Plato's Republic Exam Study Guide
The exam will be two hours and thirty minutes. The first thirty minutes will be devoted to Greek philosophical terms; the next two hours will be devoted to two essay questions (one hour per essay).
I. Provisional List of Greek Terms
Six Greek philosophical terms----or sets of terms-will appear on the exaln. You will be asked to define each one: provide a range of English translations that approximate Plato's usage of the term, discuss the context in which Plato uses it, and its philosophical
significance for him. ndA6, [IoArcela v6p,og, gdng
Dix,r1, d)mia, )marcaiv,r1 rAeove(ia otoT,E, r6Aep,og auTaQxes rip'q iqyov, riAog d,peri1, xaxo,fi*em Seis
T.t ouotx,i1, rorfiary, p, ip,,r1ng a,Qpovtq, Ed,gtrtaxov (ytvvaorv) tltetDog iarqdg, DmaorilE
fuy'fi, rdpta
ravroDard, A6yog, Aoyop,6g, rtt Aoyotxiv fup6s, il Sug,oetllE inSug, ia, r) irn Sup,,r1n x6v d,xqaolaDt xar oalvq, aurppoa,jv,rl, d,vDqeia, aogla htar'fip,q, D6(a Ddvap,6 d,A'fi9eru
rptA6roqog, rpA6)o{05 il iiv, ri p,,i1 iiv efDos, Dia .yivenE l{aigv,ttg
eixaala (eixdy), rio-ng, ,, ltd,vom, vo,r1ory aro7r0s
II. Provisional Essay Questions
xa))ino),ry, d,gmr6g, d,Enoxgaria np,aqyia, np,oxgarla, np,oxpatxig iAtyapyla, LAryappxiE oi rcMoi, oi iAiTot
Drlp,oxpar ia, D,rltr t oxpan x6g,
Dfit
os
rugavv ig, rugavv m,6g, ripavvog e?u9 9rA6oo9o9, gtAorlp,oE, grAoyq,fip,aroE d,vaTxaiE irnSup,la eAeuSepia, DouAeia d,vd,7xr1 d,Savada p,i9oE noAJrponoE
Two essay questions will appear on the exam. You will be asked to answer each one with an essay of approximately an hour's length.
1. In Book I of Republic, Socrates considers and then criticizes the definitions of justice proffered by three successive interlocutors: Cephalus, Polemarchus, and
Thrasymachus. Beginning with Cephalus, what is his definition, what seems to motivate it, and how does Socrates refute it? Moving next to Polemarchus, what is his definition ofjustice, how is it an heir to his father's, and what are two of the arguments Socrates uses to reject it? How sound are these arguments? What are their flaws? Finishing with Thrasymachus, what is his definition ofjustice, what is its broader meaning, and what are three arguments Socrates uses to reject it? Again, how sound are these arguments? If they have flaws, are they related to those of Socrates' earlier critique of Polemarchus? Surveying this whole
2.
conversation of Book 1, what patterns of thought stand out to the eyes of a critical reader? With these patterns in mind, what might be the deeper lessons of Book 1, especially for epistemology and ethics? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles: Barney and Weiss.)
Between 352a8 and 354c3, at the end of Book I of Republic, Soqates advances what has since become known as "the function argument." (Aristotle adopts and revises it in the first book of his Nicomachean Ethics, making it foundational for his ethical thought, and thereby the ethical thought of many subsequent
philosophers.) First, rehearse this argument, schematizingit as succinctly and accurately as possible. Second, evaluate it. How sound an argument is it? What, if
any, are its flaws? Third, whether or not this argument is sound, what does it reveal about Plato's (not to mention Aristotle's) world-view? Finally, make the case that this quick argument----occupying just a few pages, and apparently abandoned by Socrates as he rises to the renewed challenge to justice posed by Glaucon-forecasts the central point of his full reply to this challenge. (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Barney and Santas.)
What is Glaucon's challenge to Socrates at the beginning of Book 2 of Republic? Crudely put, he wants him to defend justice, but, more finely, as if inspired by Thrasymachus's earlier challenge, Glaucon wants Socrates to defend justice in a particular way. With what distinction does he therefore begin his challenge? What two demands does he then make of Socrates? Finally, in what three stages does he then articulate his challenge? Socrates feels overwhelmed as it is, but Adeimantus supplements his brother's challenge with two additional considerations. What are they, and how do they make Socrates' task tougher than it already seemed? In the face of such a daunting challenge, what is Socrates' answer? In effect, this answer is the rest of Republic, so you must distill its most important parts, providing only an outline of the answer's conclusion. But with that limit in mind. assess whether or not Plato's Socrates answers the challenge put to him by Plato's brothers. (In your own answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Rowe, Weiss, Singpurwalla, Kamtekar (AZ).)
What is the principle of political philosophy? What explains the constitution of our polities? Whence arose political society? What motivates us, most deeply, to obey the restrictions of political life? Three very different speakers in the first two Books of Republic, using three very different philosophical methods, offer three very different answers to these related questions: Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Socrates. Present in succession these alternatives, paying equal attention both to the content of their answers and the method of their arguments. As you do so, evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each method, so that by the end of your presentation you may make an informed comparison of their answers. Of these three approaches to political philosophy, which one comes closest to the principle of politics? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Santas and Weiss.)
J .
5.
At the end of Book 2 Socrates argues that gods never lie. What is this argument? Is it sound? Whether or not it is, Socrates uses it-and other conclusions about both gods and heroes in Book 3 as well-to bowdlerize some of the most important and poignant passages of Greek epic poetry. This is part of his campaign against the poets, whom he criticizes here and elsewhere in Republic for their deceptions. Why does Plato consider them deceivers? Here you should address the three arguments of Book 10. How sound are these arguments? And what about his "noble lie"? Is this not a hypocritical act of deception on Plato's own part? Does this apparent hypocrisy undermine Plato's campaign against the poets, let alone his highest philosophical aspiration-namely, to know the truth? If not, why does Socrates think this lie justified? What might be said in his favor? Can there be a noble lie? (In your answer to this question, you should findespecially useful the following articles we have read: McPherran, Lear, Schofield, Moss, and Halliwell.)
What is Plato's psychology? Beginning with the argument in Book 4, show how Socrates divides the soul into three parts. How sound is this argument? What objections might be raised against it? Can they be met? One objection many have posed is that the distinctions are not clear between the desires of each part. One popular reply to this objection is that rational desires depend exclusively on the good, appetitive desires depend not at all on the good, and spirited desires depend to some extent (thought not exclusively) on the good. What evidence does
Republic offer for these criteria of desire? How good is this evidence? What evidence does Republic offer against these criteria? How good is this
countervailing evidence? Are all desires, according to Plato in Republic, for the good? Why does it matter? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Moss (AZ), Miller (AZ) Anagnostopoulos, Lorenz, and Ferrari.)
What is Socrates' definition ofjustice at the end of Book4 of Republic? How does this definition not only answer the question-What is justice?-with which the dialogue began in Book 1, but also answer Glaucon's challenge-Show that perfect justice is preferable to perfect injustice-with which the dialogue resumed in Book 2? Is either answer successful? If not, what are their shortcomings? How are these shortcomings remedied by the subsequent discussions of the dialogue? Do these remedies work? Why or why not? Whether or not they do, how does this definition ofjustice sublimate both the conclusion of the function argument in Book I and the principle of specialization in Book 2? How, moreover, does this definition sublimate the various definitions proferred but rejected in Book l? Are any of these sublimations circular arguments? If not, what is the value of
sublimation as a philosophical technique? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Barney, Santas, and Kosman.)
6 .
8.
Describe the utopia Socrates presents in Book 5 of Republic. What are the three waves of criticism he anticipates this presentation will meet? What are his reasons for advancing these controversial political innovations, and what arguments does he use to resist these 'waves'? How sincere do you think Socrates is in this presentation and argumentation? What reasons might be adduced to argue that he is being ironic? What reasons might be adduced to resist that argument? On this same question-utopia and irony-what role does the so-called 'city of pigs' play in the dialogue? After all, some think it is Socrates' sincere utopia, whereas the utopia of Book 5 is only his second-best offer. What are the arguments for and against this thought, and how, assessing their relative merits, do you stand on this question? In your assessment, be sure not to neglect the role of the philosopher. How do Plato and his character, Socrates, understand the relationship between philosophy and politics? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Ludwig, Saxonhouse, Franks, Morri son, S ingpurwalla (AZ), and Straus s. )One of the most important and memorable doctrines of Republic is that of the Forms. They assume a center stage in Republic only in the last third of Book 5, but there receive a subtle argument in their defense, one we might characterize as 'epistemological' since it begins with an epistemic distinction. What is this distinction, and how sound is the argument that Socrates develops from it? Once you have assessed the argument on its own terms, discuss why Socrates
introduces it and the the doctrine of Forms it defends at this precise point in the dialogue. Once you have assessed the argument and discussed its immediate context, show how it and the doctrine of Forms not only look forward to the epistemological and ontological images of Books 6 and 7,but also backward to the psychology of Book 4. (ln your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Sedley, Penner, Miller
(^z).)
10. Plato's Republic is full of images, many of them quite detailed and vivid. Among the most vivd and detailed are the three at the heart of the work-the Sun, the Line, and the Cave-which illustrate the central ontological and epistemological distinctions of the dialogue. Recount these images in order, paying special attention to the following three questions. First, since images and imagination are at the bottom of the Line, what might Plato be saying about the credibility of these images themselves? Second, in what ways does the Cave synthesize the two
earlier images? And third, what are the political elements of the Cave, and how does this image bring the ontology and epistemology of Republic to bear on the political and ethical investigation ofjustice with which the dialogue began and to which it returns shortly afterwards? (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Sedley, Denyer, Miller, Reeve (AZ),Lear (AZ), Ferejohn.)
11. In Books 8-9 Socrates resumes where he left off, atthe end of Book 4, by describing the decline of his utopia into four degenerate regimes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Describe the most important features of each constitution, and why Socrates thinks each one emerges from its predecessor. If this story is more
lhan an amusing nanative, is there a logic of decline at work, one or more principles of politics that predict the trajectory of any political society? If so, what are these principles, and how iniegral are they io the rest of the Socrates' views in Republic, especially his psychology? After all, for every political constitution there is a correlative character, a psychological constitution. Describe the most important features of each of these, and whySocrates thinks each one emerges from its predecessor. what, if any, are the principles of psychological decline? How similar are these principles to those ofpolitical decline, and how are they inter-related? Finally, which story, if either, is primary: the political or the psychological? (In you unr*"r to this question, you sirould find especially useful the following articles we have read: Hitz (Az),Bliissner, Strauss, and Parry.)
72- rn Book 9 Socrates finally presents his response to Glaucon,s challenge, his argument that justice is good for its own sake, whatever its consequen"ces. Indeed, his argument is supposed to convince us that real justice with the appearance of injustice (and thus punishments) is preferable even to real injusticethat has assumed the appearance (and thus the rewards) ofjustice. of his three arguments-the comparison of the philosopher and the tyrant, the decision of competent judges, namely philosophers, and finally the purity and truth of philosophic pleasure-he is most confident in the ihi.d. Ho* does this third argument work, and is it sound? What are the objects of pure and true pleasure, and what is the subject of this pleasure? In what way do toth these objlcts and this subject respect the principle of opposites (or principle of non-coniradiction)? How, then, does the distinction between real and illurory pleasure, not to mention the distinction between real and illusory justice, in sum, the deepest of all
distinctions in the dialogue, depend on a logical principie? (In ybur answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read: Penner, Kosman, Sedley, Miller ( Z))
l3' In Book 70 of Republic, Socrates advances an argument for the immortality of the soul' What is this argument, and how valid and sound is it? How might we object to it, and how might Socrates respond to our objections? Whether or not he would defend his argument, Socrates would likely cling tenaciously to his faith in the immortality of the soul. But what can he say, in the end, about this soul that he believes to survive bodily death? He resorts first to an image, that of the sea-god Glaucus, and then to a myth, that of Er. what does the image imply about our immortal selves, and what does the myth imply about their eschatalogical destiny? Do these implications raise any problems foi earlier doctrines in Repibtrc? If so, what is happening in these strange final pages of the dialogue? (In your answer to this question' you should find especially-useful the following articles we have read: Halliwell, Ferrari, Miller (AZ).)
14. At the heart of Republic is a memorable-indeed, an unforgettable-story: the Cave. We have considered the many ways in which this story condenses the most important lessons of the dialogue, lessons in ontology, epistemology, politics, psychology, and aesthetics. But perhaps most important of all these lessons is pedagogical; the Cave illustrates the education of the philosopher. Lest we forget: Republic itself is a pedagogical exercise, in which Plato is teaching us, his
readers, to become philosophers. In this way, the Cave story is our story as we read the dialogue itself--our painful going up and our bewildering return below. Tell these two stories together, the story of being educated by this dialogue, from its first Book to its last, alongside the story of the philosopher who is educated within it, in Book 7 . Draw upon your knowledge of those doctrines mentioned above, and, when most pertinent, the arguments Socrates uses to develop and defend them. But also draw upon our consideration of this dialogue as a work of art, as an artfully composed conversation, a special sort of conversation whose goal is to change the structure of your soul. (In your answer to this question, you should find especially useful the following articles we have read:Lear,Lear (AZ), Reeve (AZ), Richardson Lear, Barney.)
