous armed auxiliaries. The aim of his communism was to consolidate the class rule by keeping the members of the ruling class united by freeing/depriving them of the private family and property. 

Marx was writing in the time and space characterized by industrial capitalism and wage slavery, and his theory of communism is aimed at eventually ending the class differences leading to a classless society, based on the basic principle of equality of human dignity, which shall make the state unnecessary and shall wither away. In the stateless society, the management of the people shall be replaced by management of things. The communism of Plato is meant to consolidate the hierarchical social ordering, in Marxian communism; there is no hierarchy except the hierarchy of knowledge, the technical hierarchy based on functional specialization, for coordinating the collective labor processes. Karl Popper wrote Open Society and its Enemies (Vol. 1, The Spell of Plato & Vol.2, The Spell of Marx) in 1945, in the aftermath of the 2nd World War that witnessed the emergence of the USSR as a world power representing an alternative model of economic development and governance . It is to be noted that in 1945 there was no danger of the totalitarian Communism of Plato’s Ideal State ruled by the Philosopher but the danger of the Marxian Communism ruled by the proletariat themselves through their collective organization, the communist party. After the Bolshevik revolution, The Ten Days That Shook the World (John Reed) and foundation of the Third International – The Communist International (Comintern), most of the capitalist countries had Communist Parties with substantial influence among workers, teachers and students. It is also to be noted that when the capitalist world was reeling under the great depression, USSR beginning from the scratch under the state controlled planned development not only remained unaffected but also emerged as a big economic and military power. Hence the threat of the communist danger, Popper thought, could be combated by vilifying its ideological basis – Marxism – by describing it as Totalitarian. For doing so, he invents the historical links of the so-called totalitarian philosophies from Plato to Marx via Rousseau.

Perceived Similarities

However let us quickly look into the similarities and differences pointed out by those who have compared the two.

•         Both give priority to the state over individual but we know that the future alternative to capitalism, the Marxian communism is a stateless society; the state of dictatorship of proletariat is only a transitional phase, the state of political emancipation, on the way to communism, the state of human emancipation.

•         Both consider individual interest to be safest in the collective social interest.  But social interest for Plato is the interest of the ruling classes to which it exclusively applies and the social interest for Marx is the interest of the vast producing masses. 

•         Some point out that both recommend the abolition of private property as a source of vices. This is a mistaken analogy. Plato recommends abolition of private parties among the rulers to enable their united control over the producing masses. Marxian communism seeks to end the ownership and the control of the ruling classes over the means of production and overall economic activities and transfer it to the producers, the working class. 

     

•         Another point of similarity is state controlled education but Plato’s educational process is a regimented one aimed at training the ruling classes while under the state of proletarian dictatorship, there would be uniform and compulsory school education for all and higher education according to one’s aptitude and choice.

•         Another point of perceived similarity is the creation of a society free from exploitation, tension and conflict that would be based on the principles of fraternity, solidarity and harmony. But here again Plato's communism is applicable to only ruling classes and Marx’s universally. 

•         Both emphasize unity but Plato’s unity is hierarchical, whereas Marxism emphasizes the unity of working classes to end the ruling class hegemony.

These are few untenable points of similarity, while differences are basic and fundamental, let us quickly overview them too.

Differences

A. Historical:  As pointed out above both are historically placed at different time-spaces. Plato’s theory is based on logical explanation of history and Marx’s on the economic in terms of dominant modes of production. Plato’s theory is meant for 4th century BC small city states and Marx’s communism is an alternative to capitalism that has a global character and hence the communism too would be global, that is why Marx called for the unity of the workers of all the countries.

B.           Philosophically:  Plato’s theory is based on spiritual idealist principles consequent to his basic assumptions about eternity, transcendence and the trilogy of the soul, whereas Marx’s is based on the principles of dialectical materialism linked with historical materialism that could be empirically verified. Plato locates the reality in the invisible Idea of Good and Marx in the visible material conditions. For Plato, the visible world is a shadow of world of ideas, the Real Reality existing beyond the time and space, the progenitor of the world of objects. That is to say Plato accords primacy to ideas over object but according to Marxism, historically objects have existed without ideas and historically ideas have emanated from the object. Hence primacy lies with the object, which in a dialectic unity with its idea forms the totality of the reality. According to Plato, truth and moralities are eternal and objective but Marxism does not recognize any final truth, the concept of which varies according to time and space. The moral values are created and perpetuated in the class interest of the ruling classes. Both believe in dialectics and dialectical composition of nature and the universe but Marx’s reference point is not Platonic but Hegelian dialectics, which he put upside down, as it stands on the head. Platonic dialectics aims at invention of truth the one in many; the permanent in the changing world and the comprehension of the “Idea of Good” that cannot be defined but only contemplated. Marxian dialectics aims at the comprehension and interpretation of the contradictions of the system and the dynamics of the quantitative evolutionary and qualitative revolutionary changes. Plato believes in the eternity of the reality, Marx, like Heraclitus, believes in the eternity of the change; and historically proves that continuous, evolutionary, quantitative changes, in course of time mature into revolutionary qualitative changes, leading to overall transformation of economic, political and intellectual structures. There is no scope here to go into the details of the dialectical materialism, which says that anything that exists is destined to perish and capitalism is no exception. End of Plato’s philosophy is justice that means a well ordered class society and that of Marx’s science is annihilation of the classes, as there cannot be justice in a class society based on the perpetuation of class domination and exploitation. Plato contemplates the rule of philosopher king and Marx termed philosophy as ideology and reserves more respectable term science for his critique of the political economy.

C.    Politically: Plato’s communism is for the purity of ruling classes to competently maintain the well-ordered class rule whereas Marxian communism for the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat through sustained class struggle and eventually for a classless, stateless society.

D.    Economically: Plato deprives the ruling classes from property to uncorrupted efficient class rule over the producing classes, Marxism seeks to abolish the private ownership of the means of production and replace it with the collective ownership of the producers, themselves.

E.   Plato’s society is a class society with ruling classes practicing communism of property and wives, Marxian communism is a classless society in which men and women live as equal comrades.

Thus we can conclude the theories of communism of Plato cannot be compared with the Marxian communism, as both of them not only belong to two distant time and spaces but also have contrasting premises, one is idealist and other propounded the theory of historical materialism.

 

7

 Conclusion

 

Plato’s strength and weakness lies in his ability to confront, ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be. His Ideal State is not a utopia and that the Republic not addressed to no one. The Republic is a passionate plea by an aristocratic Athenian to his fellow Athenians to overthrow the existing ‘corrupt’ and ‘inefficient’ democratic government by the deal State ruled by the wise philosopher and defended by courageous warriors on the economic foundation created by the economic classes. The flight of the future model is not limited by the present issues. Plato argued that politics is neither a matter of force nor numbers but a matter of scientific deliberation.    

II

The Statesman (The Politicus):  The Second best way of rule  

Introduction 

Plato’s Republic, considered being the foundational text of the western Political Philosophy, is a work of a poetic flight with the youthful imagery and idealism of a young philosopher from an aristocratic Athenian background. The republic is the abode of a future dreamland, unrestricted by trivialities and the lacunas of the present.  His student, Aristotle criticized him for focussing only on the theoretical best at the cost of the existing reality. He seems to have welcomed and heeded the criticism. In his late political works, The Statesman and The Laws, he tries to be practical and do away with the stamp of impracticality from his political philosophy. In these works he pays sufficient attention to the actually existing states and their functioning. “Plato makes peace with reality and acknowledges that there is room in political life for consent and law and constitutionalism”. (Barker, Greek Political Theory, p. 330). Maybe the stability of the Athenian democratic system had softened his stand towards the existing political reality.  “The mood in Plato’s late political works has dimmed. Fiery ideals burn less bright; his view of man’s nature has fallen; his faith in radical reforms has given way to more modest hopes.” (George Klosko, The Development of Plato’s Political Theory, Methuen, NY, 1986, p.183) The speculations about the reasons for the shift in his views are unnecessary here. His experiences of Cecily seem to be one of them to have influenced his thought. In The Statesman, Plato seems to be a bit disillusioned with the ideals of the Republic, not due to any issue with the quality of the ideals, as their echoes are heard in the Statesman and the Laws. His disillusionment with the theoretical best of the Republic and shift towards the practical, second best way of rule seems to have emerged from the consideration of practicability. In the Statesman, the ideals of the Republic are replaced by the prevailing reality.  

The literary flavor of the Republic is missing in it. In The Statesman Socrates is only a peripheral character and totally absent in The Laws. The Statesman presents a clearer picture of social and economic structures, as they existed in Plato’s time (4th century BC),  than the Republic. (Skemp, p.43) In it, the statesman is presented as the royal weaver, who weaves the society in a fabric. There is neither scope nor the need for a detailed discussion on weaving. The weaver produces the fabric as the final product assisted by the providers of the tools and the raw materials and other helpers.  The statesman weaves the society with the assistance of various auxiliaries determined by the division of the society into practitioners of various arts and social utility. 

  Republic is not a utopia, addressed to no one. It is not a utopia but a passionate appeal to his fellow Athenians to overthrow the existing democratic rule and replace it with the Ideal State, guided by the philosophers.  For Plato, democracy was the rule of numbers and not wisdom. Plato’s First City of the Republic, a simple city of “happy freedom” but lacking the guidance of reason resembles the existing Athenian democratic society.  In order to bring it under the guidance of the reason, he theorizes the ideal state. In course of time, possibly, he realized the non-practicability of the Ideal State in the foreseeable future.  So, in the Statesman, he theorizes an alternative model, in which the statesman replaces the philosopher king. But when he argues that the exalted position of the statesman rests on knowledge of the art of statesmanship, he transports the philosopher king-in-disguise from the Republic to the Statesman. “Plato elaborates the nature of the Statesman in such a way that he becomes more or less indistinguishable from the Republic’s philosopher king” (Klosko, p. 190)  

The Statesman is the transitional text between The Republic and The Laws, his last work, which he was still working on, when he bade goodbye to the planet earth (BC 347). The Statesman is considered to have been authored around BC 366-360, during and in the aftermath of his visits to Cecily to guide into philosophy, the successive rulers of Syracuse, the Dionysus I and II respectively. (J.B. Skemp, Plato’s Statesman, Bristol Classical Press, Bristol, 1952, pp.17-18)

The characters of this dialogue are Socrates; Theodorus, a mathematician; an unnamed visiting philosopher from Elea (the Eleatic Stranger) and another young person, also named Socrates, a young student of the Academy (Young Socrates).  The mouthpiece of Plato in the Republic is Socrates. In the Statesman, his presence is nominal. He and Theodorus briefly introduce and reflect on the discussion to be taken over by the Eleatic Stranger and the young Socrates. They carry on the dialectical investigation into the nature of the statesman. 

In the Statesman, Plato presents “the second best method of rule, which throws more light on the actual social and economic life prevailing in contemporary Greece than the Republic and is more ordered and fundamental in method than The Laws. (Skemp, p.22) The invisible Forms (or the Ideas) of The Republic were never completely abandoned but the visible copies of the invisible are more closely studied. It proposes the governance by the Statesman, who is well-versed in the art of statesmanship. This is the work of the matured philosopher with the experiences of prolonged teaching at the Academy and few unsuccessful attempts to introduce the rulers into Philosophy. In a way the Statesman is an improvisation of the doctrines of the philosopher kings/queens of the Republic. But in it, there is no room for the communism of property and the family. This means that unlike the Guardians of the Republic, the statesman is not deprived of the family and the private property. Also, the prolonged description of the meticulously planned, protracted system of the education of the guardians with carefully prepared and censored course curriculum is missing. But the importance of education as a tool to politically mold the personalities, has not been ignored (Klosko, 192). Seeing the over emphasis on education in the Republic, Rousseau considered it as the “finest treatise of education ever written”. It emphasizes that the true statesmen equipped with the knowledge of the art of governance (kingship), “know what the best for their cities is”. (R.F. Stalley, An Introduction to Plato’s Laws, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983, p. 17)

The Statesmanship 

A statesman is a political person having specific knowledge and expertise in directing political affairs. The central message of the Statesman is that sovereignty lies with the rule of statesmanship, i.e., with the knowledge of weaving together into a fabric the diverse functional divisions and diverse personalities of the society and of directing the various divisions into appropriately practicing their functional arts. 

    The Eleatic Stranger begins the discussion with the declaration that statesmanship is an art (or science). “Statesmanship is an art….. It may well be practiced by an expert adviser not actually wielding the actual political power but guiding the wielder of it. It is a theoretic art rather than a manual one, but it is ‘applied’, and not pure like mathematical calculation.” (J.B. Skemp, Plato’s Statesman, Bristol Classical Press, Bristol, 1987, p. 113) The Statesman is the specialist practitioner of the art of statecraft with the help of subordinate functionaries’ over the non-specialist population. Such specialized knowledge resides in one person or a very small number of persons. It may not reside in the actual possessor of political authority at all, but in a competent advisor whom he consults and who is as entitled to be called as statesman as the ruler himself (JB Skemp,  40). In their attempt to define the art of the statesmanship, Eleatic Stranger (ES) and Young Socrates (YS) use the methods of analogies of the shepherd and weaving; the myths of Cronus and Zeus and the   division of the society among various functional strata performing different socio-economic functions under the guidance and the direction of the statesman.  

Like in the Republic, Plato uses the methods of analogies; similes and myths in the Statesman also. To define the statesman, on the one hand he uses the analogy of the shepherd, who nourishes and tends the people like the shepherd does to his sheep. And on the other hand, he uses the analogy of the weaver, who weaves different strata of the society into an organic whole, like the weaver weaves the fabric. He also uses the myths of the divine age of the Cronus and the subsequent age of the Zeus for analogies to arrive at the appropriate definition of the statesman. Here the details of all the matters covered by Plato in The Statesman are unnecessary. Our concern is Plato’s account of a true statesman and his functions.

The Definition 

The analogy of the shepherd

The Eleatic Stranger (ES) begins his definition with the analogy of the shepherd. The Statesman is a practitioner of the art of “nurturing” or rearing the human herds, like a shepherd does to his sheep. The ES is not fully convinced with this definition and shares his dissatisfaction with the Young Socrates (YS). He feels that the art of statesman does not pertain to “rearing” and nurturing only but tending them, i.e., taking care of them also. “The statesmanship is therefore the art of tendance” (Skemp, 114)

The myths

  To improve upon this definition they take recourse to the comparative myths of the age of Cronus and the age of Zeus. The former was long past. It was “the golden age, during which God directly controlled the universe. It was a time of plenty, there was no need to labor and there was no want. In those times, there was no need for property and there was neither politics nor war. But the age of Cronus came to an end ushering into the age of Zeus. God no longer controlled the course of things and men were left to their own devices.” In the age of Cronus, the divine Statesman was, “superior to his human flock, as shepherd to his sheep”. In the age of Zeus the Statesman is as human as other people whom he has to rule over. (Klosko, 190-91). The inference can be made from the comparative discussion on myths that the idea of Ideal State is like the age of Cronus without the institutions of private family and the property. The task at hand was to find a true statesman in the age of Zeus. The message of the story of the myths indicates Plato’s disillusionment with the Ideal State of the Republic ruled by more than human philosophers.

Thus in identifying the statesman and his art, Plato through ES moves away from the belief in the ideal political system of the Republic. “The Statesman mastered the art (or science) of ruling and this is the sole identifying feature. His rule is to be untrammeled by either laws or the desire of the subjects. ….. The Statesman possesses the kind of wisdom that went into drawing up the original laws. Thus he should be allowed to adjust the laws to the changed circumstances.” (Klosko, p.190) In the Statesman Plato’s concern with the laws is to the extent of their being embodiment of social desires and aspirations. As the Statesman has mastered the art of the statesmanship i.e., the governance, he knows, what is best for the governed. He needs not always seek their consent. To justify his views in this regard he draws the simile of the doctor who administers the medicine to his patients irrespective of their consent, as long as he has the interest of the patient in mind.  The only condition is that he exercises scientific intelligence aimed at the good of the governed. It sounds like the echo of the philosopher king of the Republic. In the Statesman, Plato is quite ambiguous regarding the peoples’ consent. As mentioned above, he argues that a true statesman acting in the interest of people need not bother about their consent.  But at one point he also underlines consent as distinguishing factor between a Statesman and a tyrant. (Klosko, pp. 191-92)

The Analogy of the Weaving 

The art of statesmanship is the directive art over the other arts of the social and political utility required to its appropriate functioning. This art involves the decision to tell other arts about when and how they should be applied.  “The General knows the art of war but only the Statesman is qualified to say when and how the art of war should be employed.” (Klosko, p.192) Every art, which ministers the needs of an organized human community, must be classed as contributory. For without the things provided by these arts there could be no community and so no art to rule; and yet we can hardly regard them as the duty of kingly art to produce any of these things.” The whole analysis of the society is in terms of functions of the particular professional with economic production at the base and the statesmanship at the apex point. The higher services are rendered by clerks, heralds and priests. The direct auxiliaries of the Statesman are the “educators; orators; judicatures; generals and magistrates.” (Skemp, p. 46) Unlike the Republic, in which Plato devotes enormous space to the education and training of the Guardians, in the Politicus (Statesman) there is no description of the training of the Statesman or the source of his art of ruling but describes the “prime function of ruling as is actually exercised in the community”. He not overtly but covertly tells us “that the true Statesman has that gift of insight into the nature of True Reality, which gives the moral strength fit for the exercise of his supreme task.” (Skemp, 51)

Plato explains the art of statesmanship as the directive art by the simile of the weaving, through the discussion between ES and YS. “The art specifically concerned with producing clothes, we will describe from the name of the product, as the ‘clothes working’ art, just as we called the art of controlling a state, statesmanship. We may also say that the art of weaving – at any rate that a very large section of it concerned with the production of clothes – is distinct in nothing but the name from the ‘art of the clothes-working’, just as the arts of Kingship and Statesmanship, as synonymous. Plato portrays the political art of statesmanship as weaving in terms of the process of weaving and the quality of the fabric it produces. The art of waving is presented as the paradigmatic analogy for the political art of Statesmanship in terms of incorporating different entities and joining diverse threads into a cohesive political unit. Plato through the ES defines the art of statesmanship with the example of weaving and “proceeds to a series of divisions in order to define this art. It must be distinguished from arts of manufacture of kindred fabrics, from separative arts, like the art of carding and from merely subordinate arts, whose products are nevertheless necessary for the weaver, such as manufacturing the shuttles. Only after distinguishing weaving from all these can we claim to have defined it.” (Skemp, 115)

After distinguishing the art of weaving from subordinate arts he proceeds to define the art of statesmanship “in the political human community. As there were subordinate arts, which merely produced the tools to make weaving possible, so there are subordinate functions in the human community”. (Skemp, 116).

Divisions

In his scheme of divisions and subdivision of the society, Plato specifies three such classes of the subordinate functions: 

1: Primary producers of the physical requirements of the community. 2: Personal menial servants; labourers; traders and venturers. 

3: Clerks, heralds, soothsayers and priests. 

He distinguishes the rule of the statesman from the existing six categories of law-abiding and law-flouting constitutions respectively, as monarchy and tyranny; aristocracy and oligarchy and democracy and democracy on the basis of numbers of rulers. And then opines that “the statesmanship is the seventh constitution to be distinguished from all these six, as the God from the men. His relative assessment of the existing constitutions seems to anticipate Aristotle’s classification of the constitutions in terms of the number and the virtue in Politics. Both, the teacher and the disciple have similar relative characterisation of the pure and impure constitutions. In pure (law abiding) form rule of one, i.e. monarchy is the best followed by aristocracy and democracy, the rules of the few and the many respectively. In perverted (law flouting) forms the order is reversed, democracy being the most tolerable, oligarchy the worse and the tyranny the worst. 

Coming back to divisions in the society, the auxiliaries or subordinates of the true statesman at the apex are: “the orators, military leaders and the judicature. …… The orator’s skill in public speaking and the military man’s strategy do not belong to the statesman as such but are to be at his service, entirely and unquestionably, as and when required. Likewise the statesman prescribes the rules for judicature.” (Skemp, 118) Apart from weaving various professional arts, the statesman’s duty also involves weaving different kinds of personalities also, as society not only consists of many people but many kinds of people. There are two basic kinds of personalities, “dominated by quiet and active principles respectively, or otherwise stated, possessing moderation and energy”. (Klosko, 192).  From this follows that society consists of dialectically opposite personalities and the art of statesmanship is to establish a dialectical unity between them or “to weave the different personality types.” This he seeks to do by tightly controlled education to counteract people’s natural tendencies and also by ensuring marriages between “different personality types so that the resulting children partake of both the natures.”(Klosko, 192). Another way he suggests is distribution of the offices between different personality types. “When a single magistrate happens to be needed, the statesman must choose a man possessing both the characteristics and set him in authority. Where several magistrates are wanted, he must bring together some representatives of each type to share the duties.” (Skemp, 234)    

Conclusion

 In the Statesman, Plato formally departs from the view of two worlds of the Republic, this- worldly visible world, i.e., the world of objects and the other worldly invisible world, i.e., the world of the Ideas or the Forms, in which the priority lies with the former. In it the focus is on this worldly or the living world. The rule of the scientific intelligence of the statesman with the mastery in the art of statesmanship and the ability to know what the best is for the people, echoes the rule of the philosopher king of the Republic and foreshadows the rule by law of the Laws. Thus we can say that the Statesman stands midway between the Republic and the Laws, or as mentioned above it is the transitional text between the two. 

In the Statesman Plato views the governance as a specialised art to take care the interests of all the people in the state. It is a directive art of all the other arts. The practitioner of art need not be the real ruler who wields power over the people of the community but even someone who does not wield power but guides the real wielder of the power; the one whom the wielder of the power consults. The statesman possesses the knowledge of ruling justly in the interests of all the people. To drive his point, Plato uses the analogies of a shepherd who tends his herd and the weaver who weaves a fabric with the help of providers of the tools and the raw material as his auxiliaries. Like shepherd, the statesman tends the human herd and like weaver, the statesman weaves different section of the society in the social fabric with the help of his auxiliaries who practice different arts of social utility.    

In nutshell the Statesman the rule of the statesmanship consisting of the knowledge of the best interest of the people and the ability to weave the different human threads into a fabric; like a weaver does in case of weaving the cloth and to nurture, nourish and tend them, like a shepherd. This means directing and coordinating the practitioners of various kinds of subordinate arts necessary to maintain the political community. As has been pointed out above that it is not necessary that the real wielder of power possesses quality of the statesmanship, it may be possessed by someone else, whom he often consults. 

III

The Laws: The Second Best State

The Laws is Plato’s last work on political philosophy. He was still working on it at the time of his death. Plato authored the Republic as a young man of 40 years; and the Laws at 70. It is the work of an old man, disillusioned with the idealism of the theoretical best of the Republic. The Republic is the poetic fight of a young man into a futuristic space, the Ideal state, ruled by the commune dwelling, philosopher kings/queens.   But in his old days he realizes the infeasibility of the Ideal and reconciles to the second best state ruled by laws in the Laws. The Republic is the work of youthful idealism with the futuristic optimism of philosophic rule. But in his lifetime, neither did the philosophers become kings nor did the kings become philosophers. So instead of sticking to the rule of philosophers, he moved on to advocate the rule of the law. The dialogue, the Laws, reflects “a mood of tiredness and resignation”. (Klosko, 198)   In the Republic, the authority of the philosopher king is unlimited by laws or the consent of the governed. This principle, more or less, applies to the authority of the true statesman in the Statesman also. But in the Laws, “no person is exempt from the rule of the law”, as the power corrupts and the absolute power corrupts absolutely”. (Quoted in the Internet Encyclopaedia of philosophy, ttps://iep.utm.edu/pla-laws/). Plato's search for the desirable form of governance begins with the rule of the philosopher kings in the ideal state, passes through the rule of a true statesman with the mastery of the art of statesmanship and arrives at the rule of the law, under a mixed government. 

Therefore he proposes the rule of the laws and places sovereignty in the legal code to be implemented by the combined methods of persuasion and compulsion. The citizens should be persuaded with the convincing reason to obey its commands, i.e. to abide by the laws, as it was in their own best interest. If the persuasion does not work, they should be compelled to follow with the fear of punishment associated with the laws. Plato’s second best state, as described in the Laws, is more democratic than the ideal state of the Republic. The governance is conducted by some sort of representatives. The dialogue, Laws, covers very many dimensions of social life, psychology to metaphysics. There is neither scope nor need to go into their details.  We will limit our concern to only the political dimensions of social life, i.e., the proposed state and its functioning. In Laws, Plato proposes a mixed constitution based on law.  And the law is “an embodiment or expression of reason and an object of knowledge”. (Stalley, 28)

.The characters and the Setting 

       In the Statesman, Socrates is a peripheral character; in the Laws, he totally disappears. The dialogue is set in the Greek island, Crete. The characters in the Laws are three elderly men from three different city states, Cleinias from Crete; Megillus from Sparta and an unnamed philosopher from Athens (Athenian Stranger), probably a stand-in for Plato himself (Klosko, 198). They discuss the law for a new Cretan colony, Magnesia in their day-long journey from Cnossos to the sacred cave of Zeus, the Cretan God of the law. They are tracing the path, Minos along with his father, would travel every nine years to seek Zeus’s advices for the laws. Minos was an ancient Cretan law giver. The Athenian Stranger is the protagonist, the chief spokesperson. One of the specific attributes of the Laws is the emphasis on a mixed constitution. Plato’s the second best state, i.e. the ideal city in the Laws is far more democratic than the ideal city in the Republic. For such a voluminous conversation it seems to be the longest day of the year. (The Project Gutenberg EBook of Laws, by Plato (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1750/1750-h/1750-h.htm) The companions start their conversation at dawn, and arrive at the conclusion in the late evening at the cave, which may be supposed to be the very cave at which Zeus gave his oracles to Minos. They discuss the laws for a new, imagined Cretan colony, Magnesia.  

       Throughout most of the work, the Athenian discourses without interruptions from the other two interlocutors. Disillusioned with the practicality of the idea of the philosopher kings, Plato recommends a rigorous system of education and control with the rule of the law to be implemented by persuasion and compulsion. Plato goes “so far as to advocate the death penalty for the citizens of his state, who fail to be persuaded.” There is neither scope nor the need of going into all the aspects of this voluminous work, we shall confine to the functioning of the state apparatuses and his desired end, which “is the virtue, both for the individual and the state.” Like in the Republic, in the laws too he draws “the analogy between the individual and the state.”  Like the Republic, in the Laws also the aim is to “insure that the reason controls the passion”. In the Republic, it is accomplished by the philosophic rule, in the Laws, by the force of the law, “which is the codification of reason”. (Klosko, 199) The laws once established cannot be easily altered.

An Overview

Like in the Statesman in the Laws too, Plato, overtly-covertly, brings in the myth of the long past age of Cronus in which the Gods controlled the universe. But in the exciting world, the mortal beings were to rule over their likes, so the rule of the law is preferred. The institution of communism is advisable in the ideal state of the Republic, ruled by the more-than human philosophers. In the ideal state of the Laws, his second best state, the institutions of the family and the property regulations become necessary (Book V). In the Republic, the philosopher kings are able to comprehend the public interest and pursue the policies to protect and preserve it. But in the case of ordinary mortals, the rule of law would be necessary to preserve the public interest. Unlike the ideal state of the Republic in which the Guardians live in the communes, in the ideal state of the Laws, all citizens live with their families and take part in the political and economic affairs under the rule of law, the supreme authority.

       The Education

Education gets such a prominent focus in the Republic that many centuries later; Rousseau finds it to be the best treatise on education ever written. Like in the Republic, in the Laws also the education acquires a central position. In the former it is meant to train the Guardians, in the latter it is meant to discipline and order the passion of the citizens. Though the ambit of the citizenship is the privileged, leisured class, who don’t work for their livelihood, the non-citizens do it for them, as they need leisure to perform their political and intellectual functions. It aims at inculcating in would-be citizens (children) the ideas of goodness or the virtue that they would require when they become adults. The good is a predicate that needs a subject, like a good teacher; a good craftsman; a good soldier; good statesman etc. Therefore, “education may be defined as a matter of training to the young to be good at whatever pursuit they will have to follow as adults.”(Stalley, 123)  The commissioner of the education is most important person. He is a prominent member of the Nocturnal Council entrusted with the overall supervision of the functioning of the state apparatuses, which Plato cleverly introduces at the end of the text.

“Plato recommends a comprehensive system of education, which he describes in elaborate details, and which is to embrace all aspects of citizens’ lives from before they are born until they die.” (Klosko, 202) In the ideal state of the Republic, the education is meant for the Guardian classes. Higher education is meant for the select few, in the Laws also. But early education is intended for all citizens. As he feels that the men are basically moved by passions of pleasure and pain, education, in his second best state of the Laws, focuses on these. He emphasizes the habituation and conditioning from childhood as the children can be “molded like wax”, a repetition of his argument from the Republic.  He emphasizes the vulnerability of the young children to the habituation; “because of the force of the habit, it is in infancy that the whole character is most effectually determined”. (Quoted in Klosko, 202) The primary target of education is to convince the child that the good life is also a happy one and that virtue and happiness are intimately related. In the Republic, the education begins at the time of the birth, in the Laws, it begins before the birth. In saying so, he anticipates Aristotle’s views on education of the children, aiming at habituating them to a particular way of thinking, since their conception in the mother’s womb. (Aristotle, Politics)

 Course curriculum of education in the Laws is similar to that of the primary education as in the Republic: the contiguous mobility up to the age of three years; games from three to six and training in various physical activities and gymnastics. Thereafter boys and girls are separated, though their education is very close to each other. From the age of ten the emphasis is on reading and writing skills and from sixteen to twenty training in military skills and arithmetic. (Klosko, 203) Throughout their childhood, the children must be closely watched and supervised. He views a child as a raw creature to be beaten to shape. In his view, “Of all wild things, the child is most unmanageable: an unusually powerful spring of reason, whose waters are not yet canalized in the right direction, makes him sharp and shy, the most unruly animal there is.” (Quoted in Klosko, 204-05) Children would sing the learned songs so regularly that songs become chants and get internalized by the singer. 

       Like in the Republic, in the Laws also Plato underlines the importance of musical forms and the education “for the beauty and harmony of the correct moral standards” in the children. As in the Republic, in the Laws too Plato recommends careful and strict scrutiny and the censorship of the poets and artists. He recommends “philosophy to be the only permissible poetry”. (Klosko, 204)

       Like the Republic, in the Laws also, the education is to be state controlled. Plato underlines the theoretical aspect of education in the Republic, in the Laws; he underlines its organizational aspect. The schools are state controlled and the teachers, the salaried state employees. Decision over the course curriculum is the state prerogative. Apart from the formal education in state managed schools, Plato pays attention to parental care also. This moral training in one way or the other continues even after the children become adults. Attainment of virtue, which in the Laws is temperance, is a lifelong process. “Every gentleman must have a time table prescribing what he has to do every minute of his life, which he should follow all the times from the dawn of one day until the sun comes up at the dawn of the next ''. (Laws, 807-e, quoted in Klosko, 205). “Plato insists that people need little sleep, so his citizens will be allowed to sleep only as much as health requires.” (Klosko, 205). One of the objectives of education is to build a public opinion in accordance with the statute of the law.

The Virtue: temperance

Another objective of education is the inculcation of virtue in the future citizens. As men are moved by passion, therefore refraining from passions, i.e. temperance is the virtue. The virtue of temperance is acquired by the guidance of the passion “by the judgements of the reason as enshrined in the law”. (Stalley, 50) This implies that citizens should follow the laws; respect the state institutions and accept the sovereignty of the rule of the law. Plato opines that the unity, freedom and consensus in the state can be established by temperance.

The Social System

The prolonged conversation between the Athenian stranger with Cleinias from Crete and Megillus from Sparta is concerning suitable laws for an imagined, new founded, Cretan colony, Magnesia. It was such a long day that the daylong conversation, en-route to the cave of the Zeus from Knossos in Crete between three elderly people from three different states, fills up 12 long books (chapters) of the voluminous text. The discussion is about a constitution for newly founded Cretan colony Magnesia. It is located 10 miles from the sea so that commercial activities are not encouraged. It is inhabited by 5040 families. “This number is chosen because it is divisible by all the numbers between 1 and 12 except 11 and is therefore a very convenient number if one wants to divide the state into groups of different sizes for different purposes”. (Stalley, 100) Apart from mathematical calculation Plato seems to recommend the desirable size of the state not big enough to affect the mutual affinity among the citizens and their unity. This number remains constant. He is not very explicit about the population control devices to keep the population constant except “to persuade the citizens to maintain a suitable rate of reproduction.” (Stalley 100) Unlike the Republic, in which his state is a collection of individuals, living in communes, he Laws envisages the state to be a union of families.

Magnesia is, bay-and-large, an agricultural society with the modestly fertile land. If it is excessively fertile, there would be surplus production, which would need to be exported and will encourage trade. If it is infertile or less fertile, citizens would be forced to live by trade. The citizens in the ideal state of the Laws, i.ePlato's second best state, are discouraged from indulging into trade and commerce. The trade and the commerce would be conducted by foreigners or foreign residents. Citizens’ function is limited to political, intellectual and military realms.  

Though Magnesia is a fictitious city (state) but Plato intelligently places his imagery into the historical context of the real world. The city has a particular geographical location and particular historical growth. “Plato’s historical survey is surely fanciful and largely fictitious, but what is striking and original about the Laws is that he makes use of the conclusions that his historical investigation casts upon.” (Klosko, 206) Many governmental and social features of the second best state, the ideal state of the Laws, are derived from the actual states. Plato’s fascination towards Sparta continues from the Republic to the Laws. In the Laws he gives up the idea of communism and allows family and property to the citizens. In it also, like in the Republic, Plato allows women the right to education and participation in political and military activities and may be allowed political rights of holding some subordinate public offices, after the age of 40. Also they can bear arms; ride and participate in the activities of the armed forces. The marital relations will get legal sanction, but would remain under the supervision of the state authorities. In Athens legally the women were under the guardianship of the father; husband and the son during various stages of their life. In the Magnesia of the Law, women’s conditions are improvisation over the existing one. In particular circumstances women are allowed to marry the man of her choice.      

The Economic System

Plato envisages the division of the land of the state into plots of equal value. One plot is allotted to each of the 5040 inhabitant families of the state, which will be inalienable. He proposes allotment of two plots to each family, one nearer the city and the other in the countryside. The task of agricultural production will be based on slave labor. (Stalley, 102; 106-09; 110-11, 120). The produce is divided into three parts: one for consumption of the citizens in the common kitchen, one for slaves and one for the sale to foreign residents. “Plato believes that commerce exacerbates tensions within societies, leading to polarization and civil war.(Klosko, 208-09)

In the Laws, the citizens have the right to property but with a ceiling. A strict record is maintained of the holdings. The property cannot exceed four times the value of their land. The property in excess of the legally sanctioned limit would be confiscated by the state. “Wealth and poverty will be tightly controlled”. (Klosko, 209) The state is divided into four economic classes. The members of the lowest class just own their land and the basic tools and implements needed to work it. The second class owns the property up to twice of the value of the land; the third the thrice of the value of the land and the members of the fourth, the highest class can own the property up to four times the value of their land. (Klosko, 209) In Plato’s second best state, the wealth and poverty of the citizens would be under the strict supervision of the state. The citizens of the state are discouraged from accumulation of wealth and possession of precious metals like silver and gold.

The citizens are expected to devote themselves to the duties of citizenship. They are forbidden from involvement in non-agricultural professions and trades. And agricultural production is based on slave labor. For the other consumption needs of the citizens, the state will arrange “the services of the resident aliens – metics[i] -- will work as craftsmen and at other paid trades, including as school teachers. The metics will be enticed into the state by the guarantee of protection and freedom from taxation.” (Klosko, 209). The citizen of the ideal state of Plato’ Laws or his second best state resembles the citizens of Aristotle’s best practicable state, polity, the propertied, leisured class,  described in Politics. The citizens of the Magnesia depending on the agricultural production for their needs, though are not directly involved in the productive activities, but keep strict supervision over the production process carried by the slaves.

The Government    

Like the differentiation statesman in the Statesman from the existing systems of the governments -- monarchy-tyranny; aristocracy-oligarchy and the democracy-democracy, the rule of the law in the Laws is also differentiated from these. It is a sort of mixed government combining the virtues of monarchy and democracy on the one hand and the oligarchy and democracy on the other, while discarding their vices. Plato’s critique of democracy is due its extreme form, as it existed in his contemporary Athens, with the absolute supremacy of people’s assembly. Plato considered extreme freedom as detrimental for the health of the state as the extreme power. But the government of Plato’s second best state, i.e., the ideal state of the Laws bears clear influences of Athenian democracy. In a way it is an improvisation over the existing Athenian democratic government. Like the Athenian democracy, “there is an assembly that all citizens who have borne arms are eligible to attend.” (Klosko, 213)  “Participation is required to elect rulers and fill offices, including the Guardians of the Laws, Generals, Cavalry Commanders, and the Council”. (Plato, The Laws, 753d-759d.  Quoted by, Steven Michels, “Democracy in Plato's Laws” in Government, Politics and Global Studies, Sacred Heart University, winter 2004, http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/gov_fac?utm_source=digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu%2Fgov_fac%2F24&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign, 518)

The Athenian assembly possessed overwhelmingly ubiquitous powers over all the substantial political, constitutional issues. The Magnesian assembly enjoyed fewer powers like electing the council and some officials and the issues concerning peace and war. It also has the right to approve the changes in law, which are very few. To enhance the participation the 360 members of the council elected by the assembly are divided in the committees, each of which sits in a portion of the year. There is also a popular court – actually assembly -- which has jurisdictions in “cases involving crimes against the state.”  (Klosko, 213)   

The Administrative apparatuses

The governance of Magnesia, the proposed state in the Laws, has the elements of democracy, as all of its citizens are members of the assembly and entitled to participate in the political affairs. It has the oligarchical elements, as the criterion of the social division and differential electoral rights, is the possession of the wealth. It has the aristocratic elements in the sense that it proposes specific eminence of virtues and defines the law, as the manifestation of the reason. As the state,proposed in the Laws, is the second best state, second to the ideal state of the Republic and introduction of the nocturnal council are indications of his nostalgia of the rule of philosopher kings in the Republic. The organs of the state are: the popular assembly; the council; magistracy and the nocturnal council.  

The popular assembly

All the 5040 citizens including women are entitled to be the members of the assembly. All the citizens participate in the political affairs and are eligible to hold political offices. The assembly of the citizens is primarily concerned with the election of the state officials, i.e. the magistrates. The popular assembly is also entitled to hear the cases of the crimes against the state and the right to deliberate upon any changes in the law. 

The Council

The next organ of the state is the  elected council which consists of 360 members, elected by the popular assembly on the oligarchical principle.The worth of the votes of the richer was higher than that of the poorer. It is presented as a sort of proportional representation. Each of the four economic classes, as mentioned above, are entitled to elect an equal number of representatives. This means that each of the four classes, irrespective of its relative size, is entitled to elect  one-fourth (90) of the total 360 members of the council. Obviously the lower classes would be more populous than the higher ones and supposedly the lowest class would be most populous and the highest the least. There is a provision of penalty for the higher classes for abstaining from the elections. but there is no such provision for the lower classes. This shows the importance of the votes of wealthier over the worth of the votes of the poorer.   He claims to unite the democratic principles of equality with the monarchical principles of virtue, which is determined by the possession of wealth, which is an element of oligarchy. To make his arguments convincing, Plato  underlines two  kinds of equality.  One is the equality of numbers, “the arithmetic equality” that treats everyone alike. “The second kind of equality apparently corresponds to Aristotle's ‘geometric equality’. It consists in giving ‘due measure according to nature’, i.e more to greater and less to lesser.” (Stalley, 117) But the greater weightage of the votes of wealthier suggests that he considers a proportional relationship between the wealth and eminence in virtues. In the Laws, Plato combines both the forms of equality. This means the offices taxation and the distribution of the public revenue is to be assigned not only in accordance with the number or the virtue but also in accordance with the possession of the wealth. “The natural inference is that the use of the vote is supposed to contribute to true equality by assigning greater honor to those of greater worth.” (Stalley, 119)    

The council is entrusted with the appointment of the officials for the supervision of the markets; with judicial function in the cases related with anti-state activities. It acts as the advisory body for any changes in the laws and has power to extend the tenure of residence to the aliens. 

The Magistracy 

The magistracy in the new state described in the Laws is the backbone of the administration. The magistrates are elected by the popular assembly, as mentioned above. They are responsible for implementing the laws. There are 37 magistrates, elected in three stages. The candidates must fulfill the prescribed age criteria with the lower limit at 50 years and the upper at 70. In the Republic too the lower age limit of the philosopher king/queen is 50 years after the completion of their education. All the citizens are eligible to participate in the elections. The election is held in three stages. 300 candidates are elected in the first stage;  100 out of them in the second and 37 out of them in the third.  Their function is inspection and supervision of the public affairs of the state. The magistrates are the guardians of the law.

The Nocturnal Council 

Plato, nostalgically introduces a replica of the philosopher king in the form of the nocturnal council, which holds its meetings in the night and which is entitled to supervise and guide the over all affairs of the state. It consists of 10 senior magistrates out of the 37; the director of education and some priests selected on the basis of their virtues and expertise. This council is above and beyond the law and has the right to guide and direct all the legal institutions. He considers the members of this council as knowledgeable and hence capable of comprehending the public interest. By introducing the nocturnal council, Plato reiterates his view that the law is the object of rational knowledge and is manifestation of reason.“The function of this curious body is to act as the reason of the state by discerning the aims of legislation and means of achieving them”. (Stalley, 7) 

By introducing the nocturnal council in the end of he work, Plato seems to persist with his formulation of the superiority of knowledge and its desirability for the art of governance. The members of this council are supposed to be experts and are required to to be involved with the programs of the philosophical studies to update and upgrade their expertise.  The visits abroad by the qualified individuals to observe and learn about them. On their return, they report to the nocturnal council, which uses this information so that the laws of the state may be improved.  The nocturnal council “must fix its gaze on the single subject, to which all institutions of state should be directed namely virtue”. (Stalley, 37) As the aim of the state is to inculcate virtue, the council must develop the ability to comprehend the nature of the virtue and the relations between its fore components, namely wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. (Klosko, 234) To acquire such abilities they must undergo a rigorous programme of higher studies.There seems to be a similarity between the philosophical studies aimed at inculcation of virtues, prescribed for the members of the nocturnal council in the Laws and for the the philosopher- guardian in the Republic.They must know gods and the basics of theological principles.  Re-education of atheists is also the responsibility of elderly, wise men of this council. It is to be noted that atheism is considered such a big danger for society that the death penalty is prescribed for its persistent practice.   

The gravity of the importance of the council can be understood by his concluding pronouncement at the end of the description of the council, once this divine council comes into existence, “the state must be entrusted to it.” (Quoted in Klosko, 235) Earnest Barker has rightly interpreted it as a revamped philosopher  king. (Barker, 406-10) “In the light of these similarities, it seems at least possible that the nocturnal council is meant to play a role in the state  similar to that of the Guardians in the Republic.”  (Klosko, 235) Plato does not provide the clear mechanism of selection of the members of this council except that  they are elevated to the membership of this body “by virtue of holding other offices to which they are elected. The younger members of the council are selected by the older, but again, there is no means provided to make sure they have philosophical ability.” (Kolosko, 237) They do undergo the programs of higher studies but after they are already in the council. 

   Political principles of the government

1.   The mixed constitution

Plato envisages a mixed constitution for the new state, the central concern of the Laws, as it differentiates it from the existing constitutions. It seeks “to combine different kinds of political principles within the same governmental structures.” (Stalley, 116) While explaining the complexities of the election to the council on the basis of the economically qualified franchise, the Athenian, in the Laws, remarks, “The election made in this way will be a mean between a monarchic and a democratic constitution – and the constitution should always be between the midway of these”. (Quoted in Stalley, 216) In the Laws, he seeks to do this through a specifically designed electoral process. As we shall see, the weightage of the representation is determined by the property so it is effectively the midway between oligarchy and democracy, instead of between monarchy and democracy, unless he does not consider the possession of wealth equivalent to monarchical virtues. He is opposed to the tyranny of arbitrary power of an individual ruler as well as the mob tyranny. For this Plato devices the systems of the separation of powers and check and balances. Powers are separated with numerous institutions checking others under the overall supervision of the nocturnal council. 

He institutes, in the Laws, the democratic principles of popular authority but tempers it “in important ways,especially by assigning many of the most important functions to magistrates.” (Klosko, 221) The magistrates are not given arbitrary powers and are bound by many constitutional restraints. In the mixed constitution, three institutions are underlined as state’s political units – The popular assembly; the council and the magistrates.         

2. The supremacy of the Law

       The philosopher king’s rights are unbound by any law or tradition in the Republic, but in the Laws, the rule of the law is supreme. Though Plato does not dither from his trust in the superiority of the rule of philosopher king but for practical reasons proposes the rule law as he second best option.  The rule of the law applies equally to the ruler and the ruled. “The subjugation is bad for the rulers; the ruled; their children and the future generation”. (Quoted in BK Jha, 186). In the Laws, Plato prefers the rule of law over the rule of men, as not everyone has the ability to comprehend the public interest and those who have this ability, may be swayed away by the self-interest. He views the laws as the manifestation of the reason. “The judgments of the reason, when embodied in a decree of the city, become law”. (Quoted in Stalley, 28) The laws are made by the lawgivers, who don’t implement them. For the implementation of the laws, there is state machinery.

To emphasize the supremacy of the law, Plato says that the state should be in accordance with the constitution and not the other way round.  The government is the agent of the law, neither its master nor the slave. Government acts in accordance with the law, which apply to all alike. Every official in the proposed state would be subject to some kind of judicial control. This doctrine seems to anticipate Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers. “But Plato does not distinguish judicial and executive power. Most of the officials in the second best state would possess both. Instead the constitution is so arranged that each body of officials is responsible to some other organ of the state. Thus no one should be able to get away with an illegality.” (Stalley, 81) It envisages a detailed legal code drawn up by a legislator or a legislative commission to ensure the protection and maintenance of the public interest. The laws thus laid down are subject to interpretation by the officials but without fiddling with the basic structure of the foundational framework of the legal code. This sounds like the sovereignty of the constitution in modern constitutional democracies. In the modern constitutional states, the constitutional amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution ensured by the provisions of the judicial review.      

 “The Laws presents a despairing conception of human nature” (Klosko, 200). People are carried away with the mundane pleasure and pain. Therefore he entrusted the state with the role of the management of rigorous education in the second best state. “Law is a public calculation of pleasures and pains in the state. It must ensure that individuals derive proper pleasure and pain from the performance of virtuous and non-virtuous actions.” Klosko, 201) 

       In the Laws Plato gives up the hope of virtuous rule of the philosopher, capable of comprehending the Idea of Good, because in the existing society, “a man is carried away by enjoyment or distracted by pain, in his immoderate haste to grasp the one or to escape the other he can neither see nor hear aright, he is in a frenzy and his capacity for reasoning is then at its lowest.” (Quoted in Klosko, 201). When the men are not driven by reason but by passion, then such an educational system is instituted by law that inculcates order, harmony and direction in the passions. In Laws he opines that “when men investigate legislation, they investigate almost exclusively pleasures and pains as they affect society and the character of the individual.” (Quoted in Klosko, 201-2) Like in the Republic, in the Laws too, he holds justice as the source of happiness. In the former it is the philosophic rule that insures justice; in the latter he assigns this task to the rule of law. By maneuvering pleasures and pains, he states that the just life is viewed by the citizens as pleasurable. And this is done by a carefully designed educational system, as discussed above.   

        3. The Nocturnal Council 

As discussed in the previous section, by introducing the nocturnal council concerned with legislation and overall supervision of the functioning state, in the end of the Laws, Plato creates a replica of the philosopher kings/queens of the Republic. The nocturnal council, consisting of senior guardians of law (the magistrates); teachers and priests acts as a governmental organ also and has been discussed in the previous section. “Plato says that the  laws cannot be ‘safeguarded’ unless some members of the state grab them intellectually as well as by habit.” (Klosky, 234) 

 Crime and punishment 

In the Laws, Plato propounded a reformatory theory of punishment, which is not meant to harass or harm the criminal to reform him by making him into a good human or to minimize his criminal mentality. One of the objectives of education is to create a mind set against criminal acts.   

• Capital punishment 

The death penalty is prescribed for the serious offenders whose living in the society is considered to be fatal for it, particularly the offenses against the state.. “Capital punishment is prescribed for a wide range of offenses including deliberate murder;; wounding parents, brother or sister with intent to kill; theft of public property;harboring exiles;waging private war; taking bribes and obstructing the judgements of the court.” (Stalley, 137)

• Monetary punishment 

The monetary punishment is prescribed for a variety of acts, for example, not marrying at the prescribed age in the law. In such cases the amount of the penalty varies according to the economic status of the offender. The richer pay more penalty than the poorer.”For offenses, which involve damage to the interest of, or injury to, another person the general principle is that those convicted should pay compensation plus an additional sum by way of punishment.”(Stalley, 138) While imposing penalty on an accused the care is taken “that no one is fined so heavily that he can not afford to keep the equipment necessary for running the farms and that no one is to be subjected to complete confiscation of property.” (Stalley, 138)

• Imprisonment

Imprisonment is stipulated for the citizens who engage in retail trade; for those who strike someone more than 20 years elder to them or for those who obstruct the functioning of the courts by trying to prevent litigants or the witnesses from attending a court. It is also prescribed as an alternative punishment to those who are unable or unwilling to pay the monetary penalty. 

• Corporal punishment 

Corporal punishment for offenses like physical assault of parents. Corporal punishment is rarely awarded to the citizens but is widely used against the slaves and foreigners. The citizens are given corporal punishment for assaulting parents. “In a few cases, he would allow third parties to beat offenders with immunity.” (Stalley, 139)  

Religion 

In book X, Plato has dealt with religion in detail. Like education, the religion is also state controlled. The citizens are not allowed to celebrate religious  festivals, individually. The religious festivals are conducted at public religious places, under the strict  supervision of the authorized priests. In his opinion, he religious values are intimately linked with the portal practice. The form and the character of the religion should be defined and determined by the state. The state has the authority to punish people for irreligiosity. As has been mentioned above, he has prescribed severe punishment for atheism and death penalty for its persistent practice.

Conclusion

The ideal state of the Republic is the theoretical best and that of the Laws is based on practical considerations of the existing conditions in Greece. The state in Aristotle's Politics seems to be quite influenced by the principles of the Laws.  Despite Plato’s nostalgia with the ideal state of the Republic reflected in the superiority of reason through introduction of the nocturnal council in the end of the text, the Laws takes into consideration the practicability. The influence of the principles of the Laws is visible in Rousseau's theory of the General will also.  

   

---

[i] Resident aliens in Greek cities, having some civic rights. 

[1] A note

[2] Plato, Apology

[3] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Garden City Publishing Co., New ork, 1927, p. 20

[4]  Note

[5] Phaedo

[6] Phaedrus

[7] Brief notes on Parmenides and Heraclitus 

[8] Ref. from Rep.

[9] Rep.

[10] Prince

[11] A note with reference to Biplab Dasgupta SAP & NEP

[12] The Story of Phil

[13] Note with reference to it

[14] A brief note on Arthshastra and Dharmshastra traditions

[15] Ambedkar

[16] A note with references

[17] A note

[18] Rep

[19] Note

[20] Plato, Republic, Htpp//www.idp.net  p. 181

[21] Ibid p.183

[22] Ibid  pp. 181-88

[23] Ibid p. 190

[24] Ibid pp. 190-93

[25] Ibid pp. 193-209

[26] Note with the quote from AS

[27] Republic, op.cit. pp.207-08

[28] Ibid p. 213

[29] Ibid pp. 212-215

[30] Ibid

[31] Ibid p. 221

[32] Ibid

[33] William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers,  OUP, New Delhi, 1960

[34] Ibid p. 278

[35] Ibid p. 221

[36] Ibid

[37] Ibid pp. 223-24

[38] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nation,  

[39] Republic, op.cit.  p. 224

[40] Ibid p.225

[41] Ibid

[42] Ibid

[43] Ibid p. 226

[44] Ibid p. 227

[45] Ebenstein, op. cit. p. 5

[46] Ibid p.

[47] Note

[48] Note

[49] Sudipta Kaviraj, Concept of Man in Political Theory, Social Scientist, New Delhi, December 1979

[50] Note

[51] K Marx &F Engels, German Ideology, K Marx & F Engels, Collected Works, (CW, hence forth) Vol. 5, Progress, Moscow, 1978 pp.  59-62 

[52] For details, http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-higher-education.html  &  http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html

[53] A note

[54] Quoted in William Ebenstein, The Great Political Thinkers, p.

[55]  गुरुर्देवो भव; गुरुर्ब्रह्मा, गुरुर्विष्णु.... Etc.

[56] http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-higher-education.html

[57] http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html

[58] Republic, op.cit. pp. 228-30

[59] Ibid, p. 231

[60] Ibid p. 234

[61] A note on Gramsci’s incarceration judgment

[62] A note and http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-specter-of-naxalism-neo-mccarthyism.html

[63] A note and ईश मिश्र, राष्ट्र-राज्य और राष्ट्रवाद, समयांतर, जनवरी, 2018, also in http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post_24.html

[64] A note

[65] Republic, op. cit. p.  346

[66] Ish Mishra, https://countercurrents.org/2017/09/17/protagoras-490-420-bc/

[67] Republic, op.cit. p. 230

[68] Ibid

[69] Two of the multitude of the Gods (a note )

[70] Republic, op.cit. (Emphasis added)

[71] Machiavelli, the Prince  

[72] Ambedkar, Gita (reference)

[73] Republic, op.cit.  p. 231 and a note on the story of Uranus and Cronus.

[74] Ibid, p. 235

[75] Ibid p. 254

[76]Ibid pp. 254-55. 

[77] Ibid p. 255

[78] Ibid p.256

[79] Ibid p. 262

[80] Mary Wollstonecraft, Concernin8g Women’s Education, (a note)