The City of Pigs - Plato's true and healthy city
A conversation with ChatGPT
Jannik: Here is a question posed by Christopher Rowe in an article of his about the "City of Pigs" - the first state that Socrates constructs in Plato's Republic. What do you think is the answer to that question?
"why does Socrates/Plato shift the search for justice from the first city to the much larger and more complex construction represented by Callipolis?"
ChatGPT 4o: A helpful starting point is to recall the context in which Socrates first sketches his so-called “City of Pigs.” In Republic II, Glaucon has just challenged Socrates to show that justice is worth pursuing for its own sake, rather than for reputation or advantage. Socrates initially responds by imagining a minimalistic, healthy community—one that meets basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) and is free of unnecessary desires. Glaucon (and Adeimantus) promptly objects that such a life would be fit only for “pigs,” prompting Socrates to move on to the more complex—and eventually “feverish”—city that requires a guardian class, auxiliaries, strict educational protocols, and so forth.
Below are some key reasons scholars give to explain why Socrates/Plato shifts from the first city to the more complex Callipolis, drawing on arguments often attributed to Christopher Rowe (and many others):
Justice must be identifiable under realistic conditions.
In the “City of Pigs,” citizens live simply and do not compete over luxuries or honors. While this might be healthy or ideal in some abstract sense, it does not create the social and psychological tensions in which questions of justice become most stark.
Glaucon’s request—motivated by the typical ambitions and desires of human beings—pushes Socrates to consider a city in which humans aren’t content with the bare essentials, and thus the structure of justice (and injustice) can become more visible.
The “City of Pigs” lacks complexity to reveal all four virtues.
Plato wants ultimately to show how the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice arise in a well-ordered society (and, by analogy, in the well-ordered soul).
In the simple city, there is not enough differentiation of social roles for those virtues to show up in their nuanced forms. We can’t see the role of a guardian class—or the need for guardians—unless there is conflict or something more than just a peaceful exchange of basic goods.
The shift exposes the psychological underpinnings of justice.
The Republic famously parallels the structure of the city (with its division of labor into producers, auxiliaries, and rulers) to the structure of the soul (reason, spirit, and appetite).
In the simpler city, the tripartite soul doesn’t fully “come to life.” By introducing a more complex city, Socrates can develop the idea that reason should rule, aided by spirit, and keeping appetite in check.
Plato is addressing Glaucon’s (and our) real concerns about human nature.
Glaucon objects that a purely “healthy city” ignores the typical desires that drive political life: wealth, status, comfort, expansion, and so forth.
To test the worth of justice in a city that more closely matches people’s ordinary political experiences, Socrates is pushed to “add luxuries” and then show how that “feverish” condition would need guardians, laws, and a just constitution in order not to collapse into injustice.
It dramatizes the search for an ideal city capable of illustrating perfect justice.
The move from the simple city to the luxurious/feverish city, and then to the purified Callipolis, highlights the philosophical quest: we start from the bare notion of a society, see how human desires complicate it, and then refine it until the idea of justice is isolated in its clearest form.
Plato’s concern is not just to show that justice can exist in a small, simple village, but rather to demonstrate how justice might be cultivated in a large, more realistic, complex polis.
Hence, to answer Christopher Rowe’s question succinctly:
Plato shifts from the first city to Callipolis because the initial “City of Pigs,” though healthy and peaceful, is too simple to reveal the nature of justice under the pressures and desires characteristic of actual human societies. Only by building up a larger, more complex city—mirroring the complexities of human psychology and collective life—can Socrates fully identify and articulate the structure of justice.
Jannik: Perhaps the reason for the shift to Callipolis is simpler: there cannot be injustice in the City of Pigs since everyone is living peacefully according to what Socrates defines as natural desires. Injustice can only arise from unnatural desires - which is emphasized ny the fact that Callipolis from the very beginning is a state which treats other states unjustly.
ChatGPT: Your succinct formulation captures a genuine—and indeed quite straightforward—reason behind the move away from the “City of Pigs”: if we imagine a community in which all desires are entirely “natural,” there simply is no room for injustice. Plato’s (or Socrates’) dramatic turn to a “feverish” or luxurious city arises precisely because unjust behavior becomes possible only once people adopt desires that outstrip the basics required by nature.
In effect, Socrates needs to introduce conflict—whether in the form of internal struggles over wealth and status or external aggression against neighbors—because it is under these conditions that we can meaningfully speak of people or a city being unjust. If the “City of Pigs” never harms anyone, trades fairly, and sticks to modest pursuits, there is no practical occasion to illustrate the possibility (or contours) of injustice. Justice isn’t simply the absence of wrongdoing in that harmless, minimalistic society; rather, for Plato’s broader argument, it must be shown to stand firm in the face of the temptations and corruptions that come along with more “luxurious” ambitions.
Thus, by positing that the larger polis from the start deals unjustly with other cities (through land expansion, war, etc.), Socrates ensures an environment in which injustice actually arises—and so can be compared, contrasted, and ultimately resolved via the proper structuring of the city’s classes and the soul’s parts. That is why the “healthier” City of Pigs cannot serve as the final test of justice: it does not generate the friction that exposes injustice in the first place.
Jannik: I agree entirely. But I think that a major reason why Plato let's Socrates begin with the City of Pigs and have him describe it as the true and healthy city is that the City of Pigs is actually what Plato's believe is a truly well functioning human society1. Callipolis is only created to illustrate that even in the face of large temptations and the approval of unjust behaviour that is widespread in a "feverish" city just behavior is more rewarding.
ChatGPT: That is indeed a strong and well-supported reading. Socrates famously calls that first, simple community the “healthy” city, while the second, more complex city he dubs “feverish.” If we take Socrates at his word, we have good reason to think that Plato (through Socrates) sees something genuinely ideal about the City of Pigs—a society whose members live only according to natural desires and do not stray into excess or exploitation.
But from Glaucon’s (and the audience’s) perspective, such a community feels too simple or unsatisfying. It does not reflect the “feverish” impulses that most people, in fact, do have—desires for wealth, luxury, conquest, or prestige. Plato’s strategy, then, seems to be:
Show the “true and healthy” city—the small, harmonious society that needs no elaborate structure to remain just, because nobody there is driven by unnatural desires.
Introduce a second city “inflamed” by luxury—to explore how justice can be discovered, chosen, and preserved even when powerful temptations and incentives toward injustice exist.
In other words, the “feverish” city (and eventually the purified Callipolis) is designed to prove that if you drop human beings into a more realistic environment—where power, comfort, and social reputation become prime motivators—there is still a way to show that just behavior is not only possible but ultimately more fulfilling or “rewarding” than injustice. The City of Pigs, by contrast, cannot serve as that test, because there simply is no injustice among its inhabitants to study or overcome; there, justice is a given, since everyone sticks to basic, “natural” desires.
Hence, your view captures a key insight: Plato’s staging of these two cities highlights that, while the “City of Pigs” may well be truly healthy and “best” by nature’s measure, the real drama—and thus the possibility of instructive arguments about why justice is better than injustice—unfolds only in a city where the usual, far more ambitious (and all-too-human) drives come into play.
Jannik: Given Plato's main goal of trying to show that the just person is more happy even in a world that not only doesn't acknowledge him for being just but even think of him as unjust, I guess Plato felt a need to also show (to truly contrast the worldview of Trasymachos) that if there is be any justice in the real world it can only come about through the rule of the just.
ChatGPT: Exactly. Plato doesn’t just want to demonstrate that a single just person can remain happy despite society’s injustice; he also wants to show that if there is to be any large-scale justice in the “feverish” world most of us recognize, it can only be secured by the truly just ruling.
This is part of the rationale behind Callipolis:
The city is structured so that philosophers (i.e., the most just individuals) rule.
This ensures that the city’s policies align with the Form of the Good rather than with popular opinion or personal advantage.
Under such rule, even ordinary citizens stand the best chance of living just and fulfilling lives, because the laws, education, and social arrangements all reflect genuine virtue rather than the manipulations of power-seekers.
Plato thus uses the transition from the “City of Pigs” (where justice is barely tested) to the “feverish” city (where injustice abounds) and finally to Callipolis to demonstrate that when natural virtue isn’t enough to keep a society from injustice, only a strict constitution, guided by philosophical reason, can both instill and enforce genuine justice on a societal scale. This not only answers Thrasymachus (who claims injustice pays best in normal politics) but also solidifies Plato’s argument that, in a flawed world, justice comes about only through the rule of those who truly grasp justice—namely, the philosopher-rulers.
Jannik: So essentially, the purpose of the discussion of Callipolis is to show the only way justice could come about in a flawed society - and only in that sense is it a discussion of any kind of ideal.
ChatGPT: Precisely. In the Republic, Callipolis is often spoken of as an “ideal” city—but in a very specific sense: it is the conceptual model of how justice could be institutionalized in a society prone to conflict, corruption, and “feverish” appetites. Plato isn’t just sketching a utopia for its own sake; he’s showing what political arrangements, educational structures, and leadership (i.e., philosopher-rulers) would have to look like if, in a flawed world, you still wanted genuine justice to prevail. Thus, in that sense, Callipolis stands as the only feasible (albeit quite strict) configuration by which a deeply unjust society might ever become just.
Jannik: Apparently, the discussion of the two states serves a double purpose. On the most basic - more abstract - level, both discussions are part of the overall argument in favor of the just life - but on another level the examination of the two cities also seems to aim at providing the reader with a deeper understanding of why and how he or she should engage in politics. At 592a Glaucon and Socrates agree that the intelligent person will only go into politics "in the city that belongs to him" and this is the city which they have "described and funded". I assume that they are here talking about Callipolis and not the City of Pigs - even though the latter is a more ideal city. Apparently, Plato, through the discussion of Callipolis, aims to give the reader a sort of political program - even if it isn't a blueprint for the establishment of an actual state.
ChatGPT: Yes, that distinction is crucial. On one level, the discussion of the cities serves the broader philosophical goal of defending the just life—demonstrating that justice is inherently preferable to injustice, even when it isn’t rewarded. But on another level, the examination of these cities provides a deeper understanding of politics itself, particularly in relation to how a philosophically-inclined person should engage with it.
The passage at 592a, where Socrates and Glaucon agree that the truly intelligent person will only take part in politics in the city that belongs to him—which is the city they have “described and founded”—strongly suggests that they mean Callipolis, not the City of Pigs. Even though the City of Pigs may be “healthier” in some sense, it is Callipolis that is structured in a way that reflects the ideal of justice in the world as it is, with all its political and psychological complexities.
This supports the idea that Plato is offering not a literal political blueprint, but a kind of program for political engagement. The Callipolis serves as a model, a theoretical framework for understanding what justice requires in an actual political context. This allows Plato to make two points at once:
Philosophers should not blindly engage with existing political systems, since most cities are deeply flawed and do not recognize true justice. Instead, they should first understand what a just political order actually looks like—hence the entire construction of Callipolis.
Even if Callipolis is not meant to be realized in practice, its principles can guide individual engagement in politics. A philosopher-statesman should, at the very least, try to reform their society in ways that bring it closer to justice—whether through education, governance, or by influencing rulers.
In this way, the discussion of Callipolis is more than a thought experiment about an ideal state; it also provides a conceptual roadmap for those who seek to engage with politics meaningfully. The intelligent person does not simply participate in whatever political order happens to exist but instead aligns their political action with the higher principles of justice as exemplified by Callipolis.
Jannik: But then the question is what kind of second-level purpose the discussion of the City of Pigs has. What do you think?
ChatGPT: That’s a great question. If the discussion of Callipolis serves a second-level purpose—providing a model for understanding how a philosopher should engage with politics—then what function does the discussion of the City of Pigs serve beyond its role in the larger argument about justice?
One possibility is that the City of Pigs serves as a contrast to real-world politics, highlighting how unnatural and distorted actual cities are. While the feverish city (and later Callipolis) represent the political realities of human ambition, conflict, and governance, the City of Pigs represents something different:
It exposes how far actual political life has drifted from natural human needs.
The City of Pigs, in its simplicity, shows a society where there is no political corruption, no class struggle, no luxury-driven inequality—just people meeting their natural needs and living peacefully.
This starkly contrasts with the cities we are familiar with, where desires go far beyond the natural, leading to political structures that require coercion, military force, and institutionalized control to function.
It serves as a warning against mistaking material excess and political complexity for genuine progress.
Many societies assume that wealth, expansion, and power are marks of success. But the City of Pigs suggests that a truly “healthy” society might actually be something far simpler.
This forces the reader to rethink whether the kind of state they are accustomed to (one based on luxury and competition) is really an improvement over a more basic, sustainable way of life.
It subtly criticizes conventional political ambitions.
If a society like the City of Pigs is possible but rejected as “unfit for humans” (as Glaucon insists), this suggests that most people’s political and economic desires are artificially constructed rather than necessary.
The shift to the feverish city implies that what people often call “political necessity” (wars, class divisions, rulers enforcing control) arises not from nature, but from luxury and unnatural desires.
It presents an implicit challenge: Could a person reject feverish desires and live politically in a different way?
Even though Plato ultimately moves on from the City of Pigs, he lets it linger as a kind of ethical alternative to traditional politics.
While Callipolis provides a structured model for just rule in a complex society, the City of Pigs provides a different kind of lesson: a reminder that there is another way to live—one that avoids the entire game of political power by rejecting unnecessary ambition altogether.
Conclusion: The City of Pigs as a Political Mirror
If Callipolis serves as a model for how one should engage in politics, then the City of Pigs may serve as a mirror for reflecting on the nature of political engagement itself. It forces the reader to consider whether politics, as they understand it, is actually necessary—or if it is merely the product of unnatural desires that create injustice in the first place.
Perhaps Plato knew that most readers would be unwilling to live in the City of Pigs—but by presenting it first, he ensures that when they follow Socrates into Callipolis, they do so with an awareness that many of the political struggles they accept as inevitable are actually self-imposed.
Jannik: That's a brilliant answer. I agree very much. It seems to me that without the portrait of the City of Pigs the reader of Republic might have in been in danger of falling too much in love with the idea of becoming an elitist ruler-philosopher - a trap many readers of the Republic through the ages sadly seem not to have avoided despite the discussion of the City of the Pigs.
ChatGPT: That’s an excellent point! The City of Pigs, in a way, serves as a philosophical safeguard against the allure of elitism that Callipolis might otherwise encourage. Without it, the reader might be too easily seduced by the idea of philosopher-rulers and the structured hierarchy of Callipolis, mistaking it for an endorsement of rigid intellectual and political supremacy.
By placing the City of Pigs before Callipolis, Plato reminds the reader that:
A well-functioning society does not necessarily require a ruling elite.
The City of Pigs works just fine without philosopher-kings, strict education programs, or an elaborate class system. People simply live according to their natural needs, and there is no inherent political struggle.
This suggests that the hierarchical structure of Callipolis is not intrinsically necessary for a good life, but rather a response to the complexities of human ambition and the temptations of luxury.
Political engagement is not the highest or only path to the good life.
Many readers of Republic focus on Callipolis as if it were Plato’s ultimate prescription for the best possible human life. But the City of Pigs suggests an alternative vision: a life of simplicity, harmony, and perhaps a kind of withdrawal from politics altogether.
This forces the reader to ask: Do I actually want to rule, or do I just want to live well? Plato seems to be saying that, in a truly just world, politics might not even be necessary in the way we typically think of it.
The philosopher’s role is not about power, but about justice.
The placement of the City of Pigs before Callipolis acts as a corrective: it prevents the reader from thinking that the main goal of philosophy is to rule.
Instead, it suggests that the philosopher's task is to understand what justice truly is—and only in an unjust world does that understanding necessitate governance.
The Misinterpretation of Republic as an Elitist Manifesto
As you rightly note, many readers (especially throughout history) have latched onto the idea of philosopher-kings and the structured rule of wisdom as if Plato were simply advocating for an intellectual aristocracy. But if that were the whole message, why include the City of Pigs at all? Its presence signals that Plato is more concerned with understanding justice itself than with justifying a ruling elite.
Ironically, those who see Republic as merely a defense of an authoritarian intellectual class may have fallen into Glaucon’s trap—the very mindset that forces Socrates to build Callipolis in the first place! Glaucon, after all, is the one who insists that the healthy city is not enough and pushes Socrates to describe a more ambitious state. Many readers have followed Glaucon’s lead too eagerly, ignoring that the City of Pigs offers a more radical lesson: that a well-ordered society does not need rulers at all.
Final Thought: A Hidden Philosophical Choice
By including both cities, Plato presents a philosophical choice to the reader:
Should we aim to rule wisely in a feverish world? (Callipolis)
Or should we try to remove ourselves from unnecessary ambition and live simply? (City of Pigs)
The fact that Plato does not explicitly endorse one over the other suggests that he wants the reader to engage in self-examination. Those who are too quick to embrace Callipolis might need to step back and consider what they’ve overlooked—just as Glaucon did.
Which is also Christopher Rowe's reading
👏👏👏