Looking back to the past for an outlook on the future should be done more often and taken more seriously. For if it was, we would not be in Iraq like the British before us almost forty years ago. History has an odd way of repeating itself or should I say mankind has an odd tendency to ignore history.

Enter Socrates and the classic dialogues he had with Thrasymachus and Glaucon in Plato’s Republic written in the fourth century B.C. This great work brings to light the concept of the philosopher-king like that of Marcus Aurelius. Which, in my opinion would make the state of Pax Americana much better than it is now if we had a philosopher-president. Throughout the beginning of this book notably book one; what I found fascinating was how this creation of the state was started by a debate between what was justice and injustice. This debate finally led to creating a state where justice and injustice could be more clearly defined. This entire “state” was created just to settle a debate over two opposites. It was Thrasymachus who thought that justice was the interest of the stronger. He said that justice was to benefit friends and harm enemies. Thrasymachus believed that the life of the unjust to be more advantageous than the just because the unjust looked out for their own interests. Socrates disagreed, and it led to a little rough sailing between the two in his discourse.

Thrasymachus actually grouped injustice with wisdom and virtue. Simply because lawlessness had some gains. If you were a robber and you took something from someone else, you gained such was his reasoning. Socrates after listening posed the question would the just man seek to gain advantage like that of the unjust over the just? The answer obviously is if he is a just man he would not. He goes on to make the inference that happiness and not misery is profitable.

Another fascinating piece from this dialogue is the discussion of the physician and the pilot as being unjust for making money, but to Thrasymachus this act makes them just because they do this out of self-interest, just like the robber or thief would. It is then left to Socrates to make the argument that these professions are practiced for the overall good of the people and therefore makes it a just and virtuous cause. Socrates asks, is the physician a healer of the sick or a maker of money? The answer that follows is that the physician is indeed a healer of the sick like the pilot is the captain of sailors. It seems that every art like that of the physician and pilot has an interest. Even the act of monetary compensation onto these professions is considered the art of pay.

Eventually it looks that Socrates gets the best of Thrasymachus in this conversation. Then it is on to the discussion of how justice plays out in the state. Basically in this environment anything done to hurt the interests of the state is defined to be unjust. In this state you will come to find progressiveness in some practices and regressive acts in others.

The state to be created was to have different classes that all functioned together to make a state. You had laborers, husbandmen, artisans and guardians. Man and woman were meant to breed, where the best class could be produced and the weak to be hidden and secluded. However, Socrates believed in allowing women to practice and learn things just like men in order to make the state grow strong. He felt that a guardian should seek the same traits in his mate. Throughout the dialogues it is decided that the guardians of the state were not to be bogged down with materialistic needs. They were the protectors of the state and virtuous. They were to learn the ways of war, at a young age and also dabble in arithmetic and philosophy. Eventually they would be molded to be the eventual leaders of the state.

“And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands, and is radiant with intelligence; but when turned toward the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence?”

This quote coming from Socrates shows that he put the love of philosophy, the search for truth and wisdom above all else in his state. Those who followed the path to seek the truth and knowledge were to be the leaders in this state. He would go on to differentiate between two forms of knowledge. Socrates realized that not everyone would be fit or interested in the path of philosophy and thus deny themselves the road to philosopher-king. There were those that instead sought out music and the love of learning that art, in which Socrates differentiated with from philosophy and wisdom.

“You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offer this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life.”

That quote reinforces that wisdom was the key to governing the state.
Something that Socrates believed in, which many politicians do not follow to this day is the belief that one should look down upon the life of political ambition. He felt that was of true philosophy.

“And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.”

And fight we shall and the fight we continue to do up to this day. Only in recent history have I heard of a president that actually saw his role as more of duty, than one of enjoyment. That was Ronald Reagan, and while I was young during his presidency and do not agree with his ideology as I read it now, I must say I find his belief in duty rather than ambition interesting.

The dialogue continues on to speak of how different forms of government are brought about from timocracy all the way to democracy. In some ways I find Socrates to be rather liberal and in other ways I found him to be regressive. I did find a quote which I must bring to attention, this was Socrates speaking of oligarchy and it is as follows;

“Consider the nature of the qualification, just think what would happen if pilots were to be chosen according to their property, and a poor man were refused permission to steer, even though he were a better pilot?”

Socrates would then receive the answer from Glaucon that they would most certainly become shipwreck. So too would be the outcome of government if the unqualified were made to rule equated Socrates.

In an oligarchy the rulers are aware that their power rests upon their wealth. They will refuse to stop the spendthrift because they gain by their downfall. They take interest from them and buy up their land. Can a parallel be drawn of this today?

In an oligarchic state many good people are reduced to poverty. But they will still remain in the state, poor and eager for revolution. This is a threat to the wealthy rulers, but do they even see it? There is a great divide in wealth, it goes from the extremely wealthy to the dangerously poor, and again I will ask if not similar circumstances appear worldwide today?

In my opinion the overall well being of the citizens of a state is essential and even Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan speaks of the same thing. The only difference is he spoke of it in a kingdom where the subjects must be taken care of otherwise a king does not truly have power.

From the king I will speak of the protector, which is not a king but a leader and champion of the people. He is brought into power by the people to advance a cause. They set the protector over them and bring him into greatness. The question then arises from the dialogue of how does a protector begin to change into a tyrant?

The protector is of the people; he has a multitude at his beckoning. He is able to execute violent acts on his people through false accusations. He may also banish others as well. He does this all the while promising the abolition of debt and partitioning of land. I view this simply as, you promise the majority good deeds and then this allows you to carry out a selfish or tyrannical agenda. I feel that fear may also be used as a substitute to good deeds in this situation. Throughout our modern history are there not similar leaders who have done this in some shape or form?

There is also danger in having an uneducated citizenry. Which leaves them for a ruler to exploit. Socrates speaks of this as the people being hidden from the truth for they seek pleasure and sensuality.

“Those, then, who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the upper world.”

Not only do they never pass into the upper world most do not even know of its existence.

“Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial.”

How many of us are living day to day immersed in our pleasures not turning the eye of our soul to the truth letting it shine? Have not our hooves made of iron, now turned to ones made of lead, atoms and chemicals?

It is for this reason that I believe the electorate is usually fooled and good men and women and tyrants alike know this truth.

In closing, I will say that this book written so very long go amazes me with the truth and knowledge that is of use to those of us who wish to see the truth. While mankind has advanced there are things that still remain the same. Often we do not realize that history is repeating itself until it is too late. Lastly, society will only be saved and governed by those who wish to travel to the upper world and see the truth unmasked. Those that wish to control realize that by filling our minds with foolish media, that is the way to keep us from seeking wisdom. I aim to ascend; won’t you join me on that journey?