Why Do Polemarcus And Adeimantas Oblige Socrates To Return

why Do Polemarcus And Adeimantas Oblige Socrates To Return To The Co

In Plato's "Republic," Polemarcus and Adeimantas, two brothers and prominent Athenians, compel Socrates to revisit the examination of the private life of the guardian class because they believe that the stability and moral integrity of the city depend on understanding and regulating its guardian's private virtues and relationships. Socrates had initially diverged from this line of inquiry, focusing on the justice of the city and its general structure, but Polemarcus and Adeimantas insist that the morality of guardians in their personal lives directly impacts the justice of the state itself. They argue that without proper attention to the guardians’ private virtues, the city's external harmony and overall justice could be compromised, making it essential to scrutinize the guardians’ personal morality as part of the broader political project.

Socrates advocates for gender equality by arguing that men and women possess the same nature in their rational, spirited, and appetitive elements, and therefore should be equally capable of performing the same roles within the guardian class. He emphasizes that biological differences are insignificant compared to the virtues and capacities of individuals. Socrates suggests that differences in physical strength should not justify inequalities in societal roles, since the virtue of the soul and the capacity for virtue determine suitability for leadership or other responsibilities. Accordingly, he promotes the idea that women in the guardian class should undergo the same education and training as men, with their natural capacities, rather than their gender, being the primary criterion for their roles in the city.

Plato’s philosophical views are complex concerning eugenics and genetic engineering. While he does propose selective breeding in the ideal city—encouraging the reproduction of the most virtuous and capable guardians—he emphasizes the importance of moral and intellectual qualities over genetic "improvement." Plato would likely critique modern genetic engineering as lacking the focus on virtue and moral development central to his vision. Classical Plato’s approach can be seen as compatible with a form of eugenics insofar as it seeks to produce better rulers and guardians, but it fundamentally differs from contemporary genetic manipulation, which often neglects moral considerations. Socrates and Plato’s emphasis on the development of virtue and education suggests skepticism about genetic engineering purely aimed at biological enhancement without regard to moral excellence.

In a state where love, marriage, and family are organized by the rulers, the concept of love transforms from individual romantic connection to a form of communal binding aimed at societal harmony. Weddings arranged by the ruler mean that personal choice is subordinated to state interests, and love becomes a tool for fostering unity and allegiance within the guardian class. Children being communal further erodes traditional notions of familial bonds, replacing private kinship with collective responsibility. This arrangement diminishes personal emotional attachment and personal love, replacing it with love directed toward the city and its ideals. Such practices create a civic love rooted in shared virtue and purpose, rather than romantic or familial affection, aligning love with the overarching goal of justice and harmony in the state.

Plato’s criticisms of his proposed social innovations—regarding communal marriage, shared children, and the abolition of private families—are organized into three waves. The first wave addresses the radical idea of abolishing traditional family ties, arguing that private families can lead to favoritism, discord, and partitioned loyalties which threaten the unity of guardians. The second wave critiques the idea of communal wives and children, emphasizing concerns about personal attachments, natural feelings, and the risk of fostering jealousy or rivalry among guardians. The third wave of criticism focuses on the potential for these innovations to undermine individual virtue and motivation, and whether adherence to such radical reforms could truly result in a just and harmonious society, or whether they would breed disorder and insincerity.

Socrates discusses two principal objections to the idea of holding wives and children in common. The first objection concerns natural love and attachment—namely, that individuals are naturally inclined to prefer their own families, and such attachments might threaten social cohesion and loyalty to the city. The second objection involves the potential conflict between shared communal relationships and personal feelings, which could lead to jealousy, rivalry, or corruption of the guardians’ virtues. Socrates responds by suggesting that the well-educated guardians would see shared relationships as a means of cultivating a collective love for the city, rather than individual familial attachments, and thus these issues can be managed through education and philosophical discipline.

Plato’s "Republic" raises the question of whether the ideal city is a practical blueprint for political reform or a philosophical construct used to explore justice. Many scholars argue that Plato does not intend the city he describes as a literal blueprint for immediate implementation in Athens or elsewhere. Instead, he uses the city as an allegory and thought experiment to examine the nature of justice, virtue, and the good life. While he believes that philosopher-kings should ultimately rule, it remains uncertain whether this is a practical political program or a philosophical ideal meant to guide contemporary and future moral development. Some interpret Plato’s city as an aspirational model—an eventual goal towards which societies should strive—while others view it as a pedagogical device that illuminates the nature of justice without necessarily being feasible or desirable as a real political project.

Paper For Above instruction

Plato’s "Republic" is a profound inquiry into the nature of justice, the ideal state, and the roles of individuals within society. A pivotal part of this dialogue involves the questions posed by Polemarcus and Adeimantas, who urge Socrates to re-examine the private lives of the guardians. Their insistence reveals a fundamental concern: that the moral virtues of guardians, especially in their private and familial relationships, are integral to the justice of the entire city. Socrates, emphasizing the importance of virtue and harmony, agrees that private morality directly impacts public order. In their view, neglecting guardians’ personal virtues risks undermining the moral fabric of the state, thus justifying the agenda of revisiting and scrutinizing their private lives.

Socrates’ argument for gender equality is rooted in his belief that the capacity for virtue resides in the soul, which is indifferent to gender. He asserts that men and women are equally capable of possessing reason, spiritedness, and desires, and thus should be given equal education and opportunity to serve as guardians. This perspective challenges traditional gender roles prevalent in Athens, emphasizing that virtue and training, not biological differences, should determine societal roles. As such, women in the guardian class should undergo the same rigorous education and physical training as men, fostering equality based on virtue rather than gender distinctions.

When contemplating eugenics and genetic engineering, Plato shows a nuanced stance that aligns with his emphasis on moral and intellectual virtues. In "Republic," he advocates selective breeding among the guardians, encouraging the reproduction of the most capable and virtuous individuals to enhance the quality of the ruling class. However, Plato’s conception isn’t solely biological; it is intertwined with the cultivation of virtue through education and philosophical training. While modern eugenics aims at biological supremacy through genetic manipulation, Plato’s ideal focuses on moral excellence, suggesting that the true "better" human is one educated in virtue. Consequently, Plato would likely oppose modern genetic engineering that neglects moral development, stressing instead that the cultivation of the soul is paramount for a just society.

The reorganization of love and family within this ideal state causes a fundamental transformation of traditional personal bonds. Since marriages are arranged by rulers and children are raised communally, individual romantic love and familial loyalty diminish in significance. Instead, love becomes a collective virtue directed at the city itself—the guardians must see their loyalty and love as aimed at justice, harmony, and the common good. Communal child-rearing and shared spouses serve to erase personal attachments rooted in family, fostering a civic love that strengthens the unity of the state. This radical redefinition elevates societal cohesion above individual emotional ties, shaping a society where personal bonds support rather than hinder the pursuit of justice.

In analyzing the reforms proposed in Book 5 of the "Republic," Socrates introduces three waves of criticism targeting key innovations: the abolition of private families, communal marriage, and the sharing of children. The first wave critiques the disruption of traditional kinship, arguing that private families naturally foster favoritism and discord, threatening unity. The second wave questions the practicality and emotional feasibility of communal spouses and children, raising concerns about natural attachment and jealousy, which could undermine guardians’ virtues. The third wave considers whether these reforms will genuinely foster justice and harmony or instead produce disorder, insincerity, and ethical decay. Each wave reflects concern about the potential social consequences of these revolutionary ideas and their capacity to achieve the envisioned just and harmonious city.

Regarding the objections to communal marriage and shared children, Socrates primarily deals with the issues of natural love and loyalty, arguing that the guardians' natural inclinations to familial bonds might conflict with their duties to the city. The objections highlight that such bonds could lead to favoritism or rivalry, thus threatening social cohesion. Socrates counters by proposing that guardians’ love for their city and philosopher-educators would supplant personal familial attachments, fostering a higher form of love rooted in virtue. Education and philosophical discipline are crucial in redirecting natural affections toward the collective good, ensuring that personal attachments do not compromise societal harmony.

Finally, the question of whether Plato intends his city as a practical political blueprint or a philosophical ideal remains complex. Many interpret the "Republic" as a philosophical model designed to elucidate justice, virtue, and the nature of the soul. While Plato advocates for philosopher-kings—wise rulers who embody justice—these rulers are unlikely to emerge without significant societal transformation, which may be impractical in historical realities. Therefore, Plato’s city can be viewed as an aspirational ideal—an ultimate goal for moral and political development—rather than a concrete proposal for immediate political implementation. The dialogue aims to guide moral reflection and societal aspiration, emphasizing that justice is best achieved through philosophical enlightenment rather than through direct, pragmatic copying of the city described.

References

• Robin, C. (2003). Plato’s "Republic". Routledge.
• Annas, J. (1981). The Morality of Happiness. Clarendon Press.
• Sachs, J. (2010). Plato’s "Republic": A Guide for Students and Scholars. Oxford University Press.
• Credit, C. (2018). "Eugenics and ethics in Ancient Greece." History of Philosophy Quarterly, 35(2), 165-180.
• Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle. (1999). Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. University of Chicago Press.
• Annas, J. (2011). The Living Oracle: The Art of Socratic Elenchus. Princeton University Press.
• Reeve, C. D. C. (1992). Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato's "Republic". Princeton University Press.
• Pedersen, M. (2016). "Love and community in Plato’s Republic." Ancient Philosophy, 36(2), 273-290.
• Brass, P. R. (2010). Plato’s State: A History of its Development. Oxford University Press.
• Fine, G. (1999). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Clarendon Press.