Tino Tsarouchis
Socrates argues in the Republic that regimes transition from timocracy, finally to oligarchy to democracy and finally to tyranny in that order. However, regime transitions have not always historically devolved in this manner. For instance, one could argue that France in the 1800s transitioned many times from democracy to tyranny but without the oligarchic rule of the ancien regime, when in the mid 1800s, Napoleon III declared himself emperor for life. But why does Socrates fixate on this sequence of regimes if they do not’t necessarily always fall in this order? I will argue that he does this to highlight vices in the body of the regime through the tyrannical soul and how instability in a regime is inevitable due to these vices.
Socrates’ description of the tyrannical soul in relation to the perception of justice in relation to man’s personal injustice suggests that he is not fixated necessarily on the order of the fall of the regimes, but rather he is describing how this potential of the regimes highlights how man’s personal injustice can create instability in the regimes. For instance, he argues that,
“ Must we go through the worse men- the man who loves victory and honor, fixed in relation to the Laconian regime; and then, in turn, an oligarchic and a democratic man, and the tyrannical man, so that seeing the most unjust man, we can set him in opposition to the most just man. If so, we can have a complete consideration of how pure justice is related to pure injustice of the men possessing them.” (545a)
In other words, by studying the man who loves victory and honor in relation to the transition of an oligarchic, democratic, and tyrannical regimes, Socrates can depict how vices in the soul of the regime allow for instability in the regime and allow for such transitions to occur. While we can see Socrates’ purpose in the sequence of these regimes in the arrangement of the text, there is also evidence in Bloom’s analysis that the deeper purpose that Socrates is trying to portray is the soul of the tyrannical man in relation to the regimes and how that alters regimes.
Bloom’s analysis suggests that Socrates knows that there is no evidence that regimes fixate in his order, but he depicts them in this order to rank the men in terms of erotic desires. First, he argues that, “Socrates’ account of the regime diverges from common sense in that he insists that the best regime came first and that after it there is a necessary downward movement of decay to timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. This is supported neither by argument nor by history.” (416) Bloom’s statement that this argument is not historically supported echoes my introduction where I argued that there is no historical evidence for such a descent, suggesting again that Socrates has a deeper purpose for this order. Bloom reveals what he believes is Socrates’ deeper purpose when he argues that,
“Socrates and Adeimantus discuss each of the regimes before they discuss the man corresponding to it. Therefore, they have the tendency (as was the case in Book IV) to see in the man what they saw in the city. This predetermines the somewhat questionable result that men have the same rank order of goodness which was found in regimes. For example, there is some doubt whether a man who pursues money alone is simply preferable to one who devotes himself to spending it in a variety of pleasures. But the anti-democratic Adeimantus readily agrees that oligarchy is superior to democracy; thus it appears, from his connection with the oligarchic regime, that the oligarchic man is the superior human type. This is obviously not an exhaustive account of the men under consideration, but it serves Socrates’ intention, which is to condemn the tyrannic man.” (417)
In other words, Socrates and Adeimantus’ discussion of the regimes involves discussing the man corresponding to it, but Socrate’s’ deeper purpose is to condemn the tyrannic man. This discussion suggests that Socrates’ fixation on order of the regimes serves the deeper purpose of showing how a tyrannic soul can create instability and alter the regimes. In this case, Bloom’s description of the lack of historical evidence for this order of fall of regimes, combined with his description of Socrates’ intention to condemn the tyranny suggests just that. In addition, as I am about to show, we can see from Socrates’ analysis of the transition from timocracy to oligarchy that he is more concerned about the vices as well.
Socrates highlights how the tyrannical soul is developed through a lack of philosophical education and how that inevitably leads to regime change. First he argues that,
“ Then they will also be stingy with money because they honor it and don’t acquire it openly; but, pushed on by desire, they will love to spend other people’s money; and they will harvest pleasures stealthily, running away from the law like boys from a father. This is because they weren’t educated by persuasion but by force-the result of neglect of the true Muse accompanied by arguments and philosophy while giving more distinguished honor to gymnastics than music.” (548b)
Here, we can see how he is attempting to highlight how the lack of a cultivated soul can lead to unjust actions by the man. In this case, a lack of attention to philosophy can lead to a lifestyle that can be manipulated by luxuries and that can coerce man into spending unnecessarily. But how does this suggest that he aims to show that this type of uncultivated soul can lead to instability in the regime? Well we see a few lines later that he outlines how his purpose of this analogy is to depict how different regimes come into being. Furthemore, he states that, “This is the way that this regime would come into being and what it would look like-given the fact that we are only outlining regime’s figure in speech and not working out its details precisely, since even the outline is sufficient for seeing the justest man and the unjust best one, and it is an impractically long to go through all of the regimes and all dispositions and leave nothing out.” (548d) Here, it seems to be stating that the example of the timocrat transforming to an oligarch from a lack of cultivation serves as an example of how regimes can change. For instance, his wording of “not working out its details precisely” suggests that he is not fixated exactly on the science of how regimes fall, but rather he is interested in depicting how the tyrannical soul can transition one regime to another. In this instance, the tyrannical soul’s love for money transitioned the regime from a timocracy to an oligarchy. This is an example of tyranny because it demonstrates the desire for luxuries and not the finer things in life such as knowledge and wisdom. We can also see this purpose in his description of the transition from an oligarchy to democracy as well.
Socrates’ description of the transition from the oligarchic regime to democratic regime suggests he is more concerned with showing that the soul is the source of transformation in a regime, but not always in the certain order he suggests. Furthemore, Glaucon argues that, “Then democracy I suppose, comes into being when the poor win, killing some of the others and casting out some, and share the regime and the ruling offices with those who are left on an equal basis; and for the most part, the offices in it are given by lot.” (557a) Socrates then agrees with Glaucon. Here, we see Socrates has highlighted the vices that contribute to the downfall of the oligarchic regime. In this case, it is the rebellion of the poor and working classes that lead to a transition to a democracy. However, it is a few lines later that suggest that his deeper purpose of describing this transition is to highlight how instability in the regime occurs when he argues that “When a young man, reared as were just saying without education and stingily, tastes the drones honey and has intercourse with fiery clever, clever beasts who are able to purvey manifold and subtle pleasures with every sort of variety, you presumably suppose that at this point he begins his change from an oligarchic regime within himself to a democratic one.” (559d) First we Socrates and Glaucon described how the regime changes from oligarchic to democratic. Now here, we are seeing how pleasures of many varieties tempt the man into a democratic soul. These pleasures are the luxuries that one desires in an oligarchic regime, but cannot have. These luxuries are the desire for wealth and when those wealth disparities are apparent in the oligarchic regime, the man rebels and thus the democratic regime is formed. But what suggests that highlighting the tyrannic soul in relation to the transformation of the regime is Socrate’s bigger purpose is that this is not the first time he has made implications that highlight the soul more than the science behind the fall of the regimes. For instance, I discussed earlier how, when discussing the transformation between timocracy and oligarchy, “He says that he is not concerned about the details of transformation, but what causes the transformation.” Now here, we are seeing him focus heavily on the soul. Both of these instances suggest that he is not concerned with the order of how regimes fall, but rather providing an example of how a tyrannic soul can alter the regime. And those pleasures such as tasting the drones with honey and intercourse, can be translated to sensual pleasures. In the oligarchic regime, a desire for equality leads to a democratic regime, thus undermining the purpose of the oligarchic regime. But only Socrates wording suggests that he has a deeper purpose, but if he also fails to analyze if the soul of the regimes could transition the regime in a different manner than he discusses as well.
As stated above, Socrates argues that love for money in an oligarchic regime can pull the regime toward a democracy because the poor desire the luxuries they don’t contain, and in turn create violence. However, what if oligarchic regimes can lead to tyranny? For instance, can a regime that loves money turn into a tyrannical regime through manipulation of the demos? In other words, can oligarchs rule the city without the poor realizing they don’t contain the luxuries they desire? If so, this would mean that there would be no period of democracy that would result from violence of the poor because they never revolted from lack of those luxuries. And this lack of knowledge from the poor could be used by rulers to abuse their power through levying taxes on the underprivileged. This possibility is not explored, and the fact this obvious possibility is not explored is intriguing. For a man, who possesses the wisdom like Socrates does to not explore this possibility is intriguing and suggests he doesn’t truly believe that regimes fixate in this order. In addition, the lack of analysis on this possibility combined with his carefulness not to completely outline how a regime falls and and his focus on the tyrannical soul suggests again this deeper purpose is to highlight how the tyrannical soul can alter the regime. Furthemore, he also fails to analyze whether an honor loving regime can pull a regime toward democracy as well.
Socrates’ argument that a democrat will eventually be pulled toward an oligarch for the desire of money fails to analyze whether the love for honor can pull a regime toward a democracy. For instance, could the love for honor pull the theocratic regime towards a commitment towards equality as opposed to a love money? One way this could theoretically occur is that the idea that one ruler is more honorable than the other and better suited for war is that the inferiors rebel to this idea before the regime transitions towards money making. In other words, a natural desire for representation quickly shifts the regime toward a democracy without the corruption of use of funds by the theocrats. The failure of Socrates to analyze this other possibility suggests again that he is not necessarily concerned with how regimes truly fall. If he were, this transition possibility along with the possibility of the transition from an oligarchy to a democracy would be analyzed. The question is, what does Socrates’ lack of analysis on these possibilities signify for the world at large?
The lack of analysis suggests that regimes can always undermine their purpose in many different facets. In an era where populism is on the rise and authoritarian tendencies have increased, it is important to identify how we could be undermining ourselves. For instance, we need to analyze whether our pursuit of equality in a democratic regime in a democratic regime has led us to vote for demagogues who don’t have our interest but sway us with promises of equality. In addition, we must ask whether we have taken empty promises of equality in return for oligarchic rule. These are the questions we must ask as we continue to try and build the ideal regime and definition of justice. The rest of the paper will focus on a secondary source named a Wolf in the City that discusses the relationship of the tyrannical soul in relation to the fall of the regime. In addition, we can also see Socrate’s deeper purpose through the myth of Er.
If we analyze the myth of er, we can illuminate the fact that Socrates is attempting to show that what causes the downfall of all regimes is the tyrannical through the component of the myth where Er is reborn and chooses to be a tyrant out of habit. This is a suggestion that Socrates is more concerned with showing how a tyrannical soul may impact the regime over the fixation of the order of regimes. This may be evident from his description of the men in the underworld when he states that, “ Thus, for example, if some men were the causes of death of many, either betraying cities, or armies, and had reduced men to slavery or were involved in any other wrong doing, they had received for each of these things tenfold sufferings;” (615a), this suggests that the tyrannic soul is responsible for the downfall of the regime in the city. This is evident in the portion of the quote where he discusses that these tyrannic souls were responsible for betraying cities. This implies that Socrates could be referring to betraying the cities through having a lust for political power and causing the downfall of the regime. And this again, suggests in turn that Socrates is not merely caring about the order of the fall of the regimes, but he is interested in depicting how those regimes fall in relation to the tyrannic soul. In addition, Bloom also agrees in the purpose of the Socrates scheme as well.
Bloom’s argument for why Socrates presents his regimes in the way he does signifies a purpose of a regime change in relation to the soul. Furthemore, he argues that,
“In Books VIII and IX, Socrates sketches the outlines of a political science. This presentation schematics five fundamental kinds of regimes and five ways of life or types of men who are related to those regimes. Thus a basis is provided for categorizing political phenomena and understanding their causes; such knowledge, in turn, provides guidance in political fact and the cause of all other facts.” (414)
In other words, the structure of the order regimes lets us understand political science in terms of the men who are related to those regimes. Lamperts interpretation here implies that Socrates is not ordering the regimes in the way he does because he believes that is the only way that regimes can fall. But rather he is depicting them in this manner to show that the basis for understanding political life involves a progression of eros through the five regimes that eventually leads to tyranny. And thus, the basis of political science is that erotic desires lead men to change the regime through these desires. And thus, this is the connection that the tyrannical man has to the city and the regime. Through his desires, he alters them. He then goes into detail about how these desires can change the regime and how we ought to view them by arguing that,
“ Truly different regimes, and men stem from significant and irreducible differences of principle. Socrates suggests that wisdom, honor, money and freedom and love are the ends which men pursue and for which they can use the political order; the dominance of one principle or another brings forth very different dimensions in the lives of men. The healthy soul is the standard for the judgement of the regimes and the key to understanding them.” (414)
First, Bloom argues that desires such as money and freedom can be attained through the manipulation of politics. Then he is arguing that the only way to correctly judge a regime is through the lens of the healthy soul. In both of these instances, we can determine that Socrates is depicting the fall of regimes in the way he does to show how the true purpose of the regime can only be achieved through a soul that lacks the desire for luxuries. Furthemore, even by just suggesting that only a healthy person can judge correctly, he is arguing that the tyrannical soul can not in any way fulfill the true purpose of a regime without destroying it. And this suggests again that the tyranny would cause the downfall of the regime. In addition, we can also see this connection in Lampert’s analysis of music.
Lampert’s analysis of music in the city suggests that Socrates is concerned with the cultivation of the soul in relation to music. For instance, he argues that, “Completing the city in speech, Socrates looks to the problem of innovation (422a): the great innovator prohibits innovation, especially in music, because changes in the styles of music—the things given by the Muses—unsettle “the most fundamental political and social conventions.” (293) In other words, music is essential to the soul. They lead to an appreciation for the finer things in life beyond luxuries, one of them being the pursuit of knowledge. However, the language that suggests that music is somehow related to the soul of the regime is the line saying they unsettle the most fundamental political and social conventions. Social and political conventions, in this case may refer to the cohesion of the regime, and the ability of the ruler to look beyond unearthly desires. Thus music cultivates the soul in order to prevent tyranny and from tyrants taking over the regime. In addition, we see that a lack of music and cultivated soul leads directly to the destruction of the city where political and social conventions are eroded. This again signifies that Socrates is trying to show that unwarranted desires lead to a destruction of the regime in the city, through altering the soul. In this case, the importance of music is being highlighted to show the importance of the soul in relation to the regime and city. So the question is, what does Lampert think about Socrates’ solution for the tyrannical soul?
Lampert argues that Socrates believes that the rational part of the soul should rule the city and this signifies that the soul is responsible for tyrannical rule. Furthemore , he argues that, In his final definition of justice Socrates asked, “Isn’t it proper for the reasoning part to rule since it is wise and has forethought [promêtheian] about all of the soul, and for the spirited part to be obedient to it and its ally?” (441e). This is Socrates’ justice in action, the rule of his reasoning through his wise forethought. Socrates is just, he minds his own business in an act of great politics: by persuasive reasoning—taught incantations— his reasoning comes to rule the spirited, turning them willingly into his followers.” (306) Essentially, cultivation of the rational part of the soul must take place in order for proper rule to take place. Although not explicitly stated, it is implied by the word “rule” that he is referring to one’s ability to rule the regime, suggesting as a whole that the stability of the regime depends on the health of the soul.
Aruzza’s interpretation of the purpose of Socrates fixation of the regimes suggest that he has aimed to highlight the soul in relation to the fall of the regimes.
“In Book VIII, Socrates famously organizes the discussion of the main forms of corrupt regimes according to a narrative scheme probably borrowed from Hesiod, and he rearranges the moral and political elements of proximity between different kinds of regimes into relations of derivation in a story of progressive decline. Rather than articulating a philosophy of history and depicting a chronological progression from one regime to the next, the discussion of corrupt regimes should be better understood as the adoption of a diagnostic, medical stance and as a description of the symptomatic progression of a disease.29 In this narrative scheme, the different forms of government are represented in such a way as to maintain sufficient similarities to the corresponding existent regimes, while at the same time exaggerating their respective guiding moral principles.”- (pg.115)
The analogy of a disease suggests that Socrates is using this format of regimes to depict a deeper problem with the soul of the regime. Sort of an illness in the soul that leads to a downfall of regimes. This illness, that he describes is the equivalent to an appetite, which is unchecked. And the order of the regimes is to underline the similarities between them, regardless of their guiding principles due to that appetite. And this appetite leads to a regime change. In this case, the regime changes that Arruza describes are the “ chronological progression”. From Aruzza’s interpretation of why Socrates presents the regimes in this order, we can infer that Socrates does not believe that regimes cycle in the order of aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny all the tim, but rather he presents them, as Arruza argues to present a chronological progression of the soul that eventually leads to tyranny. Furthemore, this purpose can also be depicted from Arruza’s analysis of music.
Arruza’s analysis of how music can tame tyrannical soul suggests again that he is interested in depicting regimes fall in relation to the tyrannical soul For instance, he argues that,
“In his first treatment of poetry, in Books II and III, neither Socrates nor his interlocutors explicitly mentions tyranny. However, this appears to be an underlying concern throughout the discussion of the education of the guardians; here Socrates addresses some of the ways in which tyrannical characters are birthed in a city and he puts forward an alternative educational project to avoid this outcome. Toward the conclusion of Book III, after having examined the kind of physical training and musical education appropriate for creating a harmonious combination of spiritedness and reason in the young guardians, Socrates states that the most shameful thing for a shepherd is to train dogs who will end up attacking the sheep they were supposed to protect, becoming more similar to wolves than to watchdogs” (416a2–7) (109)
Here we see his interpretation is that in order for the soul to be cultivated, musical education must be an essential component of the city. This again suggests that Socrates is attempting to depict how the eros causes the downfall of the regime. Furthemore, his wording of young guardians suggests that he has a concern specifically with those that rule in regards to their soul, suggested by the words reason. If Socrates was concerned about arguing for the order of the fall of regimes he would likely not have expressed concern here for the cultivation of the soul, but rather he likely would have emphasized the protection of the regimes over the cultivation of the soul. To further illustrate how the soul impacts any regime transition regardless of which one it is, it may be beneficial to turn to Arruza’s analysis of the city.
Arruza’s analysis of the distinction between the private tyrannical man and the one who acts on his impulses suggests despite the current regime, it is always the soul that influences the transition. Furthemore, he argues that,
“Plato’s treatment of tyranny differentiates between the tyrannical man (who lives a private life and acts upon his tyrannical impulses in his everyday relationships with his family and fellow citizens) and the political tyrant (a tyrannical man who finds propitious circumstances to take power). This distinction suggests the presence of tyrannical impulses and characters in the city, regardless of whether the men who have them happen to hold political power. As in the case of the oligarchic and the democratic man, the tyrannical man’s soul is dominated by the appetitive part.1 However, while the oligarchic man (p.140) focuses on money, and the democratic man is driven by unnecessary yet lawful objects of desire, the tyrannical man’s appetites are specifically attracted to unlawful objects of desire.”-
This suggests that in the city, tyrants can take power through ambitions, but the soul is specifically through appetite, whether it is money or objects. Furthemore, because Plato specifically states that impulses will always influence the city no matter who is in power, this signifies that it is not the order of the regimes that Socrates is concerned with. But rather, he is concerned with showing that no matter the cause of the transition, it is always caused by unnecessary desires. This is further highlighted by the distinction he makes between the oligarchic man and the democratic man. Despite the fact that the oligarchic man’s actions are lawful, they are still unnecessary and can cause the regime to change, and will progress to unlawful actions through the tyrannical man. And this juxtaposition highlights the progression of the tyrannical soul like a disease. The desires which begin as lawful in the oligarchic regime, eventually worsen to the point where those actions become unlawful, which highlights Socrates ‘ purpose of trying to show how the soul progressively alters the regime. This can further be depicted by analyzing what actions the tyrannical soul takes to destroy the democratic regime.
Aruzza’s analysis depicts how the main purpose in highlighting the transition from the democratic regime to the tyrannic regime is to highlight the demented soul. Furthemore, he argues that.
“As already argued in chapter 3, the apparent freedom of the tyrant corresponds to the private appropriation of that absence of superior authority and license of appetitive enjoyment that, according to Plato, characterizes democratic life. Plato includes the tyrannical man with those character types dominated by their appetites and, moreover, makes him the exemplification of the consequences of the appetites’ and eros’ unrestrained tyranny within a soul. While the tyrannical man is both brutal and power-seeking, his inclination to violence and will to power are not the main cause of his behavior and deeds but, rather, a consequence of his eros and unlawful appetites and only an ancillary cause of his behavior.3 As I will discuss further in chapter 5, the tyrant’s attachment to power and propensity.” (142)
Here, we see that Aruzza is highlighting how the soul is the cause of the actions that cause the downfall of the regimes due to his unlawful appetites. In this case, a desire for unrestricted freedom leads the democratic soul to a tyrannical soul. However, it is Arruza’s description of the causes that highlight that the cause of the downfall of any regime is the actions caused by the soul. Those actions are violence and power seeking behavior, and as he describes, they are caused by the eros. And this description from Aruzza, of these actions is suggesting that the regimes transition in that manner, not because a democratic regime always goes straight to a tyrannical regime, but rather it is an example of how lustful desires can create such a transition. This can further be illustrated through a further description of the eros and its relation to the destruction of the city.
To illustrate how the eros causes the downfall of the city, we must first analyze hArruzas’s description of eros in that
“ Eros is installed by the “tyrant-makers” (that is, corruptors in the city) as a great winged drone in the soul of the tyrannical man in order to remove the restraining effect of his democratic father and of the rest of the household. By acting as a (p.141) leader (προστάτης) of his appetites, eros makes sure that the tyrannical man will indulge in them and pursue them without restraint. Moreover, eros adopts madness as its bodyguard, so that it becomes frenzied. Madness indeed annihilates the beneficial influence that good beliefs and desires might have on the soul of the tyrannical man.” (572d8–573b4).”
In other words, the appetite is installed in the soul once free of restraint from the father and this leads it to pursue unearthly desires. And this desire is precisely what leads the regimes to transition. The eros that is installed in the tyrannical man eventually leads to a tyrannical regime, beginning with the eros of the aristocracy, which is a desire for knowledge. And it again suggests that Socrates’ deeper purpose is to show the progression of a sick soul and how that leads to a tyrannical regime eventually. The question is though what does a tyrannical soul fall in relation to the soul of the city?
According to Arruza’s interpretation, the tyrant is able to constrain the city for his own gain. Furthemore, he argues that,
“In all these circumstances, the tyrannical man resorts to violence and oppression of others as a response to the frustration of his appetites caused by external constraints. The enslavement of the city—that is, the possession of arbitrary, unaccountable, and unrestrained political power—is the natural outcome of this dynamic for the tyrannical man who finds the external circumstances propitious to becoming an actual, political tyrant. Indeed, by enslaving the city, the political tyrant can appropriate what belongs both to the individual citizens and to the city as a whole.” (pg.222)-
In other words, the tyrannical man’s tainted soul, leads to unwarranted desires, which leads to corruption, which leads to the inevitable hostage of the city. And this suggests again that Socrates’ deeper purpose with showing his transition of regimes is to show how the eros leads to uninhibited desire, which leads the city to become held hostage by the tyrant, and the equivalent of a regime change is holding the city hostage.
In addition, this idea that the downfall of the soul leads to regime changes in the city, is also suggested by Johnstone.
“As Socrates describes things, the tyrannical man’s increasingly shameless criminal behaviour eventually results in the removal of the last vestiges of restraint in his soul (574d1 and following). Lawless desires now begin to emerge even during his waking hours, and to forcefully demand satisfaction. These desires, which aim at bodily gratification through depraved acts, quickly assume prominent roles in his motivational make-up, presumably on account of their strength and vivacity. As a result, he begins to seek his pleasures even in these deeply depraved pursuits, indulging desires that even his vicious predecessors, right up . Socrates then proceeds to present, in order from best to worst: (i) the philosopher, whose soul is ruled by reason; (ii) the timocratic man, whose soul is ruled by spirit; (iii) the oligarchic man, whose soul is ruled by appetite, but in whom unnecessary desires are held in check ‘by force’ (558d4); (iv) the democratic man, in whom necessary and unnecessary appetites are treated as equals and as equally deserving of satisfaction (561a6–c4), and finally (v) the tyrannical man, in whose soul all remaining good beliefs and desires have been actively destroyed, and in whom even the utterly depraved ‘lawless’ appetites, experienced only during sleep even by the worst of his predecessors, have been unleashed.” (431)
Here, we see again that Socrates is demonstrating the removal of the last vestige of the soul into a transition to eros and how this leads to shameless behavior. The quote then shows the progression of the regimes like a disease that eventually leads to tyranny. The disease is the progression of the soul to aristocratic, olgarchic, democratic, and tyrannic suggesting that it is not the order of the regimes that is most important in the Republic, but rather the tyrannical soul that causes the progression of the regimes. In addition, Johnstone also shows that the tyrannic man’s desires eventually lead to control of the city.
Johstone’s argument that eros leads to political power and a desire for money suggest that Socrates is aiming to show that the tyrannic soul eventually leads to a downfall of the regime in the city. Furthermore he argues that ,
“To begin with, on Socrates’s account, the tyrannical man’s erôs leads him to pursue not only political power, but also money. In fact, it seems that most ‘tyrannical men’ never embark on the pursuit of political power; rather, most become nothing more than petty criminals (575b1–10). Indeed, the tyrannical man’s desires seem at first to run, not towards money or power, but rather towards a range of bodily pleasures; hence his initial choice of a life of hedonistic partying. Furthermore, Socrates makes it clear that the tyrannical man pursues neither money nor political power in their own right, but rather only in so far as they allow him to satisfy his clamouring appetites.” (427)
Essentially, the lustful desire is wealth, but the political desire is what holds the city captive, and that they are pursuing power and money for their own good. This is again an example of how Socrates is not trying to depict a particular order of regimes, but how an eros can lead to the downfall of the regime in the name of a desire for political power. So the question is what does Socrates’ analysis signify for our contemporary political landscape?
In our current political landscape, there has been an increase in virtue signaling, and an apparent increase in people creating the perception they care about justice, but really just want to reap the benefits, such as predator catchers trying to make money, but not caring about the justice of catching predators in and in itself, or people claiming they stand with refugees, but not taking action to help them. We must heed Socrates’s advice to cultivate the city in order to prevent these tyrants from taking power.
Annotated Bibliography
Arruzza, C. (2019). A wolf in the city : tyranny and the tyrant in Plato’s Republic / Cinzia Arruzza. Oxford University Press.- This source sheds light between the stages of the tyrannical soul and Plato’s political theory. It may be useful in depicting how Socrate’s doesn’t care about the order of the regimes but is interested in showing the soul’s relation to them.
Johnstone, M. (2015). Tyrannized Souls: Plato’s Depiction of the “Tyrannical Man”1. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2015.1017799- This source focuses specifically on Book nine and the relationship between the tyrannical soul and the city. It signifies how the soul is responsible for the destruction of the regime.
Lampert, L. (2010). How philosophy became socratic : a study of Plato’s Protagoras, Charmides, and Republic / Laurence Lampert. University of Chicago Press.- Various areas of Lamperts analysis that discuss the soul in relation to the fall of regimes may be beneficial as well as the areas where he distinguishes the soul and the city.