A. Held over from last lecture: 441c-445e

1. "Justice" in the state has been explained as a situation in which each element fulfills its own function. Since the three-element structure in the state is mirrored by a corresponding three-element structure in the individual soul, this structural account of "justice" in the state can be carried over into a matching account of "justice" in the individual. Plato concludes that "justice" is to the soul what health is to the body. Health is obviously worth having in its own right. So the challenge (is "justice" worth having in its own right?) is allegedly met.

2. How satisfactorily? Part of the challenge was to ask whether there is any point in acting "justly" (or in being the kind of person who tends to act "justly"). Acting "justly" was understood in terms of, e.g., not pushing for more than one's fair share. Is there any reason to suppose that this correlates with psychic health? The skeptics will surely say that a successfully "unjust" person of the sort who figured in the challenge (e.g. a clever criminal) has the three elements in her soul fulfilling their functions. As long as the rule of reason is understood formally or structurally, this seems right.

B. Background to today's readings: the proposal that philosophers should rule.

1. He doesn't mean that practitioners of a certain academic discipline should rule. (Even supposing you thought professors of something would be good rulers, why choose professors of philosophy?) Plato's point is rather: rulers should have knowledge (which includes understanding) of relevant values.

2. For our purposes the main point is the claim that there's such a thing as knowledge of the relevant topics; there are objective truths about, e.g., "justice" and goodness, capable of being understood by hard intellectual work. (As opposed to a thought like this: on questions about, e.g., "justice," answers depend on whom you ask; there are no objective truths and falsehoods in this kind of area. For instance: rich people tend to think taxation with a view to redistributing wealth is unjust; poor people tend to think it's just; and there's no sense in asking who is right.) One can agree with Plato that there are objective truths about values without needing to accept his anti-democratic (authoritarian) political outlook.

C. Hold over detail about the passages until next lecture.

Back to syllabus