Republic Books VIII & IX

I want to point out two themes, for lack of a better term, in Books VIII and IX of the Republic that I would like to discuss in class. First, I found Socrates's discussion of how people within a democracy think about and use the notion of Freedom extremely germane for contemporary Americans. How many times, for example, did President George W. Bush claim that the US had the responsibility to spread democracy across the world, because God created human beings to be "Free"? When our soldiers and intelligence agencies did not find WMDs, Bush et. al. emphatically emphasized the need for the Iraqi people to live in Freedom and to establish a democracy. It seemed to me that this line of reasoning encouraged people to see (1) Freedom as a (or perhaps the) value of ultimate importance, (2) Democracy as the form of government that could foster freedom, and (3) that securing freedom for others is one of the most significant responsibilities that nations and their citizens have. One of the things that troubles me about this is that Bush et. al. never explained what they mean by "freedom." Nor, for that matter, did they ever really explain why it is worth the loss of human life to secure, even if it is the freedom of another. As Socrates argues, this is no small matter. Socrates points out that within democracies, citizens often think that freedom means no one and nothing can have authority over them. He mentions that those in leadership positions within a democracy often "tip-toe" around making imperatives. They fear the back lash that would ensue if their fellow citizens thought that they were infringing upon their freedom. I have encountered these patterns of behavior and ways of thinking everywhere I have lived. Yet, as I think Socrates's ironically points out, this view of freedom is inimical to human beings. On the one hand, it is inimical because it is a false view of freedom (likewise, its family conception in Sartre is false). Human beings simply do not have capital "F" freedom. We are contingent creatures with personal histories, familial relations, desires, etc. that shape us. I am not here endorsing determinism. Rather, I am saying that we have to recognize the limitations and influences that shape and direct human lives. On the other hand, it seems like Socrates believes that it is inimical because he thinks that human beings do not thrive apart from hierarchical relationships. Humans need guidance and leaders. This applies throughout their lives. Families, business, militaries,clubs, community groups, and so forth all require some sort of hierarchical structure to flourish. So whereas Socrates agrees that freedom is important, he both rejects the view of freedom that many within a democracy embrace for the reasons we have mentioned, and he proposes instead that human beings seek a freedom that is not equivalent to autonomy and extreme egalitarianism. I think all of these points are germane for us Americans who live in a "democracy" (that we do not actually live in a democracy but still have many who share the view of freedom that Socrates condemns are issues for another discussion). The second theme I would like to talk about in class is the development of the tyrant. In particular, I am interested in seeing how Socrates's discussion relates to the malformation of people like Thrasymachus and Callicles. While I do not think that either of these people are straightforwardly tyrants, I do believe that it is important for us to see the similarities between their views about justice, for example, and those that Socrates claims tyrants come to have. Do these men come from democratically run cities? Did they have the sorts of fathers that Socrates says the tyrant has? If their upbringing is different than that of a tyrant, why do they come to hold "tyrannical-like" views? I believe that this question is particularly pertinent given Socrates's claim that human beings, including those who become tyrants, do not start off with malformed natures. Thus its would seem that nurture is where the problem lies. Yet how does this account for what, at least I take to be, the prevalent love of money that Socrates rebukes? Or the tendency of "young people" to get carried away by their passions? Is this something that they learn, or is it something that they naturally have/develop apart from human inculcation? In short, how do non-tyrants become so tyrannical?