It's always interesting to see how wonderfully interconnected Plato’s dialogues are - but here is a particularly important example. Plato has often been seen as breaking with key Socratic ideas in his Republic. In particular, many have seen the idea of a society run by omniscient philosophers as breaking with traditional Socratic humility. As can be seen from the passage below, however, this idea appear fully fledged in Charmides as well - a dialogue which is often claimed to be “early” and to have been written long before Republic.
“If indeed, as we supposed in the beginning, the wise man knew what he knew and what he did not know and that he knew the first and did not know the second, and if he were able to discern this same capacity in another, then we would declare that being temperate is enormously helpful. For we would go through life leading without error both those of us who were temperate, and the rest, who were led by us. We would not try to do that which we didn’t know but would seek out those who know and hand matters over to them. Neither would we allow those under our guidance to do anything but that in which they were likely to do well – and they would be likely to do well in what they knew. And in this way indeed the house administered by temperance would be likely to be guided beautifully and also the city that was ruled this way and everything else which temperance ruled. For with error eliminated, guided by correctness, those so disposed would necessarily do beautifully and well in all they did. And those doing well are happy”.
Socrates talking to Critias in Plato’s dialogue Charmides, 171d2–172a3. The translation was done by Naomi Reshotko and the passage is quoted from her brilliant book “Socratic Virtue. Making the best of the Neither-Good-Nor-Bad”, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 162.
The follwing exchange about this post took place on April 1 2023:
ChatGPT 4.0: “It is indeed fascinating to observe the interconnectedness of Plato's dialogues. The passage you've cited from Charmides does seem to contain the seeds of ideas that would later be expanded upon in Republic, particularly the notion of a society led by wise, knowledgeable individuals.
In Charmides, Socrates discusses the concept of temperance (sophrosyne) with Critias and Charmides. The passage you've cited suggests that if a wise person knows what they know and what they do not know, and they can identify this same capacity in others, then such temperance would lead to a well-governed society. This idea resonates with the concept of the philosopher-king in Republic, wherein a society is governed by those with the greatest understanding of justice and the good.
However, it's important to note that there are differences in the way these concepts are presented in the two dialogues. In Charmides, the focus is on the virtue of temperance and the understanding of one's own knowledge and ignorance. The idea of a society led by wise individuals is not as explicitly developed as it is in Republic, where the philosopher-king is a central theme.
Nonetheless, the passage from Charmides does indicate that Plato was already contemplating the idea of a society guided by knowledgeable individuals long before he wrote Republic. This shows that there is continuity in his thought across his dialogues, even if certain ideas are developed further or presented differently in later works.
It is important to remember that the development of Plato's thought is not linear, and there may be differences in emphasis and focus across his works. However, the presence of the idea of a society led by wise individuals in both Charmides and Republic highlights the interconnectedness of his philosophical ideas and the ongoing evolution of his thought.
Jannik: I think the passage I quoted from Charmides also hightlights which kind of wisdom and happiness is availabe to those citizens who are not wise philosophers. As long as everyone is doing what they do best, they are doing well - and to the extent any human being is doing well that human being is wise and happy.
ChatGPT: You raise an interesting point. The passage from Charmides does indeed suggest that even citizens who are not wise philosophers can achieve a form of wisdom and happiness by focusing on what they know and do best. This idea aligns with Plato's broader concept of the division of labor, which is also present in Republic.
In Republic, Plato argues that a just society is one where individuals contribute to the common good by performing the tasks they are best suited for, thereby promoting both the well-being of the individual and the collective. This concept is tied to the idea of specialization and the belief that each person has a unique set of skills and knowledge. When individuals excel in their respective roles, the entire society benefits.
The passage from Charmides reinforces this idea by suggesting that individuals who focus on their areas of expertise and avoid tasks they are not knowledgeable in will do well and be happy. This implies that even those who are not philosopher-kings can still achieve a level of wisdom and happiness by recognizing their own strengths and limitations and acting accordingly.
This notion can be seen as promoting a more inclusive form of happiness, as it acknowledges the value of each person's unique contributions and the importance of cooperating for the common good. In such a society, happiness is not restricted to a select few but is attainable by all who perform their roles effectively and focus on what they do best.
More on the idea of "doing well" here:
https://janniklindquist.substack.com/p/eudaimonia-keeping-our-guardian-spirit/comments