The life of a well-ordered state and education of its soldier citizens in music and gymnastics, and in right ideas of God.

Level 1 → Insight

In Book II, we have Socrates continuing his conversation from Book I on justice, but this time it is with Glaucon and Adeimantus — not Thrasymachus. The core question was whether justice was worth pursuing even if it brought no personal improvements via reputation or wealth. Much of the text covers what justice would look like in a new State, and I’ve got to say — I did not find much of Socrates’s logic to be sound. There were too many assumptions and false equivalencies through syllogisms.

For example, they take it as a given, that if one pursues justice and virtue, it is a grievous and toilsome path, while pursuing vices and injustice are of easy attainment but withheld because of laws and public opinion. I would disagree with this point and say that this statement is likely a sign of the times and not a statement we can accept a priori.

Glaucon brings up a story of the Ring of Gyges and how it can make one invisible. I personally would not make use of this ring — it may come across as virtue signaling, but if one abides by the Golden Rule, then I’m of the belief that karma will strongly ensure the same doesn’t happen to me. Even if this isn’t the case, it’s a better principle to abide by than the alternative. Just because everyone has the free will to pursue vices doesn’t mean that they will. Having your own internal compass can be strong enough on its own — living with yourself is a big task and if you’re steeped in vices you’ll find that this becomes difficult to do so.

Glaucon brings up a good point, questioning the need to do justice if we can just repent and appease the Gods to be in their favor. Again, I do think this is likely more a sign of the times.

Idea to Carry Forward: We need to be careful with what we indoctrinate our youth with — even fictional tales can be detrimental to a nascent mind that may take everything literally. Also that a complete education would include more than just learning knowledge, but music and gymnastics as a way to satisfy the physical body and the spirit.

Level 2 → Analysis

Is Justice Merely a Social Contract?

Glaucon claims that justice originates as a compromise between the desire to commit injustice and the fear of suffering it. I would say I have to agree with him. Even if there are individual persons who abide by their own moral code and commit justice even when its not visible — this is likely the exception and not the norm. Laws are created to hold people accountable and to commit justice is to uphold three laws: societal, governmental, and spiritual. If you commit social injustice, you will be ostracized and find it difficult to maintain social credit and a good reputation. If you commit governmental injustice, you can find yourself paying heavy fines or sent to prison for a period of time. If you violate spiritual laws, if you truly adhere to them, then you lose your peace of mind.

If you’re on an island by yourself, then justice isn’t really a thing. Justice is a social contract, because the minute there is another person on the island, you can take actions that are just or unjust — in relation to the other person. On a deserted island with one other person, you have a small society, and maybe even a loose government of rules, but your spirituality will always be there. So you’re always in a position of affecting the other person based on your actions, which can be just or unjust — therefore by virtue of its own name, justice is a social contract.

Exclusion of the poets from the schools. Value of the right sort of music and gymnastics. Selection of the best boys and girls for training as rulers.

Level 1 → Insight

Socrates and Glaucon discuss what it would take to educate a just society.

• The youth should be looked after by guardians who have their best interest at heart.
• Youth should be trained along music and gymnastics — both represent dichotomies of softness and hardness, so one must balance these.
• A ruler is only fit to lead after receiving this education as a youth, and being tested over the years to see if he is truly wise.
• At some point Socrates describes “an old Phoenician tale” where he is essentially describing a caste system — it’s an attempt at explaining how stories could be used to address multiple classes differently.

According to Plato, education first shapes character and only later teaches knowledge. I would agree with this, because there are many different levels you could argue this point from:

• The age in which they are taught has an impact on character (the earlier the more it is ingrained into their habits).
• The way they are educated will influence whether they are someone who takes instruction well or someone who can think critically and pushback where needed.
• The curriculum being taught will influence how they develop their character (if lots of fiction, can they understand concepts abstractly, and if non-fiction, are they able to retain not only facts but the underlying principles?)

Idea to Carry Forward: Building a just society starts with educating the masses, in particular the youth, so we must be careful with the curriculum we give, what is fiction vs. what isn’t, and ensuring that they remain balanced between the softness of music and the hardness of gymnastics.

Level 2 → Analysis

Should society censor harmful ideas?

Plato argues that future guardians should only hear stories that cultivate virtue. I would have to disagree with this argument but with an important caveat. Today our society struggles with the types of information young children are exposed to. With access to the internet and specifically social media, they are now easily influenced by whatever garbage the algorithm decides to send them. This is clearly impacting their virtue and I believe we are raising a generation of weak guardians.

However on the flip side, when you allow censorship to one extent, where do you draw the line? It becomes a slippery slope in which anything can be liable to censor.

Aside from that, people also learn from negative experiences on what NOT to do. While only learning virtuous things will make being virtuous more likely, not being exposed to virtuous things will test the guardian’s true innate virtue at a later time when he may not be emotionally equipped to handle it. Said differently, children who grow up constrained in a conservative household, will often indulge on vices the moment they are given a small taste of freedom.

So the real answer here would be a moderation of extremities, while erring on the side of showcasing as much virtuous content as possible so virtue can be cultivated on a strong foundation before it gets tested.

Level 3 → Application

Designing a Modern Guardian

Using Plato's principles, we will design the education from age five to twenty-five, of the future President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. We would take great care to ensure they are a well-rounded, knowledgeable, and fair person. To start, let’s explain the method we will use to determine the proper curriculum.

• First we will start with the pillars of education we want to cover.
• Second we will discuss the distribution of time allocation across pillars.
• Third we will provide a lightweight syllabus for each pillar.

Red will be a form of activity, while green will be a written book. Here are the pillars broken down:

• Physical Health
• Endurance Training
• Strength Training
• Self-Defense (pankrase, wrestling, etc).
• Spiritual
• Meditation
• Exoteric Reading
• Mahabaratha
• Bhagvad Gita
• The Holy Bible
• The Holy Qur’an
• The Torah
• Esoteric Reading
• The Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda
• The Conference of the Birds, Faridun Attar
• Justice
• Speech & Debate
• Governance
• Historical Epics
• The Iliad, Homer
• The Odyssey, Homer
• Aeneid, Virgil
• Shahnameh, Abu al-Qasem Ferdowsi
• Morality
• The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Leo Tolstoy
• Temperance

The virtues of such a state — wisdom, courage, and temperance. Justice also to be found there. The same virtues appear in the life of a well-ordered individual.

Level 1 → Insight

Plato defines justice as that which is out of harmony with its own nature. He shows that people and nature have their own special placement and a duty to fulfill. When doing this, they operate in harmony, as does the society that depends on them to attend to their place. Injustice would be a disruption of this balanced dynamic.

When speaking with Adeimantus, Socrates says that the two causes of the deterioration of the arts, is wealth and poverty. I would agree with him here, as there needs to be a balance. Too much poverty and you have to dedicate your working hours to surviving, while too much wealth can make you “indolent and careless” in that you lose that inner fire that is sparked by urgency.

In my own life, I find that of the various parts of the soul — reason, spirit, and appetite — that spirit is what dominates. I also lean heavily towards reason, but much of my decisions depends a lot on my own intuitions.

Idea to Carry Forward: By believing everything has a telos and knowing what your true nature is, abiding by that will allow you to experience harmony, while going against the grain is not only bad for you but for society.

Level 2 → Analysis

Is Justice an Internal Condition?

Plato argues that justice is not primarily about laws or actions but about the proper ordering of the soul. If we take this argument further, then one can only achieve justice if they associate some satisfaction with settling an imbalance of some sort. Implying that justice is purely subjective would make sense — someone thinks they are committing an act to fulfill justice, but to the person on the receiving end, it could be injustice. But if we were to create laws for a society to maintain order, justice is a big component. We would need to mutually agree on the term for justice and trust that the reasoning behind the State’s definition of attaining justice is sufficient for the broader whole. So even this mutually agreed upon definition is subject to change and impermanent, therefore this is all subjective.

An unjust person can appear to have an orderly soul, just as a just person can appear to not have an orderly soul. Those are just opinions and perspectives which again, remain subjective. But because it is all subjective, then society cannot effectively agree to instill law and order, so when establishing a State, it is important that all participants agree to the concept of justice, knowing that it’s not absolute but agreeing to adhere to it when the time to exercise it comes. This is why Socrates drank the hemlock.

Level 3 → Application

Building an Ordered Life

Let’s assume that Plato is my life coach, how would he evaluate my daily routines, habits, ambitions, and relationships? Let’s break it down by each of those.

Daily Routines

• Lifting Weights → Plato would be proud of this routine, as it is important for a man to know the full capability of his physical body and strength.
• Reading → Plato would support this idea, though he may prefer that there is more discussion and debate amongst peers.
• Writing → Plato would be in support of this idea, but same as reading, he would encourage me to engage in the Socratic dialogue.

Habits

• Eating Sweets → Plato would say that consuming too much of something would cause an imbalance in oneself, he would not approve unless in moderation.

Ambitions

Relationships

What changes would he recommend?

Education of women. Community of wives and children in the governing classes. Humanity in war. Rulers must be philosophers.

Level 1 → Insight

After describing the ideal city, Socrates is interrupted and asked to explain three shocking proposals:

1. Women should receive the same education and opportunities as men.
2. Guardians should abolish the traditional family and private property.
3. Philosophers should rule as kings—or kings should become philosophers.

The second point is interesting because he is of the belief that our guardians need to live socialist lives in order to not be dissuaded in any way from their duty. The notion of a commune is surprising because it seems completely untenable. 2,500 years ago I could understand how this would have been a viable idea, but with the population levels of States today, this wouldn’t be something that could work even in theory. There is too much complexity in today’s geo-political and economic dynamics.

Idea to Carry Forward: In creating an ideal city, it is essential to establish incentives beforehand in a way that align with the overall goal.

Level 2 → Analysis

Should the Wisest Rule?

Plato claims that political power should belong to those who love wisdom rather than those who seek office. In an ideal world, this makes sense and is likely something that we should strive for. But after 2,500 years since Plato wrote this, we have seen enough of human behavior in the seat of power to know that power tends to corrupt. The only way I believe this would be possible is if we completely outlaw lobbying, use a blockchain ledger to openly showcase money going into their accounts, and elevate the respect of the position itself. Then you will attract people for the right reason.

In terms of them loving wisdom, in doing so they will seek out harmony and the justice that comes with it. They are better-suited in making laws for this very reason, but the nature of politics is more complex than a simple deal between two parties. One is usually playing N-Dimensional chess in these matters. Let’s just say we take all this into account, I do feel that society will benefit from this new rule of power. Today’s politics is so depressing that anything will do, but rather than lowering our bar, I’m all for raising it so long as we can commit to making the fundamental changes to how the political game works.

Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Outcome?

Plato argues that women capable of becoming guardians should receive the same education and responsibilities as men. Plato is not advocating equality of outcome, instead he is advocating equality of opportunity. He is not guaranteeing any outcome for the women who become guardians, in fact the litmus test he proposes for them already ensures that an equality of opportunity is not some form of virtue signaling or any other population carrying a burden. What he wants is to establish a baseline that any guardian should receive, whether they are a man or woman.

Level 3 → Application

Who Should Lead Modern Society?

Today, our leaders are not like the philosopher-kings that Plato had in mind. Instead, we have politicians, CEOs, military officers, academics, entrepreneurs, and (believe it or not, some) influencers. Let’s first reexplain how he described the characteristics of this ideal ruler:

• Is able to use falsehood and deceit only when necessary on the masses (they pursue virtue and the good, but are pragmatic).
• Is the culmination of philosophy, politics, and wisdom in the spirit and power of one person.
• Is a natural philosopher (questions everything and loves knowledge).
• Is self-aware.

Knowing this, let’s look at who each of these roles report to and where their incentives lie.

• Politician → Allegiance to the public; incentivized by staying in office as long as possible and the power that comes with it.
• CEO → Allegiance to their shareholders and investors; incentivized by maximizing profit, sometimes at all costs.
• Military Officer → Allegiance to the protection of the State and their troops; incentivized by maximizing safety for the good of the State and survival.
• Academic → Allegiance to the institution they represent, and if they’re lucky, to themselves; incentivized by the distribution and acceptance of their ideas, potentially tenure, and self-interest.
• Entrepreneur → Allegiance to their shareholders and investors; incentivized by creating a healthy, self-sustaining business.
• Influencer → Allegiance to their public audience, their viewers/subscribers; incentivized by maximizing view time and engagement.

Viewing these various groups, let’s see where they may fall short.

• ❌ Politician → They rarely make a decision on their own; often times they’re just a mouthpiece for an interest group. For this reason, I doubt they are self-aware. This conflict of interest (especially with lobbyists) could also prevent them from being a natural philosopher, as they wouldn’t want to question the wrong things to much. They’re able to used falsehood and deceit, but unfortunately in the past 2,500 years we see this being abused more often than being used in moderation.
• ❌ CEO → CEOs can make use of falsehoods and deceit and I’m convinced this can be done in moderation, however if their job or compensation tied to performance is on the line, I think this is where they are willing to bend their virtues. All else I believe can be true.
• ✅ Military Officer → I believe Military Officers can account for all the elements of a true leader. It may be because their incentive is tied to their own life and the lives of others. This may also be why many of the US Presidents were military officers (ex. George Washington, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, etc).
• ❌ Academic → I think Academics would seem like they meet each criteria, however I think they aren’t able to use falsehood or deceit. I’m not saying they don’t, but I’m saying that there is too much at stake for them to do so, without getting caught and completely ruining their reputation, which an Academic needs.
• ❌ Entrepreneur → Same as the CEO.
• ❌ Influencer → I don’t believe Influencers are self-aware at all. With enough time, they will act according to what garners higher engagement rather than speaking their truth, and it lies solely to how their incentives are tied.

It seems to me that Plato would likely trust the Military Officer the most, and following this exercise I would have to agree.

Nature of the true philosopher, “spectator of all time and all existence.” Contribution of the philosopher to the state. The Idea of the Good.

Level 1 → Insight

Plato provides an analogy of the Ship of the State, where unanimous agreement and compliance on who is the one steering the ship can prove to be detrimental. Say you have the captain, the sailors, and the navigator, all present in their allotted stations on the ship. Say some of the sailors contest the captain’s steering of the ship and propose a mutiny, thinking that it’s one of them that is better-suited to the task, even though they haven’t learned the art of navigation which isn’t something that can be picked up easily. In this analogy it’s easy for the mutinous to call the captain and his skills a good-for-nothing, presuming the simplicity of their initial takeover to be par for the course. However, what they are unaware of, is a good captain spends many years studying the seasons, the skies, the winds. But we can presume that with enough times, or challenges on a journey that require the captain to employ their art, they will find it difficult to replace those very skills they immediately wrote-off.

In this analogy, the captain would be the philosopher-statesman, while the mutinous sailors are the cowardly, self-serving politicians who plot to obtain control of the state. What Plato wishes to convey, is that a philosopher-statesman may be found and even placed in a position of power, but the world of politics is unfortunately corrupt and prove to be a challenge. For one, just as the sailors would write off the captain’s skills as “good-for-nothing,” they can likely do the same among a philosopher-statesman who may go against the traditional grain of kings, but can ultimately navigate the complexities of running a state. We know from later on that Socrates believes even one good, true philosopher in a position of power can suffice to make a change, but he wants to present clearly the environment in which they would need to make change.

Idea to Carry Forward: Those who are truly good and wish to make change, are often ridiculed or doubted by the masses. For this reason, they face an uphill battle and associates who are constantly vying for their position. A shrewd philosopher-statesman will need to be politically savvy and cunning to make the progress they seek.

Level 2 → Analysis

Why Society Corrupts Its Best People

You’ve likely heard the phrase “never meet your heroes.” There’s plenty of truth to this; those who are famous or important, exist within an air of myth and legend. Whether by their own doing or society’s they are seen as elevated — more-than-human, but the minute you meet them your high expectations immediately get crushed. For example Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was perceived as mutually liked by bipartisan masses, but with enough time, fame, and money, the cracks in his character began to show. Those we elevate face the unfortunate task of upholding their myth long enough to be long-lasting — those who prematurely pass are often immortalized because they’ve left this world before their success has had enough time to corrupt them.

Socrates argues that the people with the greatest natural potential for philosophy can become the most destructive when corrupted. His reasoning is simple, a great man with natural potential for philosophy will look deep within themselves to practice the virtues. But they live in our world, where there are many other seemingly-positive pursuits that begin to distract them from their pursuit of philosophy, like beauty, wealth, strength, rank, and great connections in the State. He grants us an analogy of a seed planted in soil receiving the proper nutrients to grow, but the minute that seed is transported to another environment, the unideal environment, then they lack the nutrients needed to properly grow. Said differently, these distractions are bound to have an effect on them with enough time and influence, whereas a true philosopher is someone who seeks solitude in order to pursue the Good from the comforts of their own virtues, untainted by society’s vices.

Being a ruler, the philosopher-statesman would need to be comfortable in the presence of society, which inevitably will contain the very vices that can corrupt them. Knowing this, it makes me think of the Spartan king Lycurgus, who established the Spartan regimen of simple food, ban on luxury, and intentional complexity of currency to discourage foreign imports/exports. Lycurgus did this because he knew that any vulnerability to foreign influence of wealth or status will corrupt the masses, by instilling in them want of more than they need, and the desire to establish themselves in a different, elevated manner against their peers. Plato says that these become dangerous only when they are separated from wisdom, so the philosopher-statesman would need to be wise enough to see these vices for what they really are.

Level 3 → Application

Power Should Belong to Those Who Do Not Want It

Plato repeatedly suggests that the best rulers are those who do not desire ruling for its own sake. Plato asserts that the desire for power should itself make us suspicious of someone's fitness to possess power. I agree with this statement and would go further, with the thesis: Those who seek power are not suited for it, therefore the irony is that power should be given to those who do not seek it.

Those who want power will likely pursue power at all costs. When one develops their character by pursuing primary principles like the virtues, then all other secondary and tertiary aims will come (one who seeks Justice is best suited to have the power to deliver it, just as those who practice Temperance are best suited to control the finances & state decisions that impact the State). However the inverse cannot be true, because when one pursues a secondary principle like power, they can never achieve the principles above that. Therefore they are not virtuous and one who lacks virtue should never be in a position of power.

Those who seek power, once obtained, will want to continue maintaining power. This is where corruption occurs, their self-serving interest makes them more inclined to bend the laws to maintain their power. This results in a society led by rulers, and not by laws the rulers uphold. This is where Lycurgus’s legacy was long-lasting, by ensuring the laws he established would be upheld. Lycurgus told the Spartans he needed to make a short journey to the Oracle of Delphi and swear an oath to never change his laws until he returned. This was a trick, for he never came back, in order to ensure the laws remained frozen in place forever. He deliberately never went back to Sparta and he died in voluntary exile. This is the true sign of a leader, a man who did not hold power in high esteem — only the laws, that he spent the rest of his life forfeiting his power in order to leave his kingdom better-off in the long-run. A man who seeks power would not do this; they will place the good of the State second to their hunger for power.

Someone who does not seek power can make objective decisions using logic and not emotion. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is a good example, as is George Washington. Both men, military leaders returning triumphant, were offered complete power and they initially refused it in favor of a simpler, nobler life. This only fanned the public’s flames to place them in power. Numa Pompilius was also one who proved to be a good leader even when initially denying it. Those who are detached from the wants/needs of a certain aim like power, will often make the right decisions to bring about the end goal that power ultimately wants to achieve: glory.