Socrates suggests that the state, like the soul, can be divided into three: the philosophers, who represent reason; the auxiliaries or soldiers, who represent spirit, and the artisans, traders and farmers, who represent desire. The just state is ruled by the philosophers, with the auxiliaries in support. The result is a deeply authoritarian state, in which only the philosophers have a say in government. This is justified, Socrates argues, because it is only the philosophers that care impartially for everyone and know what is for the best. Only the philosophers can deliver the security that the ordinary citizens need to pursue their individual interests.

Plato’s ideal state is founded on trust; but it is a trust that runs only one-way. The questioning, challenging attitude of the philosophers is not required of the ordinary citizens: they are expected to trust their rulers without question. Indeed, Socrates suggests that the rulers would be justified in lying to the other citizens, provided that this is for the good of all. The trust that Socrates asks of the ordinary citizens seems more like the trust of a child for its parents than the mutual reliance of adults.

Plato does not ask us to accept this vision - he presents it to us as philosophers to question and to challenge. And indeed it raises some unsettling questions. Many find Plato’s just state deeply unattractive - they resist the idea that we should be ruled by people who know what is best for us. But if we could choose between a democratic system, which might produce as many bad decisions as good ones, and rule by experts who are guaranteed to make the right decisions, would it be rational to chose democracy? Would anything of real importance be lost to us in Plato’s ideal state?

  < previous   Page 3 of 3