9.4: The First Proof- Analogy of City and Soul

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 94569

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

See 576b-580c. Socrates’ reply to the challenge from Book II is in the form of three arguments, the first of which is an argument by analogy: A tyrannical soul is like a tyrannical city, for the powerful lawless desire of a tyrannical person lords over the rest of the soul much as a tyrant lords over the rest of the city. The tyrannical city is, however, enslaved, poor, fearful, and generally miserable. Therefore, the tyrannical soul is similarly miserable. (It is doubly bad, Socrates thinks, if the person is an actual tyrant, for then he is not only enslaved internally, but, because he is in constant danger of being overthrown by his subjects, he lives in constant fear, a prisoner in his own palace.) It is clear at the end of this passage that Glaucon and Socrates think the argument can be extended to democratic, oligarchic, timocratic, and aristocratic souls as well, with the result that people are happy to the extent that they are just. It never gets stated explicitly, but the general argument appears to be this: The more justice there is in a city, the more each citizen is doing the job for which he or she is best suited, and the more harmoniously the city functions. The more harmoniously the city functions, the more adequately the citizens’ desires are satisfied. The more adequately the citizens’ desires are satisfied, the happier the city is. So the more justice there is in a city, the happier it is. Similarly, the more justice there is in a person’s soul, the more each part of the soul is doing the job for which it is best suited, and the more harmoniously the soul functions. The more harmoniously the soul functions, the more adequately the desires of each part of the soul are satisfied. The more adequately the desires of the parts are satisfied, the happier the person is. Therefore, the more one is just, the more one is happy.

How good is the analogy between cities and souls? How is the relation between the parts of a soul different from the relation between the parts of a city?
Is a successful mobster whose rational part is entirely in the service of his appetitive part necessarily miserable? Would the rational part feel pain on account of its servitude?
What about the democratic city and soul? Didn’t Socrates and Glaucon agree that life in the democratic city is pleasant (558a)? So by the same analogy they use to argue against the happiness of the tyrannical soul, wouldn’t it follow that the democratic soul lives pleasantly? It samples all the pleasures, and even dabbles in something like philosophy when it feels like it. It may not engage in any real dialectical conversation, or approach the truth about the essence of things, but does it suffer for this?
Socrates suggests at 576a that the tyrannical person never gets a taste of true friendship. Is this true? What is true friendship, and why might Socrates think that being ruled by a powerful lawless desire prevents it?