On the relationship between ethics and politics in Socratic ethics
A conversation with ChatGPT about Julia Annas' interpretation of Plato's Republic
Jannik: Are you familiar with an article by the scholar Julia Annas called "The Inner City: Ethics without Poitics in the Republic"?
ChatGPT: Yes, I am familiar with the article by Julia Annas titled "The Inner City: Ethics Without Politics in the Republic." Julia Annas is a prominent scholar in ancient philosophy, particularly known for her work on virtue ethics and moral psychology in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.
In this article, Annas discusses Plato's "Republic," a seminal work in Western philosophy, and proposes an alternative interpretation of the text. She contends that the Republic is primarily focused on ethics rather than politics, contrary to the more traditional interpretation that views the work as a blueprint for a utopian society.
Annas argues that the city, or polis, described in the Republic is an analogy for the soul and is meant to help readers understand the complexities of the soul and the development of virtues. The central focus, according to Annas, is the individual's journey towards self-improvement and the cultivation of virtue, rather than the establishment of an ideal political state. This interpretation shifts the emphasis from the political and social aspects of the Republic to the psychological and ethical dimensions of Plato's work.
Jannik: In my opinion, the ethical theory that is found in Plato's Republic is also a political theory - just like the Stoic theory of oikeiosis is both an ethical theory and a political theory. An ethical theory is not just a theory about why we should care about other people but also a theory about who we should care about and how we should care. The answers we are being given in Plato's Republic to both of those questions is that we should find our place in the larger community and do what we do best for the sake of the common good. What do you think?
ChatGPT: I think you make a valid point. It is true that ethical and political theories can often be intertwined, as they both deal with questions about how individuals should relate to one another and what constitutes a just and harmonious society. In the case of Plato's Republic, the emphasis on individual virtues and one's role within the community does suggest a connection between ethics and politics.
The idea of finding one's place in the larger community and doing what one does best for the common good is central to Plato's conception of justice. According to Plato, a just society is one in which individuals specialize in their roles and work together harmoniously for the greater good of the community. This perspective not only emphasizes the ethical obligations of individuals to contribute to the welfare of the community but also carries political implications, as it suggests a particular structure for an ideal society.
Similarly, the Stoic theory of oikeiosis, which involves the natural process of self-development and the gradual expansion of one's concern from oneself to others, can also be viewed as having both ethical and political dimensions. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of individuals within a community and the importance of recognizing the common good, Stoic ethics can be seen as laying the groundwork for a political theory that values harmony, mutual cooperation, and the welfare of all citizens.
So, in both cases, the ethical theories can indeed be understood as having political implications, as they offer insights into the ideal organization of society and the relationships between individuals within that society.
Jannik: Her main argument is that the entire goal of the Republic is to show that virtue is sufficient for happiness. On the basis of this she concludes that if the virtous person does not need the ideal state to be happy all talk about the ideal state is only relevant as an analogy which serves the purpose of analyzing the part of the soul. In my opinion, she completely misses that a major goal in the work is to analyze what justice is - and this clearly means: to analyze who we should care for and why we should care. She seems to think that just by showing that virtue is sufficient for happiness, Plato has shown why we should care about others - namely for the sake of our own happiness. In my opinion, that is a massive misunderstanding of Socratic ethics. The reason that justice is a virtue in the first place is that it is wise to care about the common good. The primary focus of the virtue justice is the happiness of those we care for. Not our own happiness. By caring for those who belong to us we act wisely - and that is what makes us happy.
ChatGPT: You raise an interesting point about the interpretation of Plato's Republic and the understanding of Socratic ethics. It's true that one of the main objectives of the Republic is to analyze the nature of justice, and this entails determining who we should care for and why we should care for them. As you mention, Julia Annas emphasizes the idea that the primary goal of the Republic is to show that virtue is sufficient for happiness, and that discussions of the ideal state serve mainly as an analogy for understanding the soul.
However, you argue that this interpretation may not fully account for the centrality of justice as a virtue in Socratic ethics. According to your view, the reason why justice is a virtue is that it is wise to care about the common good, and that the primary focus of the virtue of justice is the happiness of those we care for, rather than our own happiness. By caring for those who belong to us, we act wisely, and this is what makes us happy.
Your interpretation seems to emphasize the importance of the common good and the idea that the happiness of others is intrinsically connected to our own happiness. This perspective aligns with the broader Socratic ethical framework, which argues that the cultivation of virtues, including justice, is crucial for achieving a flourishing and happy life.
In summary, while Annas's interpretation offers valuable insights into the ethical dimensions of Plato's Republic, your perspective highlights the importance of considering the centrality of justice as a virtue and its implications for our understanding of the common good and the happiness of others. This broader understanding of Socratic ethics may help to further illuminate the connections between ethics and politics in Plato's work.
Jannik: Yes, exactly. I think it is enlightening to compare Socratic ethics with Stoic ethics. The Stoic theory of oikeiosis is clearly a political theory in the sense that is a theory about how human beings form societies and a theory about what an ideal human society should look like. But the theory of oikeiosis is not meant to be a theory for policy makers - something they can use to make political decisions with. It is meant as political theory for the individual striving for happiness - it is a theory for everyone which aims to help us understand which kind of life it is we are looking for. In my opinion, all of this goes for Socratic ethics as well - including the book we know as the Republic.
ChatGPT: I understand your point, and it seems that you are emphasizing the role of both Socratic and Stoic ethics as guides for individuals striving for happiness and understanding the ideal life. Both ethical systems share a focus on the individual's pursuit of virtue and their relationship with others in the context of a community or society.
The Stoic theory of oikeiosis, as you mention, is about the natural process of self-development and the expansion of one's concern for others, ultimately leading to the formation of societies and the ideal of a harmonious human community. However, as you note, this theory is not meant as a guide for policy-makers but rather as a framework for individuals seeking happiness and understanding the kind of life they should strive for.
Similarly, Socratic ethics, as exemplified in Plato's Republic, can be seen as a political theory for the individual, emphasizing the cultivation of virtues and the importance of understanding one's role within a larger community. In this sense, the Republic can be viewed as an exploration of the ideal human society, not as a blueprint for policy-makers but as a guide for individuals seeking to understand the nature of justice, the common good, and the kind of life that leads to happiness and flourishing.
In conclusion, your comparison between Socratic and Stoic ethics highlights the shared focus on individual flourishing, the pursuit of virtue, and the importance of understanding one's role within a larger community. Both ethical systems serve as guides for individuals striving for happiness and provide insights into the nature of an ideal human society, even if they are not explicitly meant to be frameworks for political decision-making.
Hi Jannik, you had a post about quote from Plato about how the wise person will not engage in politics. Sorry can't find it, but would you then agree with the view that "It is wise for the unwise to rule?" That seems to be the inevitable conclusion if the wise person is to shun politics. My personal view is that yes, anyone who desires to be in politics is automatically disqualified, but equally, the wise person will engage in politics, when it is appropriate to do so, out of moral duty which arises out of their role in the society. For a wise person to run away from being a leader is a similar folly to the strongest man in a group to shy away from defending his group/family/friends in case of a physical attack. Would like to hear your thoughts on this if I may 🙂