Reflection on Books III & IV of the Republic

Three features in books III and IV of the Republic strongly caught my attention. In what follows, I will discuss them in order that they appear in the text. The first feature of these two books of the Republic that caught my attention was the amount of time that Socrates spends discussing the importance of musical training for moral development. I believe it is important to note that even though Socrates does emphasize the importance of the lyrics of songs, he also pays a considerable amount of time stressing the importance of learning the "instrumental" side of music (for lack of a better phrase). I think he is right to do so. On the one hand, the lyrics of songs clearly do strongly shape those who sing them. Consider, for example, the role that songs play in the military. Every new recruit at boot camp or an academy spends hours learning songs filled with rich lyrics about the tradition and values of the particular branch of the military that they join. Indeed, I have read several memoirs by soldiers in which the soldiers stress how much they cherished and those songs, particularly because they provided them with a picture of their identity. Similarly, nations, religious groups, and organizations (such as college's and sporting teams) all have songs that contain lyrics which enforce/re-enforce their values and vision. Yet the tone, again for lack of a better word, to which these songs are set also have immense significance for moral formation. Consider, for example, the way in which the structure of a song can bespeak the structure of the moral universe (I take it that this is something Socrates has in mind throughout the Republic). Just as each note has its place and must be what it is for the creation of a beautiful piece of music, so to, the analogy goes, does the world consists of a certain moral order that has structure which, when followed, is beautiful. If this is true, and I think that there certainly is at least something right about it, then how does the shallow, ugly, and thoughtless music of American culture contribute to the moral formation of Americans? It would seem that we may have to say that it has a significantly negative affect. If we reject this conclusion, there where exactly is it that we part from Socrates's view of the world and the importance of music for moral formation? (As a side note, I wonder how this relates to Paul's discussion of the relationship between being filled with the Spirit to singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs in Ephesians 5). As for the second feature of these books, I am deeply troubled by Socrates's portrayal of love (cf.403-404). Socrates's seems to suggest that sexual pleasure has no place in a loving relationship. This seems wrong. That is to say, while I do acknowledge that not all forms of love have a sexual component (love between friends, love of a community, etc.), I think that human beings are supposed to express some forms of love by having sex. I cannot imagine, for example, that a husband and wife could love one another well/appropriately without having sex (assuming that it is physically safe for them to do so). Would Socrates truly respond to this by saying that such sexual intercourse was always "mad" and "licentious"? If so, I think that he would have to stretch the meaning of those words in a way that distorts them. What do my fellow classmates think? Third and finally, Socrates seems to think that human beings are a natural part of the world. Indeed, he seems to argue implicitly that so long as human beings act in accordance with virtue, they and the rest of the natural world will hum along quite nicely. He even goes so far as to suggest that the world naturally supplies all of the needs for the city. Here I am thinking of cobblers, blacksmiths, and carpenters in addition to items like food, drink, and materials for shelter. Do many people living today hold these views? I honestly am not sure. On the one hand, many environmentalists are extremely interested in virtue theory, because they do think that the virtuous person will live in accord with the natural rhythms of nature. There are, of course, those who think that human beings simply do not belong on Earth, but I take it that they are in the extreme minority. On the other hand, I do not know of many who implicitly champion that the world naturally provides cities with every form of "worker" that cities need to function. Rather, I know of some who argue that unless one does see slavery as natural, then one must see cities as unnatural because they always seem to require a "slave-like-class" to function (here I am not thinking exclusively about chattel slavery). In saying this, however, I do want to keep in mind that Socrates's discussion of this subject comes in his imaginary discourse about a sick city. Thus, I am not sure exactly how to read his comments in general, and this idea in particular. What do my fellow classmates think?