The divergence between “[nothing] better” and “no greater good” is rather semantic. In order to have a precise understanding when determining whether the two statements are reconcilable, however, we must nevertheless define these differences. In the first given statement, “[nothing] better for a city” describes a material good (e.g., currency, property). I derive this argument from the rest of the statement, wherein Plato describes the people existing within the city. Therefore, the material good by which “[nothing] better for a city” exists are the “the best possible men and women.” By an analogous deduction from the second statement, “no greater good for a city” refers to a societal “good” that is abstract in nature. “What binds [a city] together and makes it one” is not an explicit good – in the context of the second statement, there is no discussion of a material.
Already, then, it is possible to see a relevant connection between the two statements; that is, it is plausible that the explicit “good” given in the first assertion is the abstract undefined “good” given in the second statement. In other words, my argument is that the “greatest men and women” are the “greatest good for the city.” This paper will discuss how the idea of a “greatest good” encompasses more than the city’s people alone – it includes the education and legal systems, and cooperation among the city’s peers. Based on the argument in these linguistic paragraphs, I will use “greatest good” and “greater good” interchangeably throughout the paper.
The similarities between the two statements also underlie their connection. We are told by Plato that both “goods” (which we established as material and abstract) are for the sake of the city’s greatest good. It is plausible that an argument follows in which the city at large should benefit from these goods. Possible discussions around this argument will emerge in our examination of Plato’s “ideal” city. In the meantime, we will assume that, for these statements to have validity, the community (city) must agree to the terms of these goods; the conditions include the concepts by which we will explain each statement, i.e., education, legislation, and private property. This paper will discuss the two statements primarily in relation to the “guardian” class. Guardians are considered the “best possible men and women” by Plato; their nature combines “philosophy […] and spirit, speed, and strength” (e.g., 376c). It is, in fact, said that guardians “are the best of the citizens” (456e).
127 our experts are availableright now
The Logical Consequences of Placing the Two Statements in a Relationship
“The best possible men and women should come to exist in” a city, given that there is no greater good for it than “that what binds it together and makes it one.” Taking the two statements in this order, what follows from a unified city is that “the best possible” people will come to exist in it. The logic of the statements as placed in this order is relatively coherent; one could consequently argue that a truly unified community will encourage the growth of what it values. Thus, the people who excel in that characteristic (i.e., what is valued, whether that is farming or politics) will grow in that skill, too. Someone else might raise a counterargument that no community is truly “one” rational political entity; from a modern example, there is dissent even within the distinctly polarized United States political parties, or disagreements among those who identify as modern “progressives” or “conservatives.” I consider such a comparison unfair. The city that Plato describes has a population far smaller than that of the United States, even if we consider only the “elites” (e.g., activists, career politicians) of the modern Western political system. The person who offered up the original dissent argument might then state that nuclear families have disagreements, and a family is a community, too. I defer to a forthcoming discussion on Plato’s vision for “private property” – in short, however, he offers up a plausible solution to this legitimate issue by means of eliminating such “family” connections.
Considering now the reverse statement, we still see a logical flow: There is no greater good for a city “than what binds it together and makes it one,” given that “the best possible men and women should come to exist in it.” Said again, if the best possible men and women exist in a city, the city will form a single entity. This statement is plausible, if the reader sees cooperation (rather than defection) as the natural state of the “best possible” people. There exists a lingering question, though, that being, from where do the “best possible men and women” emerge, and how will is cooperation encouraged? I defer again to a future paragraph, this time explaining Plato’s discussion of “harmony” in guardian education as the solution for this given issue.
The [Ambiguous] Sincerity of Socrates
Before proceeding further, we must answer: How sincere is Plato (through Socrates) in making the original two statements? Are they, as the prompt expresses, simply “suggestions” in the building of a city? That is, does Plato intend – we cannot, of course, know with certainty – for these assertions to be accepted as they stand, or rather, is his intention to have someone pose counterarguments? This conclusion matters if we are to conclusively establish a relationship between the two statements. If we look to the text that immediately follows the original statements, Glaucon accepts his statements without challenge. In response to the first statement, he says, “No, there is not [anything better for a city],” and to the second, “No, we do not [know of any greater good than what binds a city together]” (456e, 462b). Glaucon serves as a “parrot” of sorts, however, in that he rarely challenges any of Socrates’ statements. This contextual evidence does not, therefore, necessarily support the idea that these assertions were intended for acceptance as a reality.
Historically, Plato’s dialogues would have been read by the political elites of the ancient educational system, or these elites would serve as participants; in other words, men with property and the luxury of time were the people participating in this discourse around an “ideal city.” This actuality means it is plausible that Plato expected these statements to be the subjects of further discussions. Based on the immediate context in writing and historical nature alone, I admit that it is not possible to conclude whether these statements were challenges or givens. For the purposes of this paper, however, I will assume that Glaucon served as the “challenge” when Plato deemed it necessary; therefore, it was not deemed necessary to challenge these “suggestions.”
The Contexts of Education, Legislation, and Private Property
Legislation
Now that we have established the linguistic and logical relationships between the two statements, the following question is posed: With respect to the first statement describing “the best possible men and women,” what holds the city together? (This question is framed by the second logical pathway discussed earlier in the paper.) In the context of legislation, Plato asserts that the city’s guardian class holds the city together. The “complete guardians” are responsible for serving as a city’s rulers, “[deliberating] about the city as a whole, and about how its internal relations and its relations with other cities will be the best possible” (428c). Plato has not, after all, introduced the idea of a philosopher king as ruler at this point in the text – he does not do so until Book VI; the two excerpts examined in this paper are from Book V.
The two classes aside from the guardians are the auxiliary (414b) and the producers (wage earners) (371e). These two classes of people are also essential for the city to achieve its greatest good; the wage earners “make food, wine, clothes, and shoes,” for example, while the auxiliary class supports the “decrees” of the guardian class (372a, 414b). Because these two classes sustain the guardian class – by means of material goods production and execution of the guardians’ orders – the ideal city’s overall stability increases.
Education
Education plays a critical role in the development of Plato’s ideal city. In Book III and Book IV, Plato determines an appropriate educational track for the guardians; in doing so, he establishes a system to inculcate the city’s value for the “greater good” into the guardian class. Education will, therefore, ensure that “the best possible men and women” initiate their existence within the city. Musical education and their harmonies, which “engenders temperance” is discussed at length in relation to education of the guardian class (e.g., 399c, 410a). This form of education leads to the conclusion that the guardian class will exist in “harmony” (as with music) and cooperation, resolving the issue raised earlier in how the city will form a single entity solely with “the best possible men and women.”
Private property
The original second statement raises another question with respect to the “greater good.” What is the objective in binding a city together and “[making] it one” entity? In other words, why is a unified community the “greatest good” for a political city? It is possible to answer this question by means of Plato’s discussion on private property, which includes the sharing arrangement among guardians of their women and children (459a). Plato argues that, by eliminating the knowledge among most people as to their family origins, “our herd of guardians is to remain as free from faction as possible” (459d). Plato also states that “the privatization of these things,” referring to “pleasure and pain” in this latter example will “dissolve the city” (462b). He provides a second example, in that “when people do not apply such phrases as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ in unison [emphasis added] in the city,” there is conflict between people and a lack of unity (462c). In short, the agreement among a city’s people improves or ruins the city. Therefore, a unification of the city is necessary, and only the best possible people can accomplish this task.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to reconcile the following two statements: there is “[nothing] better for a city than that the best possible men and women should come to exist in it” (456e) and there is “[no greater good for a city] than what binds it together and makes it one” (462b). To do so, I have explained the linguistics and logical flow of the two statements in relation to each other; I have examined the statements in the contexts of legislation, education, and private property. To complete this discussion, I have also included a discussion of Plato’s “ideal city” in relation to the two statements above.
