Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция

Republic.

0^ The temporal interpretation of the genitive absolute (ἐπιλειπούσης γὰρ ἐπιστήμης) is justified by the following ὅταν. Throughout, I provide my own translations when something relevant to the argument is at stake in the Greek. Otherwise, I rely on G. M. A. Grube’s translation, revised by C. D. C. Reeve (1992), indicating slight modifications as my own.

0^ The conversation (342c-d) leading up to this statement makes it absolutely clear that a “position of rule” means being in the possession of a techne, not being a “ruler” in the narrow, conventional, sense. Directly before stating his general principle, Socrates reminds Thrasymachus that “a doctor in the precise sense is a ruler of bodies” and “a ship’s captain in the precise sense is a ruler of sailors.”

0^ Julia Annas 1981, 47, 49.

0^ Socrates will distinguish the δύναμις of each techne on the basis of the ὠφελεία that it makes possible. This is in accordance with his general doctrine of powers that he lays out while considering the epistemic possibilities of the soul (477c).

0^ In his study of Republic, Leon Craig (2003, 163) writes of a basic “conflict of interest” between the craftsman and the consumer. The craftsman wants money, and the consumer wants quality. Such an observation belongs to a psychology of economics. Within the strict account of techne, however, we may speak of a deeper conflict of interest between the worker and the consumer. The worker at work is interested in products solely as fulfilling the needs of the worked-on subject matter. The consumer is interested in them as serving human needs.

0^ Strauss 1964, 79.

0^ We can see why Socrates’ attempt to posit wage-earning as a distinct techne, which can operate concurrently with all the others, raises difficult structural issues for the strict account. If wages are the service of wage-earning, then what might its deficient subject matter be? By categorizing wage-earning as a techne, Socrates rules out the possibility that the wage-earner, insofar as he is a wage-earner, looks after his own interests, or those of anyone else.

0^ Strauss 1964, 95-6.

0^ Only under this definition does the polis make sense as the appropriate analogy for the tripartite soul in the consideration of justice. When the individual soul is investigated as an articulated whole, it is from the perspective of its inward ordering, not the goal at which it aims.

0^ We translate ἀρχὴ as “principle” or “originating principle,” rather than “beginning.” The ultimate justification for this decision comes in book IV at 433b-c, when Socrates, referring to their city-building in book two, says εὐθὺς ἀρχόμενοι τῆς πόλεως οἰκίζειν κατὰ θεόν τινα εἰς ἀρχήν τε καὶ τύπον τινὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης κινδυνεύομεν ἐμβεβηκέναι. “Immediately upon our beginning to construct the polis, we happen, with the help of some god, to have hit upon something of a principle and blueprint of justice.” The precise part of the conversation to which Socrates here refers is most likely 370b, where Socrates first introduces the idea that the polis affords each the opportunity to carry out a single task (ἔργον) to which he is by nature suited.

0^ The admission of extravagant needs or luxurious products into the polis is the result of Glaucon’s intervention that begins at 372c. Socrates consents to building a luxurious city only after remarking that the “true” or “healthy” city is the one constructed to satisfy modest or basic needs. Of course, it is in the attempt to satisfy these multiplying needs that the founders confront the necessity of war, and thus of training the guardians that will ultimately require a philosophical education. This distinction between the healthy and feverish cities, and the development through which the later is ultimately reformed, are important features of polis-construction in Republic. However, we must not confuse this issue with the more basic problem animating the polis-construction. This is to distinguish the true ἀρχὴ of the polis, which will indicate the definition of justice. Socrates clearly holds that the construction of the first (moderate) city already allows for a research into its justice and injustice (371e). He reacts to Glaucon’s complaint that he has built a city fit only for pigs by saying that studying a luxurious city will also serve the purposes of such a research (372e).

0^ Multifarious need naturally needs to be fulfilled within the polis. The life of need fulfillment is not eradicated. It does, however, become a subordinate part within the functioning of the polis as a whole (just as the appetitive part of the tripartite soul is inside the psychological whole). Needs need to be satisfied because they fulfill conditions necessary for the self-realization of the community according to its originating principle.

0^ In Theaetetus, Socrates, comparing the philosopher to the “practical man,” asserts that “only the body of the philosopher lives and sleeps in the polis” (173e). His mind, concerned with philosophical things, has no business there. This way of looking at things assumes the commonsense perspective that the polis is a need coordinating mechanism, and addresses the problem of philosophy’s political inclusion on that basis. According to the strict account of Republic, however, one does not belong to a polis because her needs motivate her to settle in the vicinity of others.