The liberation movement at the end of the 1960’s has nearly resulted in a civil war in Turkey between the nationalists and socialists, which ended up with the military coup in 1971. Many socialists were arrested and soldiers were searching the houses of the socialists for potentially harmful political books. It is not surprising that The Republic was the hand book of the socialists who were in search of the ideal city. The name ‘Plato’ is translated to Turkish as ‘Eflatun’, which is also the same name for the color of lilac. While soldiers were searching for the books to be burnt in one of the socialists’ house, they came across with The Republic, on which was written ‘Eflatun - Devlet’ in Turkish. The exact translation makes it ‘the lilac government’ in English. Just like the carefully educated guardians of Kallipolis, the Turkish guardians were also kept away from the dangerous books, which could harm their belief in their government, that is why they could not recognize The Republic. Instead, their reaction was that they said they have heard about the red government before, but not the lilac one. So they did not take the book to burn with the others.
It would be unreasonable to compare here the political system of Turkey with the system in The Republic. However, for the sake of the argument, it is possible only to say that at that time the Turkish political system was an unqualified copy of the totalitarian regime that Socrates describes. Socrates’ theory on the ideal city mainly relies on the education of the guardians and the philosopher kings. Assuming that philosophers are the ones who have the knowledge of the good, they should be the rulers and provide the proper education to the guardians for the common good of the city. The system he represents can be seen as a totalitarian regime in the sense that philosopher kings, who have the knowledge on ‘the good’ that the citizens are not able to access because of their inabilities, will decide for the common good of the passive demos. Although the city is ruled by autocracy, it is not tyrannical regarding that all the guardians are good to the people and the city is imagined according to the harmony and the happiness of the people. This harmony was the reason for the Turkish socialists’ interest in the book. In their egalitarian beliefs, they wanted to approach to a better state similar to the idealized system in Plato’s book. One can argue that the missing point in their actions relating to the book is Socrates’ argument on the will of philosopher kings to rule. Socrates claims that the philosopher does not have any interest in ruling the city, but because he is the only one who have the wisdom to rule the city, it is in a way demanded from him and he should not resist to that demand. This argument shows that the change should start within in the individual so that they will be able to demand the service of the best ruler. Nevertheless, socialists of the time wanted to bring the change to the public by political means, but the individuals were not introduced with the idea of the good. At this point, what I would like to claim with the above anecdote is that the political reading of the book, as the socialists did, can be misleading. To put it differently, Socrates tries to avoid the political understanding of his arguments in the book, when Adeimentus and Glaucon demands him to explain how it can be possible to create such an ideal city, and pull their attention to the philosophical argument first to give them a perspective on the philosophical inquiry.
In order to differentiate the philosophical implications of the text from what has actually been said in the line of argument on justice in Kallipolis, it is important to look at the path that Socrates’ argument follows. In the search for the true nature of justice, first Socrates introduces the idea of ‘the goodness’, which exists on a transcendental level. Since this abstraction is beyond human understanding, he assumes a city which consists of a ruling class, guardians and the public. He claims that the only possible connection of the city with the idea of the goodness can be through the philosophers because only philosophers recognize and take pleasure in the single form behind the multiplicity of appearances. Guardians are educated through this understanding of the good to be courageous enough to protect it. Then he uses this analogy to reflect the virtues of the soul, in which there exist both rational and irrational elements. At that point, the analogy of the city and the soul collide in each other and the state of the city does not fit in the state of the soul. Adeimentus and Glaucon, with Eros in themselves, demand Socrates to explain how such a system can be applicable insistently with the desire to believe in the idea of the good. Socrates, satisfied to see that the discussion triggered the desire for the search of the true nature of the individual, then passes on the topic of the philosopher’s education.
The introduction of the discussion on the philosopher’s education takes the argument to another level. This part of the book can be seen as the exercises part at the end of a chapter. While discussing the virtues of the philosopher like wisdom, good memory, and justice, Socrates further provokes Adeimentus and Glaucon, already planted with the idea of the good, to practice philosophical inquiry. According to the path that Socrates follows, one can argue that the sections in his divided line analogy at the end of book 6; conjecture, belief, thinking, and understanding, refer to the phases they have been through from the beginning of the discussion. Adeimentus and Glaucon in book 6 are in the thinking section regarding their enthusiasm to have the knowledge of the good that Socrates is talking about. Socrates claims that it is not possible for humans to fully understand that transcendental energy, but tries to improve their vision with the allegory of the cave that one should go out in the sun to have a better understanding of the ideal forms. Here, he uses the philosophical nature as an image to describe the divine motive in the individual soul. In a way, his discussion leads Adeimentus and Glaucon to the highest degree in the divided line, which is understanding, through being aware of that philosophical nature of the soul to get out of the cave.
To conclude, when Socrates asks in book 5 that "do you think our inability to show that it is possible to found a city in the way we have described makes what we have to say any less valid?", this question alters our understanding of the function or significance of Kallipolis by freeing the reader from the political constraints of the city and emphasizing the importance of the education of the individual soul. Just as Glaucon, the reader is also encouraged to search for the divine in the soul. If it can be recognized through the help of the proper education, then the discussion on justice will come to an end because it is impossible for the individual to act unjustly after reunifying with the knowledge of the good. In other words, with this question the reader realizes that Socrates wants to stimulate the change that is required for a just society starting from the individual and his main aim is to practice this educational matter with the people he is in dialogue with, in that case they are Adeimentus and Glaucon. What Plato does with The Republic is to invite a large number of the readers in the discussion, again for the educational purposes that he believes in just like Socrates.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder