Philosophers

I've been reading Plato's <i>Republic</i> and I find he had quite drastic views when it came to censorship. Is this really so or just a misinterpretation on my behalf? Is Plato trying to eliminate freedom from his ideal city?

Comments

Scholars have been deeply divided over how we are supposed to understand Plato's writings in general, and the Republic in particular. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Plato intended the Republic as a kind of comedy--poking fun at utopian thought by showing how outrageous and contrary to common sense it inevitably ends up. But I think most scholars are inclined to take what Plato says more seriously, and this more sober approach seems to be supported by the way Aristotle seems to have read and understood the Republic: Aristotle plainly took it seriously enough to criticise it carefully and searchingly. But I personally think there is something like a middle ground here--Plato intends his dialogues to work as "thought-experiments," in which hypotheses and ways of conceiving of problems are posed for discussion, criticism, and possible amendment. And I am convinced the Republic is like this--a thought-experiment.

And yes, in this particular thought-experiment, Plato is seeking to draw out some (not all) of the consequences of conceiving of a state that is constituted by certain basic principles (such as the principle that "each shall do his own" in the state (generally called the principle of specialization). To the extent that some use of free speech (or other freedoms) would impede or interfere with this foundational principle--in other words, to the extent that free speech or some other freedom was likely to lead people to fail to "do their own" or to meddle in the work of others, then Plato seems to be serious that a state of this sort should not tolerate such freedoms. I think we should take Plato to mean freedoms that are not conducive to the common good and to the foundational principles of the city he sketches in the Republic are ones that should have no place in that state. I am also inclined to think that Plato was inclined to think that a state of that sort would be superior to the state in which Plato actually lived--democratic Athens.

As to whether Plato regarded the state he describes at some length in the Republic as an ideal state, I think we need to be far more cautious. After all, remember that what he calls the kallipolis (noble state) is derived from taking the first state he describes (scorned by Glaucon as the "city of pigs," but about which Socrates has only praise)--the "healthy city" and introducing into that city the sorts of luxuries that are like disease factors (the first phase of the resultant state Socrates calls the "fevered city." So even when we have the necessary curatives in place to prevent the more luxurious city froim being "fevered," it is not at all clear that we should regard that state--with its disase processes controlled but still present within it, and which Plato tells us will eventually erode into injustice--as ideal.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Philosophers

I've been reading Plato's Republic and I find he had quite drastic views

I've been reading Plato's Republic and I find he had quite drastic views

I've been reading Plato's <i>Republic</i> and I find he had quite drastic views when it came to censorship. Is this really so or just a misinterpretation on my behalf? Is Plato trying to eliminate freedom from his ideal city?