Specialization in The Republic

How is the ideal city set up? Who would rule it? How would the people within the city operate? 

In The Republic, Plato (as Socrates) attempts to create the perfect city as a method of defining justice. He starts this process by the idea of specialization. But what is specialization? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary it is "the structural adaptation of a body part to a particular function or of an organism for life in a particular environment."

So why does Socrates believe that in a perfectly just city specialization is needed? On page 35, Socrates points out that "there are diversities among us which are adapted to different occupations." In a simple context he is saying that different people are suited for different things. Furthering that, whatever it is that a citizen is most suited for, that should be the only thing said citizen should ever do. The baker should bake, the farmer should farm, the soldier should fight, and so on. 

Socrates populates his perfect city with a group of citizens who are specialized in their fields; he includes the carpenters, farmers, builders, and doctors. "Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves?" This class of specialized individuals will take care that they "do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war." Socrates calls this the healthy State.

After Glaucon states that this is a "city of pigs," he argues that the citizens should be given the ordinary conveniences of life such as sofas, tables, and "sauces and sweets in the modern style." Socrates concedes to create a luxurious State; this will cause the city to "fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want." Such specialized callings include rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors, tutors, nurses, tirewomen, barbers, confectioners, cooks, swineherds, and "makers of divers kinds of articles, including women's dresses." There will also need to be more physicians, and, since this "State of fever" has all of this luxuries, soldiers will be needed as war is now inevitable. The last specialized class of people Socrates mentions are the rulers. They will be in charge of the city.

According to Socrates, if each of the classes (the producing, the entertainment - for the lack of a better word - the soldiers, and the rulers) only performs the jobs and requirements that their single occupations asks of them, then the city will be just. The citizens will be just if they only practice their established art, whether that be cooking, farming, healing, etc. 

For there to be a perfectly just State, there must be specialization.  

Let Us Not Fear Death

"You are a soul carrying a corpse, as Epictetus used to say." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

If there is anything I have learned from my reading of Marcus Aurelius, it is that he does not think of death as many of us do. There are plenty of people in this world (myself included) who are utterly terrified of death - whether that be how we die, what happens to use after we die, when we die, etc. But reading Meditations, I've noticed that Aurelius points out that I shouldn't think of death the way I do; instead I should end my journey in contentment. 

"You have subsisted as a part of the Whole. You will vanish into that which gave you birth: or rather you will be changed, taken up into the generative principle of the universe." 

Everything in this world was born to die. Dying is such a natural process, and it is as necessary as sex or childbirth; and whether we die today, tomorrow, or fifty years from does not matter. We are a simple drop in the river of time. "There is a river of creation, and time is a violent stream. As soon as one thing comes into sight, it is swept past and another is carried down: it too will be taken on its way."

"Just as if a god told you that you would die tomorrow or at least the day after tomorrow, you would attach no importance to the difference of one day, unless you are a complete coward (such is the tiny gap of time): so you should think there is no great difference between life to the umpteenth year and life to tomorrow."

Because before long, all us will be laid out to rest side by side. 

"Think constantly how many doctors have died, after knitting their brows over their own patients; how many astrologers, after predicting the deaths of others, as if death were something important; how many philosophers, after endless deliberation on death or immortality; how many heroes, after the many others they killed; how many tyrants, after using their power over men's lives with monstrous insolence, as if they themselves were immortal. Think too how many whole cities have 'died' - Helice, Pompeii, Herculaneum, innumerable others. Go over now all those you have known yourself, one after the other:  then another one man follows a friend's funeral and is then laid out himself, then another follows him - and all in a brief space of time. The conclusion of all this? You should always look on human life as short and cheap. Yesterday sperm: tomorrow a mummy or ashes.

"So one should pass through this tiny fragment of time in tune with nature, and leave it gladly, as an olive might fall when ripe, blessing the earth which bore it and grateful to the tree which gave it growth."

So why despair over death? Life is petty, wearying - "the emptying pomp of a procession, plays on the stage, flocks and herds, jousting shows, a bone thrown to puppies, tit-bits into the fishponds, ants toiling and carrying, the scurries of frightened mice, puppets dancing on their strings." Welcome death as a precious release from a repeating life.

It is your soul that ultimately matters, not the flesh it harbors in. "You embarked, you set sail, you made port. Go ashore now. If it is to another life, nothing is empty of the gods, even on that shore: and if to insensibility, you will cease to suffer pains and pleasures, no longer in thrall to a bodily vessel which is a master as far inferior as its servant is superior. One is mind and divinity: the other a clay of dust and blood."

Friendship

"A true friendship is like a garden; it grows over time."

According to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, friendship is a necessary virtue in order to live a happy life. It is necessary as no one would choose to live without friends even if he had all other material goods. Friends are a refuge in times of poverty and misfortune. The "young need friends to keep them from error. The old need friends to care for them and support the actions that fail because of weakness." Those in their prime need friends to do fine actions; for when two go together "they are more capable of understanding and acting." Friendship unites the state.

But only friendship based on goodness unites the state. Utility-based friendships and pleasure-based friendships will not.

I have had friendships that were utility-based only. These types of friendships are only established so that both people derive some benefit from each other. I never cared for these people except for what they could offer me, and they felt the same in return. But once they stopped giving me whatever it was that I wanted (vice versa for them), I would end the friendship and move on with my life.

In the same token, I have had friendships based only on pleasure. There are many people who come to mind where I only established a friendship because of their appearance, attitude, or something of similar nature. Many of my "relationships" were based on this premise. I really enjoyed looking at some of my ex-boyfriends.

And lastly, I have a friend (notice please that I did not use a past tense here) because she is a good friend. Does she provide utility? Yes. Does she provide pleasure? Yes. But I do the same for her. I enjoy being with this friend because of who she is and how she is. We have an equal exchange in pleasure, utility, and goodness. This friendship has continued to last even until now because of our mutual respect for each other and virtue. The friendship I have established based on the premise of goodness is what Aristotle would consider a perfect friendship.

But my friendship with this person took time to create. I used to rush into the other two types of friendships and never truly got to know and understand the individuals I considered "friends." We never had the familiarity that true and perfect friendships require. My friendship that is true and genuine is so because we both want to help the other, to love them before asking to be loved. Friendship depends on that: loving than being loved.

With knowing what a perfect friendship requires, I believe that I can have more than just the one I have now. And I hope to strive to make more virtuous friendships because they truly are a necessity in the journey to achieve happiness.

Justice: Harmony of the Soul

How does one define justice?

In The Republic, after criticizing the conventional theories of justice presented by Cephalus, Polymarchus,Thrasymachus, and Glaucon, Plato sets out to answer this question. For Plato, justice is the harmony of the soul. Yet this phrase, however, hardly gives one a clear sense of what justice is. Thus, Plato offers two analogies to help examine the definition of justice: the division of parts in the soul and the division of parts in the state.

The soul is divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. The appetitive is the part of the soul "with which he loves and hungers and thirsts and feels the flutterings of any other desire . . . the ally of sundry pleasures and satisfactions." The spirited is the part of the soul that is courageous, strong willed, vigorous. The spirited "when not corrupted by bad education" is the ally of the rational, the part of the soul "with which a man reasons." It has the "care of the whole soul."

By division of the soul, we are exposed to how a soul has different wills. Yet, in order for a soul to stay just, it must have some sort of hierarchy. Plato describes the hierarchy of the soul as follows: the rational has control over the appetitive, and the spirited is the ally of the rational.

To continue with Plato's definition of justice, the state is also divided into three parts: the workers, the soldiers, and the guardians. The workers are the people who are best fitted to practice a specific form of labor - whether it be to provide food, clothing, or any other necessity that the state may require. They are to be moderate and obedient to the guardians.

The soldiers are the humans who are best fitted to fight; they are spirited and possess courage. They are to be well-educated, and "that true education, whatever that may be, will have the greatest tendency to civilize and humanize them in their relations to one another, and to those who are under their protection."

The guardians are the rulers of the state - the philosophers. They possess the virtue of wisdom, and with wisdom comes the knowledge of how the city should be run. They will have a special care of the state, for "a man will be most likely to care about that which he loves." The guardians have the greatest eagerness to do what is for the "good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her wishes."

The division of the state will begin at an early age. Children who have the nature of a guardian or a soldier but born to workers will be removed from that class and raised with other children who share the same nature. The same concept applies to children born of guardians and soldiers, but are more adept to the work of a worker.

Both the division of the soul and the division of the state have a similar structure. Justice is the same in the soul as it is in the state. The workers share a resemblance with the appetitive part of the soul: they have to be moderate in their desires. The soldiers and the spirited share the virtue of courage. The guardians and the rational share the virtue of wisdom.

If a soul that allows the appetitive part take over and commit criminal acts regardless of the consequences or allows the spirited to burst into irrational anger be considered a just soul? This rhetorical question helps support the definition of justice as harmony. The rational must rule while the spirited and appetitive remain moderate - with each part of the soul agreeing this condition is the best for the whole.

In order for a man to be just, he must be in harmony with his soul. That is the definition of justice.

Did Agamemnon Deserve to Die?

To answer this question, we need to consider both Clytemnestra's and Agamemnon's sides in The Oresteia. Agamemnon was murdered by his wife as revenge for killing their daughter, Iphigeneia. However, Agamemnon felt that sacrificing his child was necessary; the goddess Artemis would not allow the Greek army to sail unless a sacrifice was made.

A sacrifice was necessary due to Artemis' anger at Agamemnon; he killed one of her sacred, precious deer, and as revenge, she will not allow winds of Thrace to blow until a sacrifice is delivered. The victim of the sacrifice is revealed to be Iphigeneia, and Agaemnon must decide whether to kill her or not.

"Pain both ways and what is worse?
Desert the fleets, fail the alliance?
No, but stop the winds with a virgin's blood,
feed their lust, their Fury?" (211-214).

His sense of duty overwhelms the love he has for Iphiagenia, and he determines that without the sacrifice, there will be no safe passage to Troy.

This decision to sacrifice his daughter provokes Clytaemnestra into wanting to kill her husband as a means for revenge. She states that his decision is unacceptable - he could have saved Iphiagenia - and she plans to strike back with vengeance.

"Architect of vengeance
with no fear of the husband
here she waits
the terror raging back and back in the future
the stealth, the law of the hearth, the mother -
memory womb of the Fury child-avenging Fury!" (150-156).

Clytaemnestra planned the murder of her husband for the ten years he was away at war. The queen believes that justice needs to be served for her daughter. The only justice that would appease Clytaemnestra is to kill her Agamemnon - "the law of the hearth." She points out the chorus after the murder that Iphigeneia did not deserve to die; Agamemnon, as the man responsible for killing their daughter, deserves to be murdered.

"I brooded on this trial, this ancient blood fued
year by year. At last my hour came.
Here I stand and here I struck
and here my work is done.
I did it all. I don't deny it, no.
He had no way to flee or fight his destiny -" (1395-1401).

"He thought no more of it than killing a beast,
and his flocks were rich, teeming in their fleece,
but he sacrificed his own child, our daughter." (1440-1442).

Thus, back to our question: Did Agamemnon deserve to die? Combined with the evidence against him as well as extensive reading of The Oresteia, Agamemnon received just punishment for his actions. Had he not killed Artemis' precious deer, had he not sacrificed his own child, Agamemnon would have deserved to live. Yet, his actions sealed his fate, and he paid the price.

Justice for the Fallen Pallas

In the United States of America, whenever a crime is committed, there is a call for justice. Criminals are placed in prison, parole, and in heinous crimes capital punishment can be administered as sentence. It gives the victim and those affected closure, a sense of relief, justice.

The same concept is applied in The Aeneid.

"Decked in the spoils you stripped from one I loved - escaped my clutches? Never - Pallas strikes this blow, Pallas sacrifices you now, makes you pay the price with your own guilty blood!" said Aeneas as he drove his sword into his enemy's heart, effectively killing him. It's been stated by many that Aeneas should not have killed Turnus; he should have given compassion to his enemy. Revenge is not a motive that should give reason to kill. I agree wholeheartedly that revenge should not be the reason any type of action is performed.

I do believe, though, that justice is a motive worthy of Aeneas's actions.

In book ten of The Aeneid, Pallas is killed by Turnus during battle. And while this may seem fine as war was occurring, it is what Turnus does that evokes the right of passage for justice. He never gave Pallas the same mercy that he later begged Aeneas for. He could have killed him in a clean and proper manner. He did neither. Turnus "stomped his left foot on the corpse and stripped away the sword-belt's massive weight engraved with its monstrous crime . . . " He shouted insults to Pallas's father. "You Arcadians, listen! Take a message home to Evander, tell him this: The Pallas I send him back will serve him right! Whatever tribute a tomb can give, whatever balm a burial, I am only too glad to give. But the welcome he gave Aeneas costs him dear."

Turnus committed a terrible act, and he was proud of his latest kill!

When Aeneas had defeated Turnus, he was prepared to give the fallen hero the mercy he so begged for - the same mercy he did not give to Pallas. And then he caught sight of the "fateful sword-belt of Pallas, swept over Turnus's shoulder, gleaming with shining studs Aeneas knew by heart. Young Pallas, whom Turnus had overpowered, taken down with a wound, and now his shoulder flaunted his enemy's battle-emblem like a trophy." It was then that this became an act of justice for Aeneas. He refuses to give mercy to Turnus as Turnus had refused to give mercy to Pallas. So, in justice did Aeneas kill Turnus.

Killing Turnus may have been - in part - revenge, though it was justified in the case of Pallas. Aeneas's words state that he did not strike the blow, but Pallas had. It was Pallas who delivered the final blow that ended Turnus's life. By killing Turnus, Pallas was given the justice he so deserved.

A Remarkable Faith

Let's begin with a question: how firm are you in your faith?  It's a simple question, really. But it's the answer the one gives that can make things complicated. 

I'll be honest and tell you what my response would be: I'm a believer in Christ, but I'm not as deep into my faith as I would like to be. I struggle everyday to follow the lifestyle that Jesus wants me to live, and many times I fail to do so. When God wants me to do one thing, I'll go and do right the opposite. Then I suffer the consequences. And then I cry out to Jesus as to why I'm being punished. 

It's a cycle.

But I wonder how it's possible for people to be so resolute in their beliefs that they will risk everything to appease the thing they believe in most. Trial after trial they overcome, and I just watch in amazement because I know that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't be able to accomplish the feats that they do.

Take Aeneas for example. 

In The Aeneid, written by Virgil, we're introduced to the son of a mortal man and the Roman goddess Venus. Aeneas is a warrior from the fallen city of Troy who embarks on an epic journey, and all because the gods tell him to. His first wife dies. He has to flee his home. He goes hungry. He faces the wrath of Juno. He is attacked by Harpies. He has to leave another love. 

All because the gods tell him to.

In Book I of The Aeneid, I figured his faith was because he was some superhuman. No one would be able to accomplish the things he did. I truly thought of him as some pompous war hero who just "listened to Mommy." He was half-god. Of course he had a firm faith. But then in Books II and III, I read more about his journey and what he had to suffer through. I began to sympathize with Aeneas more, but I still thought it was easier for him to do what the divine beings wanted.

And then Book IV completely changed my opinion. He falls in love with Carthage's queen, Dido, and it's in this book that I saw his character actually grow. He forgets about his Fate for awhile and just pleasures himself with how he saw fit. Mercury shows up in a dream to tell Aeneas that he needs to leave Carthage and continue his journey, but I read as Aeneas shows actual emotion. He knows he's going to hurt Dido by leaving, and for a fleeting moment, the hero considers staying. But his duty to the gods is more important to him than the queen, and he leaves.  

He leaves. Aeneas leaves the woman he loves because he has such a strong faith and sense of duty to the gods. 

It's impressive.

I can admit now that I would never be able to do such a thing. And as I watch Aeneas grow more as a character, it becomes clear how resolute in his sense of duty to the gods is. But Virgil write his character in such a way that Aeneas becomes more human and more devote in his faith with each passing chapter.

Again, it's impressive. 

And I hope one day I'll have a faith as strong as one in a classic epic.