Episode 49: Plato's Republic Book X-2: The Immortal Soul

Can art and poetry lead us astray from the path of truth? In this episode, we summarize Socrates' critical take on poetry and the arts as outlined in Book 10 of Plato's Republic. Socrates argues that mimesis, or artistic representation, is a distorted reflection of reality that can misguide citizens by amplifying their passions over rational thought. Using a clever analogy of a basketball shoe, we break down the varying levels of understanding and the distinct roles of creators, users, and advertisers. Furthermore, we scrutinize Socrates' critique of Homer's epics and their potential to incite irrational behavior, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of philosophical themes and the quest for truth.

Our discussion then shifts to a profound dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, where Socrates presents his compelling case for the immortality of the soul. We dissect his logical reasoning, distinguishing between elements that preserve or destroy entities like the human body and soul. Socrates posits that while vice and injustice might corrupt the soul, they don't annihilate it, thus suggesting its eternal nature. This segment also addresses Glaucon's doubts and examines how the belief in an immortal soul can shape one's pursuit of justice and virtue.

Finally, we delve into the intricate nature of the soul, inspired by Socratic philosophy and the allegory of the sea god Glaucus. We explore the soul's inherent love for wisdom and how it becomes distorted by human desires. The discussion leads to a rich examination of justice and the contrasting lives of just and unjust individuals. We reflect on the rewards of a just life, both in this world and beyond, to highlight the importance of living an examined life for true fulfillment. Join us for a thought-provoking journey through Socratic insights that challenge us to look beyond the surface appearance and aim for a life of virtue and wisdom.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:20

All right, we'll just jump right in. So here we are picking up book 10. And we left off on our previous episode, just to kind of do a quick summary had a very critical view of poetry and the arts in general, because he viewed the products of poetry and art, which we can call mimesis, as the furthest removed from the truth. And the central critique behind his restrictions of poetry and artistry in the Republic was because it seemed to turn the citizens away from being right. So the being aspect of the divided line and more toward the becoming aspect, which is it reinforces appearances at the expense of pursuit of the truth. To put it simply Now, he also put it in terms of the fact that it seemed to feed the passions, feed the spirited element, again at the expense of starving the rational element, expense of starving the rational element, which often has to transcend the emotional reactivity that is part of the response people have to artistic creations and to poetry. And so then he also talked about, you know, the three levels of understanding per se, the three levels of, you know, the grasp one can have on reality. And so there is the analogy he made of the maker of the thing and the thing itself, where he had, we'll say God or nature as the maker of the concept, and we use the analogy of a shoe, like a basketball shoe, like um, and so you would have, nature has the concept out there, the form of the basketball shoe, or god's shoe, uh, what you would consider the, the ideal, uh, shoe as a concept, and then at the next level, you know. So now, two places removed from the truth would be be the maker of the shoe, so either Nike and or the user of the shoe, in this case Michael Jordan, because we were talking about Eric Jordan's and then the position that holds the third place removed from the truth would be, for example, the advertisers, who they're more focused on paintings of the shoe and representations of the shoe, appearances of the shoe that are largely two-dimensional and furthest removed from the actual thing. And he used that as an analogy. We use that as an analogy for what you could say mimesis is.

Speaker 1: 3:17

And from there, socrates then started to talk about the writings of Homer, which back then were very obviously influential culturally and were used as a touchstone Part of the canon of Greek culture. Were the Homeric epics, and Socrates really advised caution in terms of the readings, because there is a propensity to put the source of the material, the written material, over the substance of the material. And by that I mean people were ascribing to some of the ideals and events that were represented in Homer's epics simply because it was Homer writing them, who was a very good writer, very influential. But, as Socrates pointed out, he was three times removed from the truth because while he may have written about courageous acts such as those of Socrates and some of the other players in the Iliad and the Odyssey, homer himself was not known for performing courageous acts. Homer himself was not known for leading an army into battle. Homer himself was not known for doing anything, practically speaking, to improve the lives of his fellow citizens.

Speaker 1: 4:40

And yet he is somebody, indirectly vis-a-vis his epics, who is referenced or used as kind of a guiding point to make decisions and that sort of thing. And so that's kind of where we left off. And then Socrates here at this point has a pivot, because we now are going to talk about the immortal soul and there's a cryptic comment that Socrates makes at about 614a where he says, you know, he's talking about the benefits of the just life and he says that while the just man is alive there are the sorts of prizes, wages and gifts he receives from gods and human beings, in addition to those good things that justice itself provides, but they are nothing in number or size compared to those that await each man after death. And so now we? Now we move into this idea of the immortal soul, and so Socrates, at this point, makes a logical argument for why he believes the soul is immortal.

Speaker 2: 5:59

Okay point in the Republic, the journey is one of self-discovery. We are creating an order, Republic inside our minds. And so how does one go about achieving that? And part of that is to come to understand human nature, that as humans we are more likely to be taken in by things that are appetitive in nature than by things that are rational, Because rational seems very boring at the outset and we are drawn to works that also depict that aspect of appetitive behavior over rational behavior.

Speaker 2: 7:02

Simply put, the Homer's Odyssey and Iliad are probably read a lot more frequently than Plato's Republic, and there's a reason for that. Now Socrates is cautioning us, not about just about the fact that this is Homer. He's not just saying that don't read Homer, he's cautioning against this kind of literature, this kind of communication that plays on the appetitive aspect and gets us drawn in appetitive aspect. And it gets us drawn in. And so when we see these heroes of the Homeric epics behaving in ways that are emotional and irrational, it gives us a pass. We say you know well, if Achilles can behave like this, well then you know.

Speaker 1: 8:07

Right. It has a sort of a normalizing effect and the audience has a tendency to model what they see.

Speaker 2: 8:13

And so there has to be somebody who who helps you one find the hidden allegory behind these great works. The problem is, most folks that one would come across would be drawn into the emotional aspect of it. One would not find the truth seeker who's looking at the shadows that are being cast on the wall and saying, oh, you know what these are shadows. I being cast on the wall and saying, oh, you know what these are shadows. I've actually seen the light and now I can tell you what these represent, what this all means, as opposed to somebody who's staring at the wall of the cave and looking at shadows and getting very good at predicting those shadows is giving you advice. So one has to find that, and that's what Socrates is in the Republic is that?

Speaker 1: 9:03

individual who's being able to find that, and that's what.

Speaker 2: 9:05

Socrates is in the Republic. It's that individual who's being able to find. He's constantly in the pursuit of knowledge, truth, beauty, goodness, and if you're following along with him.

Speaker 2: 9:15

He will tell you that he does not know, but he is going to make sure that you understand that you don't know either. And knowing that one does not know anything is one of the pinnacles of human knowledge, because at that point you have burned away, as you say, all the dry wood and you're now left with what is left. Now, knowing that you don't know anything is knowing something, yeah, as opposed to not knowing anything, yeah, and just having a false opinion yeah, I still think there's kind of a source.

Speaker 1: 9:51

There's still a caution, though, because, um, he, it's not so much that he's saying don't read homer, he's saying don't just read some, read something because it was written by homer and this is why and it's because he has you don't want to get information from somebody who doesn't have the lived experience of the thing that you're trying to learn about. Right, that's the main thing that comes to you. That brings us to the second part of that, the first part is.

Speaker 2: 10:15

Don't understand that, you will be drawn into the emotional aspects of it.

Speaker 1: 10:20

You will lose out on the allegorical aspects of what is being discussed.

Speaker 2: 10:23

There's definitely two parts to it and the second part of it is just don't blindly follow somebody because other people say that he's great or because this person has written great books. What has this person done? Actions is what should count and not words. And Socrates never wrote anything. It was all action, and people wrote about his actions. So it makes sense. Now the this point comes because we are talking about what do we expose ourselves?

Speaker 1: 10:55

to who do we?

Speaker 2: 10:55

read it comes at the kind of the fag end of the Republic, because one made their journey all the way. Read this logical argument, which is it's interesting to very few people.

Speaker 1: 11:09

You know we find it interesting most people won't.

Speaker 2: 11:13

And once you get to this point, you know one is more likely to understand this point, the point that if this doesn't read like a, like a, you know, sci-fi novel, right, it doesn't read like that but there is, there's something to be said about the pursuit of truth.

Speaker 2: 11:28

It gives you a certain sense of achievement, happiness, understanding of you know, because you followed along with somebody like socrates, they've taken you through it. Um, and the the last point, what the capstone on this was the fact that it is much more difficult to be a good person than it is to be a bad person, and this endeavor of reading the Republic is a very small example of what that would mean if one was following wisdom. One is trying to is is pursuing wisdom, is pursuing understanding of what it is to be ethical.

Speaker 1: 12:11

What is justice? What's temperance? What's gutter right? The pursuit of the just life? Right, right that examined.

Speaker 2: 12:15

Life is hard, reading the republic is hard and um, but being good is hard, and so that is kind of the ending of this particular argument. Is that line by Socrates where he says Glockon?

Speaker 2: 12:31

doing good things, being good is actually harder. Then he says OK, now that we've come to this point, come to understand how one can be good. One now has to talk about this aspect of what does one get for being good. Because whatever be the sphere of human life and our experience, it is but mere moments in the history of the universe. If you look at immeasurable time, the human life of whatever 60, 80 years is but a moment, an instance. And so whatever one gets during this period of life be it good, be it bad is of no consequence, just given the expanse of time.

Speaker 2: 13:28

So why then does it matter to do any of this? Why be good, why be evil? Why be anything, be pure evil Doesn't matter, because at best you have 80 years. Out of that, you spend 20-40 years getting to a position where you can in fact be that evil, and then you have maybe another 20 years where you could, and then you're gone. And that 20 years time and 14 point, some billion years means nothing. So what's the point? Why does one, why should one even talk about this aspect? And that's where he says that there is.

Speaker 2: 14:06

He comes to the point of why should one still be concerned about being good, doing good acts, and that's what then the conversation then moves on to the fact that, yes, our bodies are gone, but there's an aspect of us that remains, that is immortal and Glaucon says well, wait a minute.

Speaker 2: 14:35

You're saying that there's something called the soul and that it's immortal. Like do you have proof of this? That's a big statement that you're making Socrates proof of this. That's a big statement that you're making socrates. And socrates is like yeah, I think we can logically deduce the fact that there is in fact a soul that exists. That leads to a fascinating. I think there are three or four pages that he very logically talks about yeah, why?

Speaker 1: 14:56

and so do you want to? Yeah, I mean so. Uh, so at this point socrates is sort of walking Glaucon through the logical rationale behind his claim that the soul is immortal. And it's an important point to understand because, as you say, socrates is taking a very transcendent view of the soul. And if the soul is immortal, we'll get into why he thinks the rationale behind it. But if the soul is immortal, then you're right. Then these trials and tribulations, triumphs, come your way, because your job to live the best life is essentially to be just through all of that, and that's how you achieve the best life that you can live.

Speaker 1: 15:59

But the rationale kind of goes like this, and so you have to understand, work under the premise that there's good things and there's bad things to whatever concept you're looking at. Ok, if you're looking at the human body, for example. And so the things that are good are the things that preserve you and improve you. Ok, and we'll just anything that does that will lump that into the category of OK, well, this is good. And then things that corrupt or destroy, that gets lumped into the category of okay, well, this is good. And then things that corrupt or destroy, that gets lumped into the category of things that are bad. And so then he goes into the analogy of the human body, which is to say, things like nourishment, so like food and fluids, that, in moderation, that's going to be beneficial to the body, so those would be, that would be a good, but then disease and injury would be like the harm and that's what destroys the body. So that would be a good, but then disease and injury would be like the harm and that's what destroys the body. And so he elaborates this idea that something can be destroyed by its own intrinsic devices. He has this great analogy of an individual who eats rotten food, gets sick from it and dies, and he points out rather astutely that it's actually not the food per se that kills the individual, that kills the body. It's sort of the diseases inherent within the design framework of the body that allow for its own destruction to happen, and so things get undone by the bad. So then, if you try to do that to analogy to the soul, he says, if you try to do that to analogy to the soul, he says, if you try to do that with the soul, though, something strange happens, because you could say that virtue is the good Virtue is the thing that keeps the soul in alignment with the three elements, all in their proper order, and vice is the thing that deranges the soul, that puts it out of order. But vice doesn't destroy the soul, right? So he gives the example of the person who is unjust and is convicted and is condemned by his peers for being unjust. Does this individual die? Do they evaporate? Do they just vanish? And they don't. And so he's saying there's something different about the soul, and not only that, when an individual themselves gets sick or die, since it's not of the realm of the soul, that also doesn't destroy the soul. So the fact that you have nothing that actually destroys the soul, not even vice, then he makes the claim at this point that the soul's immortal. The three readings that basically elaborate this would be so.

Speaker 1: 18:28

On 609D, he talks about do any of these? Again, he's talking about the things that destroy the soul. He talks about vice. He's talking about injustice and temperance, cowardice and ignorance. Do any of these things break it down and destroy it? He says think about it. So we're not deceived into believing that when an unjust and foolish person is caught he is destroyed by. He says think about it. Just now reached the point of not being, when their own peculiar badness attaches itself to them, is present in them and destroys them. Isn't that so? So he says that when injustice and the rest of the vices are present in it, does their presence in it and attachment to it corrupt and wither it until they bring it to the point of death and separate it from the body? He's talking about the soul, and the answer is no. And so so, from there, he concludes that, because it's not destroyed by vice, he sees no evidence that the soul itself has ever, quote-unquote, destroyed um by vice.

Speaker 2: 19:33

And so there, essentially, is where you have his, his rational argument for why the soul is immortal yes, the first, because the first question that could be that could be asked is why do you believe that there is a soul? How can you prove that?

Speaker 2: 19:59

Then the second question is well, if there is in fact something like the soul, how are you saying that it is immortal? And so the first question he makes a statement, that's saying that the soul is immortal. He makes a statement and he just moves on. He doesn't really say how he came to the point that there is in fact a soul, and I think he uses the second question to answer the first question.

Speaker 1: 20:29

So bear with me here.

Speaker 2: 20:32

So he says that like you said, there are good things and bad things good and bad. Uh, good is what builds, bad is what diminishes and destroys and then he gives examples of how there are good and bad things that are specific to things like um, there could be rottenness in a fruit is different, is badness for the fruit but may not necessarily be badness for the body. We'll give an example. Let's say you know wine. You know wine is basically fermented grapes.

Speaker 2: 21:10

The fermenting process is considered to be it destroys the grape but is in fact pleasurable when consumed by the body, and some people even say that it has benefit. You know so. Badness is unique to the grape. Now, in the case of fermentation, of a grape the grape is completely destroyed.

Speaker 2: 21:30

There's nothing. Fermentation of a grape the grape is completely destroyed. There's nothing left of the grape. Now, same thing can be said about the human body. There are certain conditions in which the human body is completely destroyed. Now we have looked at the body and we've had this discussion about you know who we are as a person. What makes the republic?

Speaker 1: 21:55

Where does the?

Speaker 2: 21:55

republic sit the republic is actually not the fingers and toes and things like that. It is inside the mind, is where this is sitting, and so one may not have fingers and toes, but one may have an order republic. So if that's the case, that one could have parts of their body that is deficient or maybe decaying and dying, and still have an ordered republic, that means there's a part of their body that doesn't get destroyed by something that destroys the body, destroys the body. So the same way that's you would. Then you would just by logical deduction, would say that if a man is dying, is the, is the republic inside of his mind decaying?

Speaker 1: 22:41

And you would say, no, there's no reason to believe that, as a matter of fact, someone who has an ordered republic would be would be able to bear the process of death and decay much better than someone who doesn't have an ordered republic inside their mind.

Speaker 2: 22:54

As a matter of fact, this process of disease and eventual death would build a much more firmer constitution inside of that person's mind. So that aspect that rests inside their mind is independent of the body. That is what he's calling the soul. And he says if there is badness that affects it the body, and the body is completely destroyed, right there's nothing left of it.

Speaker 2: 23:29

And so you would say that the human is gone. After 60, 80 years on the planet, they're gone, they no longer exist. But what is goodness for the mind? We know the goodness for the mind and the badness for the mind, for the soul is different from what it is for the body.

Speaker 1: 23:48

Now, having said that some things overlap.

Speaker 2: 23:51

Good nutrition good sleep, good food.

Speaker 1: 23:52

There's going to be some convergence to some extent, right. But they're not inextricably linked.

Speaker 2: 24:00

I'm sure there are diseases of the mind as well that prevent the order of public from being formed inside. But, barring that argument, what is considered to be good for the soul is what you had mentioned the virtues justice, temperance, courage and wisdom.

Speaker 1: 24:22

These are what build it In particular, the seeking of wisdom. Yes, seeking of wisdom, yes.

Speaker 2: 24:29

And the more in line you are with those things, the more your soul, the more ordered your republic is, and the more you're turned away from that, the more intemperate one is, the more you know, if one is not courageous one is not, just one is not wise, then their soul is diminished. However, it's not destroyed. So one can have a completely corrupted soul and would still be functioning.

Speaker 1: 25:02

As a matter of fact, he gives the example of what you put.

Speaker 2: 25:04

The passage that you just read is about how injustice in and of itself, even though it is bad for the soul, may be nourishing for the body in a way. Most people who are tyrannical have the spurt of energy to do these machinations. They're constantly flitting about trying to make things happen for themselves.

Speaker 1: 25:31

Fueled by ambition. Fueled, that's right, and so quite the opposite of what you believe.

Speaker 2: 25:36

If you believe that the soul is and the body is one, then if there's something that corrupts the soul, it should corrupt the body. The person who's unjust should die within mere moments of being totally unjust, but it's quite the opposite of what happens. So he creates a divide between the two and he says there are things that completely destroy the body, but there's nothing that completely destroys the soul.

Speaker 2: 25:59

So if things that are bad, completely destroy things that are good, will build things that are neither good nor bad. Will do nothing right, so they won't.

Speaker 1: 26:16

They won't build nor destroy so now, if you, if there exists a thing that encounters what is bad for itself and doesn't get destroyed. Well, then there's nothing else that will destroy, because only encounter good or things that are of inconsequence, and so they'll be there forever.

Speaker 2: 26:35

And so he says, because of that logical deduction, we are saying soul is something that does not get completely destroyed by things that are bad to it, and so they live on forever because it only has good or inconsequential things that can, that can yeah encounter it. So that's yeah.

Speaker 1: 26:52

I think that's a great explanation for me, because it's like when you, and I remember when I first read through this I had to read this part about three or four times because, uh, it's such a large claim to be founded on such a simple logical chain. Uh, but when you see how elegantly he sort of divorces the physical with the, the soul aspects of things, what he's really doing is he's separating the physical, the, the.

Speaker 1: 27:17

there's a, there's a venue, this domain of life, that is action, and that's going to be what is executed by the body and what you actually do on a day-to-day basis. But then there's this, there's this realm of deliberation and decision. Um, now, one thing I will say, though, is I think Socrates did define the soul. He's at least described the soul throughout the entire dialogue, right so, when he's talking about the rational element, the imperative and the spirited elements. But what happens here is he adds something extra, is he adds something extra? He starts to talk about the soul in terms of an independent thing, but not only that.

Speaker 2: 27:59

vis-a-vis this logical framework, Something that extends outside the body.

Speaker 1: 28:04

Something that extends and it's actually a. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, and so it's something that I guess, within his framework, that realigns everything. Because if you follow this logical chain to its conclusion, now we're going to move into the myth of Ur, because after this he describes a myth, a useful myth, that one could use to understand the relationship between the soul and the lived experience, your life.

Speaker 1: 28:37

But looking at it this way, if souls cannot be destroyed, then that means a soul cannot destroy another soul. There's corrupted souls, there's bad constitutions that can feed off of other bad constitutions, but, if you, of other bad constitutions. But if you look at all of this that's been described in the Republic when we talked about the deranged constitutions, there's no soul being destroyed by another soul. The only thing that happens to a soul is it gets deranged. And the only thing that can derange a soul is itself, its own fallacious ideas that it can somehow take advantage of the situation and circumvent virtue, circumvent doing the right thing, and it's in those situations where people start to do things that would be considered bad or destructive for the individual themselves. So the right.

Speaker 2: 29:26

As a matter of fact, it doesn't matter. The soul cannot be considered deranged based on 60 years of activity inside of the body you see what I mean if something is immortal, permanently right so here's that's what I'm saying there's an elastic.

Speaker 1: 29:43

So what socrates injected here was an elasticity to the soul that you can twist it, and in one iteration of life it can be very, very twisted and tyrannical, but it can always be realigned. And not only that, because the soul can't be destroyed. If you realize that everybody has a soul and it cannot be destroyed, what the heck is the point of being unjust already at that point? There is none, unless you have some fallacious idea that you can somehow take advantage of this situation. But you're never going to in the process of trying to influence or do harm to another soul. You're only going to derange your own. You see what I'm?

Speaker 2: 30:17

saying I feel that there's not that you brought it up. I feel like I've, I've got a slightly different way to think about. What I believe is, when socrates says so, he's talking about that apex principle, the, the, philosopher king that rests inside of your mind is not.

Speaker 1: 30:41

You don't think he's talking about all three elements.

Speaker 2: 30:43

I do not think so. I think he's talking about that apex principle, the one that knows the difference between good and evil.

Speaker 1: 30:48

But he says, he talks about these are components of the soul, right.

Speaker 2: 30:52

Elements of the soul. I think what he means is that that there are like to give an example a soul that is unjust. Unjust is not a property. Justice is not a property of the soul. It is something from without, it's external to it. So a soul cannot come to be, it does not go away, it's always there.

Speaker 2: 31:33

A soul also is something that is not made up of complex parts. It is the simplest thing that can be, and its beauty and goodness and truth and everything lies in the fact that it is so simple. Goodness and truth, and everything lies in the fact that it is so simple. The more complex the machinations you have to have, like, you know, the philosopher, king and the guardians, and then the appetitive, and all of them coming together and creating this triad and pyramid. That means that there are parts of it that can be destroyed, like the chimeric beast, you know, subduing the human, along with the and the lion, and they're fighting. You know, all that stuff means that this can be corrupted. Yeah, so it has to be simple and the beauty lies in its simplicity, and that and that simplicity is the is because it's immortal. It's simple.

Speaker 2: 32:27

Complex things cannot be immortal. Complex things require other things to come together to make it. That means, if other things have to come together to make it, it didn't exist at some point. That means it's not. Cannot be immortal the souls. The way he describes what he means to say by this is that, be you tyrannical, be you a philosopher, king, an aristocrat or whatever right, whatever those constitutions are, the soul remains pure, untouched, unsullied, unaffected, um, it's a mere blink of an eye. Whatever happens, as the soul is a part of this particular construct of the body, and whatever actions are being done, nothing really taints it stains, kills it destroys, it just stays and it moves on and goes on. And that therein lies the beauty of it all, because there is a way to say that why be just and why be unjust.

Speaker 2: 33:34

And you know why be unjust if you take a very wide, angled view of the immortal soul, universal view of all this. It goes to show that justice, injustice, all of these are constructs that are external to the soul and may not really have as much consequence as we are putting to it. It matters more at the level of the body, this effort that you and me are doing to create a just constitution, a republic inside of us. It matters at that level Really, beyond that, I don't know what kind of effect it has on the soul itself. You see what I mean, because you cannot stay in it.

Speaker 2: 34:27

It is the simplest, most pervasive thing that has been there forever and it's going to continue to be there forever. I think there's a beauty in that that we are thinking about. It ties into the concept of the one. It all comes from one thing.

Speaker 1: 34:54

Yeah, it ties into the concept of the one. It all comes from one thing, yeah. So I see what you're saying and I don't. I'm just not willing to go as far as that. As far as what I think Socrates is talking about, I mean, I still think he's talking about the bread and butter tripartite soul in this.

Speaker 1: 35:10

And I think what he's done when he moves into the myth of Ur is he's hitched it to sort of a transcendental anchor when he talks about it being immortal. You brought up some things that I do agree with, fundamentally outside the context of the Republic, about whether justice and injustice are quote unquote real things and in what domain, whether you're talking about the universal domain or the human domain.

Speaker 1: 35:35

I think that part is debatable, but suffice it to say I think he definitely makes the point that this is how it should be looked at. I don't know that he's saying. What is how it?

Speaker 2: 35:48

should be looked at.

Speaker 1: 35:49

The soul should be looked at as an immortal concept, as something that is immortal.

Speaker 2: 35:54

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 35:55

Because what it does.

Speaker 1: 35:56

So you agree with that, yeah, I agree with you. I agree with most of what you said and I think, if you do look at the soul that way, whether you see it as a representation of a core, universal unity that can never be tainted unity that can never be tainted or whether you see it as something that's a little bit more like this transcendental framework that, yeah, it can be deranged but can never be destroyed, it sort of calls into the question, you know, what the point of being unjust is. To begin with, it seems like the best thing to do would be to align yourself with the truth. And if the truth and if the truth is that the soul is immutable, that the soul is indestructible, then it's that pursuit of knowledge of the soul which he talks about, socrates talks about. That's what you should be focused on. Yeah, then that is going to have sort of a self-correcting effect, um, in terms of the decisions you make in your life.

Speaker 2: 36:50

The reason why I bring up this aspect of what could be the soul, the construct of a soul, is because the example that he gives of the sea, god Glaucus, he talks about yeah right, You're only seeing pieces of it. You're only seeing, so he talks about. Yeah right, you're only seeing pieces of it. You're only seeing, so he talks about. This sea, god, you know, living in the sea, and because of being in that environment for eons, has now taken on this form where you know things are.

Speaker 1: 37:27

It's like a reef. You know things are growing off of him.

Speaker 2: 37:30

And you know the things are. It's like a reef.

Speaker 1: 37:31

You know things are growing off of him and you know, so um you get this very grotesque view and you're only getting like appearances, you're getting like angles of what it is to be the soul which would be which would be what?

Speaker 2: 37:43

what would happen to a soul inside of a human being? This is an allegory to what happens to the soul. So the condition we have seen that we see the soul in is that of the sea. God Locus I don't know if I'm saying his name correctly, but whose original nature cannot be easily made out by those who catch glimpses of him, because some of the original parts of his body have broken off, others have worn away and altogether been mutilated by the waves and other things, and shells, seaweed and rocks have grown into him so that he looks more like any wild beast than what he naturally was.

Speaker 2: 38:31

And he says he urges that we need to find a way. Let us, for the future discussion, let us imagine seeing the sea, god Glaucus, without all of these things that have happened to him. So when you see the soul that way, you see that soul that way, you see that it is its purest form, is its love for wisdom in its purest form. That's what the soul is. The soul is in love with wisdom. And when it gets, when it gets trapped inside this human form, then it gets trapped into all of these accompaniments of human life and it starts going about with all these happy feastings of this appetitive element. It gets drawn into it.

Speaker 1: 39:29

And then what you see is drawn into issues of honor and appetite and all that stuff that distract it.

Speaker 2: 39:34

Then what you see, is an unjust soul, which is like saying you're seeing the seagull Glockus and he looks grotesque because he has shells sticking out of him. The soul itself cannot be unjust grotesque because he has shells sticking out of him. The soul itself cannot be unjust. It has gotten these accoutrements that come with being a part of the human body.

Speaker 1: 39:54

I thought it was a lovely visual. So that's, I think that's the conversation for the soul, then, the conversation wears away to finally, I think. He starts talking about prizes right.

Speaker 2: 40:14

Yes, that's why he's coming here.

Speaker 1: 40:16

He starts talking to Glaucon and he says well, because you know living the just life, because at this point he's already made the claim, he's defended the claim that the individual is just just lives, a better life than the individual who's unjust. So, we've already established that. But he starts talking about the prizes, which is the word that he uses, that the just individual accumulates as they live the just life.

Speaker 2: 40:45

Correct, all right.

Speaker 1: 40:46

They're the ones he says that at the end of life they find themselves you know with.

Speaker 2: 40:51

But let's pause there, because there's a reason why he uses those exact words, because this was Thrasymachus' argument, right, saying that you know, injustice is good, justice is evil. And Socrates was appalled. This was really early on.

Speaker 1: 41:08

He said, wait a minute.

Speaker 2: 41:09

I can't imagine you, therese Marcus, are saying that justice is in fact a vice and injustice is virtue. He's like Therese Marcus, is like yes, because this is what happens to an unjust man. And he gives this whole story about how an unjust man is perceived by others to be just and uh, they are like your modern day politician and you know they have all the money they have they, they have all the social contracts and and and uh public contracts, and their kids and them, they all marry into these families.

Speaker 2: 41:41

They have lots of wealth and you know, you see them, that they are living the best lives, yeah, whereas a just man Society is just basically shoving them to the side and they lead miserable lives. That was the story.

Speaker 1: 41:55

Thrasymachus had this idea Of the just man being the sucker.

Speaker 2: 41:59

We've already blown that out, and now we have finally come to a point when Socrates says I gave you. The argument that I was asked to make was just man versus unjust man. The unjust man is perceived to be just and the just man is perceived to be unjust. Still, the just man would be happy. That was the argument that I was asked to support.

Speaker 2: 42:25

And I have done that Now, now, and I have come to this end of this argument now I've walked you through how a man who is just and you know, and you can look inside of his mind and know for sure this man is just, not just looking at a glimpse of him from a side angle, you know, knowing truly what's going on inside this person's mind, the just mind would be, would be happy and 360 sometime that was three to six power times happy then then unjust yeah and so, uh, and I'll let you come to it, but he says now though, now that we have shown that, yeah would you now please give me back the argument, or you know what is owed to me and Glaucon is like what is owed to you.

Speaker 2: 43:12

Well, the fact that just man will be perceived as just. I made the case of a just man not perceived as just, but do you really believe that's what's going to happen? Right, so go ahead, right, because believe that's what's going to happen right, so go ahead.

Speaker 1: 43:25

Right, because now he's right. So socrates is coming back and says while the just man is alive, there are basically prizes and wages and gifts he receives from the gods and human beings. And then he says in addition to those good things that justice itself provides and again this goes back to everything that we've talked about the soul and having everything in alignment and the fact that you're not a slave if you have the apex principle running things. And then he says while there are nothing in number or size compared to those that await each man after death.

Speaker 1: 43:54

So now, here it is, the transition to the discussion of the afterlife because it's a logical step, because if you're going to talk about the immortal soul, then that's going to lead headlong into discussion about the afterlife. And here, then, is where Socrates talks about the myth of Ur.

Speaker 2: 44:14

There's a way that he gets to this point as well, which I thought was he did really well. He talks about the rewards, the rewards that are of worldly nature, and he elaborates on them. He talks about all the same stuff that a just man would be lauded by the people around him. He would hold station in life.

Speaker 1: 44:38

He uses the analogy of a run, the running analogy, whereas you could think of life as a marathon, essentially. And the unjust individual. They start out fast, very popular, you know, the first leg of the run, they're way ahead of the game. But eventually there's this sort of again naturally self-correcting aspect and the unjust individual eventually reveals themselves to be unjust. And it's the individual who was just running at the appropriate pace, tempered not, you know, running too fast, too slow, doing everything temperately who arrives at the first leg of the race and has enough energy to make it back and they end up winning the race. And so he uses that analogy, which really I think was a good way to look at virtue as far as a way of pacing your life specifically not only pacing one's life.

Speaker 1: 45:31

I don't mean literally, yeah, but I mean like this idea of it's a middle path you would.

Speaker 2: 45:37

You would perform your actions like you're meant to perform them and eventually you won't look ridiculous, because it doesn't matter how you start the race, it matters how you finish it right that's all people remember. Nobody remembers the start of the race. Who did great to start? They only remember the finish. Right, if you are looking to get honor from those around you, no one is going to remember your 20s and your 30s. You. No one is going to remember your 20s and your 30s.

Speaker 2: 46:07

You know if one is lucky enough to live to their 70s, 80s or 90s or whatever right One is measured by how they held themselves in the sunset of their life.

Speaker 1: 46:24

But notice also somebody who would going back to the. But notice also somebody who would going back to the race analogy, somebody who would dart out like that probably has. They're not thinking clearly, they don't have a clear view of what the race is about.

Speaker 2: 46:34

Well they might get ahead because Well they may get ahead, but they're interested in getting ahead. That's right. That's not the point. Right Because again they are.

Speaker 1: 46:42

They're so askew. They're looking at things in terms of taking advantage of the situation and not so much doing the right thing.

Speaker 2: 46:50

I don't know if that's necessary. I see what you mean and maybe that's the case, but if one has not prepared themselves and have not ordered their souls, ordered their republic no matter how they started. It's going to end badly for them. They're going to look ridiculous, like he says here right Heads drooping, running off the field uncrowned.

Speaker 1: 47:17

Right because they didn't right, they just they darted out. Well, not only did they dart out, say they finished.

Speaker 2: 47:22

Say they finished the race, say you know when you come to the end. But if they don't say they finished, say they finished the race, say you know when you come to the end, but you're still behaving ridiculous you see what I mean, right? As opposed to somebody who's dignified at the end, unless you understand the nature of the, you know the truth, the beauty and goodness what in fact is. You know a good life if you don't lead an examined life your ending would not look the same way as someone else's.

Speaker 2: 47:48

Socrates drank poison and died a terrible death.

Speaker 1: 47:51

Yeah, but so I guess we could distill it down further to say there's one person who has a clear idea of the race and what it means to finish and another one who doesn't, and it's that individual who ends up not finishing the race, showing up at the end. However, they happen to arrive at the end of the race. Everybody's gonna die, everybody's gonna come to the end of that race.

Speaker 2: 48:13

It is how you hold yourself up towards the end of the race if that's what you're looking for right. You see a person who's going through life, you know, dignified. Just you know they may not look like they, they own much or have much, but they, eventually people are drawn to that. That's what gets a part of every stage of their life. They seem to have uh, they seem to have poise. They say they seem to have grace. They seem to have no wisdom. They were able to be their brothers.

Speaker 1: 48:39

Purpose was driving them eventually you get to see it right. And then the ones that are driven by ego, the ones that are driven by flash yeah, the ones that are driven by. Again, the example I came up with is somebody who just wants to smoke right out of the line and show off. It doesn't pay off right, and you may you know.

Speaker 2: 48:55

Here's the thing, say you, you start off of the line, smoking it like you get, and then you come upon a certain understanding of how this race should be run. You could still finish and look pretty good. Yeah, for sure it's the. It is.

Speaker 1: 49:12

You know you're in the sunset of your life and you're behaving like you're in your 30s.

Speaker 2: 49:19

That'll. It never looks good. It's not a good visual.

Speaker 1: 49:22

Right, yeah, maturity, that's right so now.

Speaker 2: 49:25

Now you're talking about the 80 years of whatever, of human life, right here, and and that is the reward, the just men the reward that they get is, um, when they're old enough, um, they, they're holding, they hold ruling offices in the city. If they choose marry from whoever you city, if they choose marry from whoever you know, whatever family they choose and give their children and manage whoever they plead, all of these things will happen. Then right yeah.

Speaker 2: 49:57

As for the unjust, the majority of them, even if they remain hidden when they are young, are caught by the end of the race and ridiculed, and by the time they get old, have become wretched and are showered with abuse by foreigners and citizens, beaten to bits and made to suffer those punishments. It's about how you end the race. That's why the just person is going to come up ahead in the eyes of other men.

Speaker 2: 50:22

But that is not enough, because what about the reward for the immortal soul? What about the rewards from god? And that's when he says okay, I have an allegory for that. That's when he comes to this the myth of her.

Speaker 1: 50:41

So what he says is um, hold on. I lost my place because we were talking about yeah, so he says the Hold on a second.

Speaker 2: 50:53

Do you want to do?

Speaker 1: 50:54

this next time? Yeah, we'll do. Maybe we'll do that on the next episode, but this will be. We'll end it on the, the transition statement that Socrates makes as he begins to talk about it, which is when he says, okay, so the just man, while the just man is alive, these are the sorts of prizes, wages and gifts he receives from gods and human beings, in addition to those good things that justice itself provides. But then he goes on to say, well, there are nothing in number or size compared to those that await each man after death. And so here he gets into the myth of Ur, and so then I think we can talk about that on the next episode, and that'll be a wrap on Republic at that point, because this is the culmination of the Republic, the myth of Ur, and so we'll talk more then.