Plato Paper
...who also sets out to create a Leviathan, or rather a city, in The Republic. Perhaps the first thing they would agree on is that Janet Jackson should be silenced, her music far too racy for Hobbes’ mediocre suburbs and far too corrupting to escape Socrates’ censorship. Plato, like Hobbes, uses The Republic to create a city, a sort of Leviathan-lite; his purpose, however, is fundamentally different. Plato is a philosopher in the truest sense—he studies nature and seeks truth, and as Bloom states, “The philosopher’s contemplation of the heavens dissolves the perspective of the city, the laws of which now seem to be mere conventions with no natural status” (308). Hobbes founds his Leviathan to overcome nature, whereas Plato creates his city to find it. Hobbes views nature as something to conquer, and he wants to pave over everything and erect 24-hour strip malls. Plato, on the other hand, views the city as something natural; he has a much higher regard for man’s true nature, and the only way to find true justice is to look towards the just city, even if that city may be somewhere in the clouds. Plato, then, by merely questioning the laws and justice of the city, by suggesting that justice is something more than a human creation, breaks the cardinal law of Hobbes’ Leviathan—he questions authority. It should be noted that The Republic is a dialogue in which Plato never actually says anything; he gives us, rather, a slate full of dynamic characters that each bring a unique view of justice to the table. We start out with Cephalus, who in Book I, views justice as something “identical to the law of the city, and the law is protected by the gods” (Bloom 315). Cephalus represents the old order, whose power is based on the will of the gods; this notion of justice, however, is not suitable for either Plato or Hobbes—both seek to start fresh, casting off the confines of the old order, of religion, and for this reason, Cephalus is quickly silenced so that the discussion can proceed unencumbered into new, uncharted territory. In the same way Cephalus is banished from the conversation of justice, Plato himself, along with God and the other old philosophers, is banished before Hobbes can begin his construction. Cephalus’ view of justice is fairly consistent with that of Hobbes, but Hobbes needs to take it a step further—the laws of society need not be based God, or any other natural notion of justice. For Hobbes, the artificial covenant with the sovereign is all that is needed to establish justice. After establishing the need for a fresh start, Plato offers us Polemarchus, who defines justice as helping your friends and hurting your enemies, and Thrasymachus, who takes the more Machiavellian stance that the just is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. While both of these views of justice are significant, Socrates quickly defeats them—or at least manages to change the topic of discussion—and justice really beings to emerge in the discussion between Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. It is in this conversation that the idea of education becomes important (Bloom 339); Socrates is the teacher, and he is going to guide Glaucon and Adeimantus on an educational quest for justice. In this all out war, Socrates battles Thrasymachus for the minds of the young, future leaders. Hobbes too was engaged in a long-term educational project—he looked forward to the day when his books would be required reading in the leading universities. “One should begin, he said, with young minds uncorrupted by the doctrines of Athens and Rome” (Berns 415). Education, then, becomes a critical theme to both Hobbes and Plato. Glaucon states in Book II, “Tell me, is there in your opinion a kind of good that we would choose to have not because we desire its consequences, but because we delight in it for its own sake?” (357b). The idea of some natural justice once again takes center stage, and as Bloom states, “Socrates must show that the man who is whipped, racked, chained, and as his eyes burned out because men who believe him to be unjust will be blessedly happy if only he possesses justice” (342). Glaucon wants to escape Hobbes’ asphalt land of mediocrity, but only if Socrates can prove that there is in fact more. In order, then, for Plato to totally crush Hobbes, Socrates must show us that justice can really be a catch-all bliss. Socrates, however, claims to be unable to accomplish this grand undertaking and states, “For in my opinion I’m not capable of it,” “on the other hand, I can’t not help out” (368b). Socrates suggests the next best thing and states, “If you want, first we’ll investigate what justice is like in the cities. Then, we’ll also go on to consider it in individuals” (368e).We thus set out on the creation of Socrates’ own leviathan in a quest to uncover justice. The first city that Socrates creates in Book II is tailored to Adeimantus (Bloom 344). Bloom states, “This is a city which takes the bodily needs as the only real ones; and whatever efforts of the soul and intelligence it calls into play are entirely directed to the preservation and comfort of the body” (345). In other words, Adeimantus’ drives Socrates to create a Hobbesian city—a city of safety, a city of bodily comfort and satisfaction. This, however, does not satisfy Glaucon, and although he is a man of intense desire, he acknowledges that he is still looking for something more—he is looking for something that is worth giving it all up for. Glaucon states, “You seem to make these men have their feast without relishes,” and then goes on to characterize this city as a “city of sows” (372 c, d). Glaucon, then, directly takes on Hobbes’ Leviathan. For some, such as Adeimantus and Hobbes, the satisfaction of bodily desire, including the desire for safety, may be enough. Glaucon, however, wants more, and Socrates is going to help him find it. There has to be more to life that watching half-time peep-shows on national television. Socrates continues by dumping this city of sows, and he sets out to create one more worthy of someone like Glaucon. This city, well far too complicated to be given the time it deserves in this essay, shares many similarities with Hobbes’ Leviathan. First, it is based on a lie. Socrates’ just city requires than men be told they are not equal. While this falls in sharp contrast to Hobbes, who proclaims all men should be considered equals because of their equal ability to kill one another, his Leviathan too may be based on a lie—Hobbes’ lie being that the body is all there is. In an effort to provide safety, Hobbes has to provide a city for the “lowest common denominator.” Plato tells us that we have metal in our souls whereas Hobbes tells us that we have no souls. In another similarity, both cities are based upon an enforcement class. Edwin Curley, in his introduction to Hobbes states, “The sovereign needs an enforcement cadre (a police force or an army), which must be larger and more dedicated just in proportion as people in general who are more hostile to the regime” (xxxv). Maybe Hobbes had been reading Plato after all. Finally, when in Book IV Socrates concludes that justice is nothing more than “the minding of one’s own business and not being a busybody” (433a), one can’t help but notice that this definition of justice fits well wi...