After reading Plato’s Republic, what I found most impactful was not Plato’s definition of justice or concept for an ideal city, but the way in which he derived and conveyed them.  Through his character Socrates, he deduced his ideas and arguments in logical statements that built upon one another, and taught in the same way he thought. This way, as he led the other characters through a discussion of justice, they were able to understand the concepts he was teaching beyond their definitions, and he was able to make bold statements that might otherwise have been disregarded. But to whom is the analysis of Socrates’ methods important and why?

Another aspect of the Republic, leadership and the ideal leader, may unintentionally provide us with an answer. The role of Socrates’ leader is to help others understand and practice that which they ideally would have realized on their own. Through observation of the real world, the leader can make varying ideas or opinions come to terms with one another such that one universal understanding can be developed. Today, leaders develop ideas in specific fields and use them in leading. My research compares the teaching techniques employed by Socrates in the Republic to those of a sample leader, Seth Godin. The ultimate goal is to discover and if and what today’s leaders can learn from Socrates and in doing so, contribute to effective teaching ideals.

In trying to make this comparison, I found that it is a tough one. Godin mass-educates in impersonal settings—books, talks, blogposts. Socrates educates in intimate settings and engages his listeners in his own thought process through conversation. As such, Godin and other leaders of large movements cannot employ many of Socrates’ techniques which are geared towards small audiences. It is important to remember, though, that Socrates (or, really, Plato) has been teaching generations of people for centuries. What is most effective, then, is the dialogue in which Socrates engages his reader that causes him or her to question their own thoughts and those of Socrates. Ultimately, it is this in conjunction with the communication of ideas by building them as one would build a brick house, i.e. layer by layer, that allows Socrates’ reader to set down the Republic understanding Plato’s arguments. Thus, current leaders may benefit from slowing their pace and extending their discussion. That is, of course, assuming their goal is for their followers to understand why the ideas they are following are effective in whichever field they are employed.

This research, in examining teaching techniques, makes many assumptions and disregards the actual subject matter that is being conveyed by leaders. So, my next questions would be—does the topic matter? Do the benefits of understanding what one is doing and why always outweigh the costs of teaching slowly and methodically? Are there some things that can be more effectively conveyed without explanation? Are there some leaders who can get away with teaching in statements rather than arguments because of their credibility? If so, do they attempt this? Should they? Should the audience be accounted for? Should some people be taught in one way and others, in another way? Is this practical? What sources of wisdom should leaders be using? Should we all be leaders? Can we all be leaders? Better yet, is there a way in which we can all converse such that leaders are rendered unnecessary? Are we, to some extent, already headed in that direction? Or is it the opposite—are we all trying to be leaders?

I answer (or will answer) this question by first describing Jesus’ theory of justice, then describing Socrates’ theory of justice. I talk about what the experts have to say about Christian justice and what The Republic says about Socrates’ justice, as well as interject my own ideas. I have gotten ideas from the Bible of what Christian justice looks like. While researching I found an interesting idea of what occurs when faith overcomes reason and I have connected this to current events such as suicide bombings and holy wars. This is what I have found to be the significance of the Republic to the world today. I encountered many problems however. I had trouble narrowing my topic and organizing my paper. I also found that there is much research on the comparison between Jesus and Socrates, but not so much on their individual theories of justice.

I have found that justice is not easy to obtain or reach so the best one can do is to become more just. Also, arguably, one cannot use both theories because Socrates would say that religion feeds the spirited element. In order to live justly, one must follow Socrates’ plan for justice as seen in The Republic.

I want to know, do you think that Socrates gives a universal definition of justice; can it be applied to any situation anywhere? Do you think Jesus’ theory i.e. Religion and Socrates’ theory can actually fit together? What benefit do you think Plato/Socrates got from teaching people about justice?

In terms of research, I first read about the history of the Indian political system, and how the corruption has proliferated since its independence. Through this, I found connections between the Republic and the historical accounts, and thus, it could be concluded that predictions about the Indian political system can be made using the Republic. Based on the research I did, India in its present state can be placed in between a democracy and oligarchy. The basic prediction that I made is that on its current path, India could very well descend into a tyranny, and thus reversing this process is absolutely necessary. After this, I began looking at both solutions that have been proposed by contemporary writers, and aspects of the just city in Plato’s Republic. The modern solutions tend to revolve around two basic ideas. The first looks to the government side, and advocates more stringent policy to punish corrupt officials, thereby deterring future corruption. However, this is not going to solve the problem as well as they hope, as there will still be the systemic problem of lack of enforcement. Thus, the change has to come on the side of the people, and this is where the Republic comes in. On this level, the solutions come again in two basic ways. The first is to increase awareness through campaigns and citizen organization. However, this is also prone to a problem in the system. Most citizens in India take corruption to be a fact of life instead of an actual problem, and awareness campaigns would not be as effective as they are put out to be. The second solution, I feel, would be extremely effective. This looks to expanding literacy and education, thereby guaranteeing that citizens are fully aware of what rights they are entitled to, and what the role of the government actually is. Along with the concept of education, I brought in ideas from the kallipolis regarding civic sense in the guardians’ education. Students should be taught that societal welfare is something that they should strive for, and that each individual plays an integral role in the whole. Thus, this would help create a new generation of individuals and leaders who would be more active in fighting corruption, thereby producing tangible benefits.

The main question I have is whether the Republic can really be used this heavily in this context. Though it was written so long ago, can it still be applied to this extent in a contemporary problem? Is it too outdated to actually provide concrete answers to these types of questions?

In my paper, I essentially explore but ultimately disprove the extension of these criticisms to The Republic. The criticisms I found on the kallipolis and on utopia in general were based primarily on one fundamental assumption: that this utopia was intended by Plato to be taken as a literal possibility and all of the conclusions drawn from this assumption criticize the concept based on its actual possibility and the consequences of its coming into being. In other words, the critics I came across tended to focus on the loss of individuality and individual freedom as well as criticizing it based on its impossibility due to Plato’s apparent ignorance of human nature. I believe, however, that Plato never intended for us to take the kallipolis as a literal possibility. In fact, Socrates himself even states that it would be highly unlikely that circumstances could ever exist to allow the ideal city to become a reality. Furthermore, he goes on to say that even if the ideal city could somehow come into being, it would inevitably break down due to human fallibility and enter into the cycle of regimes that all real societies go through. Basically, he has created a static ideal society that he himself knows can never exist. This realization led me to want to further explore the concept of utopia, and what we can learn from Socrates’ ideal city. This essentially begs the question, why did he create the ideal city if he knew it was impossible? I believe, and I hope my paper adequately addresses this, that Plato never intended for us to look at the kallopolis and criticize it based on literal grounds. Instead, the purpose of the ideal city, in my opinion, is for us to have an ideal model from which to gain ideas to help us improve contemporary society. We can learn from Socrates’ ideal city and utopias in general as the highest possible form of human thought, so we should not discount it based on its impossibility but rather explore the merits of the concept for what they do allow us to discover.  In other words, I wanted my research to reflect this general conclusion that I have drawn about the Platonic utopia and push the boundaries of conventional contemporary and ancient thought about utopia further.

The first thing I did in my research paper was establish that the United States was not immune from the Socratic cycle.  Despite always hiding behind the mantra of democracy and universal justice, our government shows surprising evidence of going through the progression outlined by Socrates.  We started as an aristocracy, in which our presidents took their turns as our “philosopher kings” each serving a maximum of two terms (despite no limiting law) and then moving on.  Our country was run in the image of a sort of Jeffersonian Idealism.  However this idealism did not last long.  Socrates describes the transition from the aristocrat to the timarch as a simple one in which a son hears his mother complaining about his father not seeking to be a ruler, not ambitious etc (549 c-e) and so the son turns into an timarch.  American politics began this subtle transition shortly into the 1800’s with the Western land grab, the Indian Wars, even the Monroe Doctrine.  However then once we arrive at timarchy, the shift toward oligarchy begins with the spoils system, the industrial revolution etc.  Oligarchy comes into full swing after the civil war and during reconstruction.  During the 1900’s people like the Rockefellers and Carnegie, and just general capitalism take over, turning the country into a basic oligarch.  It remains that way basically until the Great Depression in which, as Socrates says, there is a sort of violent (economic violence, not militarily in this case) overthrow of the oligarchs and the New Deal comes into effect with everyone having jobs, and general equality begins (women vote etc).  Democracy pinnacles with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which everyone is declared equal with the same rights etc.

That brings us to the modern day.  In my paper, I use Fukuyama’s “The End of History” to discuss how American democracy has very much changed from what it used to be in the 60’s.  Our military capabilities far outstrip any other country in the world allowing us to exert our power all over the globe very tyrannically.  I stop short of saying we’re an actual tyranny, but our ability to become tyrants is without question.  Socrates discusses how the oligarchy is undone by its love of wealth, and a democracy is undone by its love of freedom.  In the past 10 years, our government (both parties) has begun increasingly using the idea or “protecting our freedoms” to justify actions of increasingly questionable legality, very similarly to what Socrates states in The Republic.

The basic goal of my paper is to cause the reader to think about how the “Socratic death spiral” might be used to trace American political history, and to also think about whether or not we are bound to the outcome it predicts, or how we might be able to avoid the tyranny.

When I compared and contrasted Kohlberg’s theory and Socrates’ theory of moral development, I found that they basically had the same ideas. Both theorists concluded that there are two ways to act just. One is to behave justly without a higher understanding and knowledge of justice, for example, those who chose the morally right decision because they want to avoid punishment not because they believe in the respect and dignity of others. The other way is to behave justly because one truly understands and has a deeper understanding of the concept of justice. These similarities show a deep connection between ancient philosophy and modern philosophy. It also gives relevance to the Republic and why it is still widely read and studied today.

Also I found a scholar who agrees with my theory of compassion, Martha Nussbaum. She has written many articles explaining why compassion is a necessary component in acts of justice. Like me, she believes that this emotion compels people to help others in a selfless way. While we both agree with parts of Socrates’ theory of individual justice we believe that without emotion to drive reason, the actions performed by the individual will lack strength and drive. The use of emotion to assert ones beliefs and motivations is very important and can further push an individual to behave with fervor and passion. Without this, otherwise just acts would become lackluster efforts.

The ultimate “take away” of my research project is the understanding of and psychology of the just individual and specifically what means to act justly and the motivations behind just action. How much emotion is needed to have compassion? Where does too much emotion become harmful to inner justice? What happens when too little emotion is used?

I wanted to answer this question by analyzing the ideal democratic man both according to Socrates and in the United States.  I used sources that examined both democrats in detail.  I also looked at sources that analyzed American government or illustrated the motivations that are behind it, such as the Federalist Papers.  This helped me realize what exactly a Platonic democrat was, what an American democrat was and how they were related.  I found that an American democrat has a lot in common with the Platonic democrat but surprisingly, he also is very similar to the Platonic aristocrat, the ideal man according to Socrates.  This is important because although we cannot lift the lessons of the “Republic” straight from its pages and apply them to our society, it is clear that it is still very relevant.

This is critical in applying the “Republic” to our lives today.  Should we take Plato’s lessons as law and if not, how much discussion should there be about them?  In my essay, I consider the fact that the true value of the “Republic” is not in the lessons and actual knowledge but in the example that it is for intelligent, intellectual debate for the purpose of better understanding a concept.  At the very least, we should use it as a blueprint for gaining knowledge.

However, there is still value in how Socrates addresses democracy and aristocracy in his discussion.  What he sees as the weakpoints of both are clearly set out and although they may not be the ultimate in modern politics, they do serve as guidelines for what we should be careful of as a society.  The aversion to forms, while conducive to freedom, is dangerous when justice is the end goal.

Do you think that American democracy is similar to Platonic democracy and how?  What lessons can we take from the “Republic” and what points are inapplicable to our society?  Due to the theoretical nature of Socrates’ cities, it is possible that  any real government, including our own, contains elements of each city and is not just an example of one.  Does this seem accurate or do you believe that each government has one system that it is most similar to and deviates from in only minor ways?

I think that answering this question is vital because there are so many technologies which mess with the human genome so much that soon, we will be able to create superhumans whose abilities outstrip our own. This will essentially create another class system – those who have been genetically altered and those who are not. I used modern arguments for eugenics, which I then found actually intertwined with Plato’s theories on eugenics exactly. Although my paper truly deals with whether or not eugenics is moral, I think that deciding whether or not if it’s moral is the first step.

Through my research, I have come to the conclusion that the theory of eugenics is moral; however, I still don’t know, nor did I do research on, the types of eugenics which are moral. There are two types of eugenics: positive eugenics, which encourages people of high value to reproduce, or the creation of super-babies, and negative eugenics, which discourages low-value people of reproducing (this includes genocides such as what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII). Plato helped me come to the conclusion that eugenics itself, as a theory is a moral thing; however, I’m still unsure if the tools that are necessary for eugenics to work are moral. Do you think that there is a difference between these tools of eugenics and the theory of eugenics? Do you believe that eugenics can ever be moral due to what has happened in the past? For you, how moral is eugenics?

It’s easy for us to hop on the new bandwagon of civic engagement and do these things because it’s part of the proven journey towards success, but I think The Republic provides good reasons as to why one should embrace a sense of duty to others and to the greater community. For example, the philosophers must acknowledge their duty towards those still stuck in the cave because they are privileged to receive an education that allows them to see the truth. They must make use of their knowledge and rule over their city. My research also seeks out specific places in Plato’s Republic that explicitly states a criterion for the highest class of society to be a sense of duty towards others. I use sources pertaining to Duke such as the Duke Strategic Plans, a speech by President Brodhead and Trinity College Graduation Requirements in order to illustrate the vision that Duke’s board of trustees has of its future graduates. I’ve found that Duke’s service learning courses, its Duke Engage program, Duke-Durham Partnership and ethical inquiry course requirements are some of the facets of Duke that are conceptually comparable to the education of Plato’s philosophers and guardians.

It was suggested to me at a workshop that I incorporate current students’ firsthand accounts of civic engagement experiences, or their general opinion on Duke’s dedication to addressing the needs of others. However, in the end, I chose to omit student opinion because my project seeks to compare Duke’s educational philosophy to that of The Republic’s Kallipolis. As such, what’s more relevant is what the “bigwigs” decided is the mission of our undergraduate experience. Ultimately, we do decide what we make of our 4 years at Duke; however, people like Brodhead and the Provost inarguably have the most influence on which new initiatives take flight, towards what direction the campus culture heads.

The main issues I encountered was finding scholarly sources that discussed the idea of duty and service as a part of the philosophers or guardians’ education. In my E3, I discussed a full discussion of the philosophers’ civic responsibility was missing from The Republic, and the strangeness surrounding the philosophers’ compulsion to return to the cave. Another challenge related to sticky issues regarding the social status of Dukies. In comparing the philosopher’s education to that of the Dukie, it is easy for my readers to suppose that I am likening Dukies to philosophers, the highest class of society. I had to make sure to address these issues and clarify that the purpose of my argument was to find valuable outcomes of the philosophers’ education. Then, I would compare those outcomes to those desired of Duke graduates by people like Brodhead and the Board. Finally, I would measure specifically the civic engagement and service learning programs at Duke to the education described in Plato’s Republic.

The takeaway: service learning is valuable – it engrains in students a sense of responsibility towards others (not just in immediate the community, but in developing nations as well). Taking The Republic into consideration, we can infer that embracing this component of our undergraduate education will render us more just and thereby contribute to a happier global community. I was careful to stay away from the topic of happiness in my paper because it is a whole other discussion. But in some ways, I think it is relevant to civic responsibility. Whether or not we are happy when we have to tutor underprivileged kids in the community, whether or not the philosopher is happy when he has to return to the cave and rule…these are important questions. If this sense of duty renders us more just, but this sense is forced upon us, then our actions of justice will not be sustainable. Do you think Duke’s program encourages students to love serving others? To desire to do so because it is their responsibility and it makes them happy? Or, is it a burden that we as a privileged community is reluctantly shouldering?