This is my review/analysis of Nigel Warburton’s Philosophy: The Classics, a thoroughly engaging guide to some key philosophical works and their authors. For each of his 27 chapters, Warburton summarises the key ideas in a book, with some historical context too. Each of my following summaries is a type-up of the notes I’ve been taking throughout the book, and as I’m still in the middle of reading it, this post will be updating every now and then with a new chapter summary.
1 – Plato: The Republic
The Republic is one of Plato’s famous dialogues, a long philosophical discussion between the famous thinker Socrates and some other Athenians. One of its key theories involves the Allegory of the Cave, which serves to highlight how most people are content with a world of mere appearance; only philosophers care to make the journey out of the metaphorical Cave and gain true knowledge.
Perhaps the main point of the discussion in The Republic is for the philosophers to discover between themselves what ‘justice’ is. In order to discover what justice means in the individual, Socrates seeks to zoom out, as it were, and to first study justice in the state. From there he intends to transfer his findings to the individual. In order to discover what justice means in terms of the state, Socrates creates an imaginary, utopic city (the kallipolis).
The citizens of the kallipolis are split into 3 classes: the Workers, the Auxiliaries and the Rulers. The Auxiliaries and the Rulers together comprise the Guardians of the city, where the Rulers have the political power and make the most important decisions, and the Auxiliaries help them in this and also serve as an army to defend the kallipolis from attack. Only the strongest and most virtuous citizens can become Rulers; they must in fact pass a series of tests to filter out the best candidates. So that they might assert their unquestionable dominance over the Auxiliaries and Workers, Socrates devises a ‘noble lie’, the Myth of the Metals, for the Rulers to tell following generations. This Myth claims that each of the three types of citizens are born with a different metal flowing in their blood: Rulers have gold, Auxiliaries silver, and Workers bronze. This idea that your class is determined by outside factors beyond your control, and fixed at birth, seeks to quell any funny notions an Auxiliary or Worker might get about climbing the social ladder. As Warburton puts it, ‘Anyone who attempts social mobility is a potential threat to the state’s stability.’
Further, Socrates asserts that justice in the city comes from the way in which each person takes care of their own business, and doing it well as a result. Other important qualities can be found in the kallipolis too: wisdom, in the Rulers’ knowledge and ability to make wise decisions that benefit the state; self-discipline, found in the harmony between the three classes; and courage, shown by the fearlessness of the Auxiliary army.
Socrates then starts to advocate some seemingly more totalitarian policies, such as the separation of children from their parents at birth. The children should then be raised in state nurseries, with neither the children nor the parents aware of whom they are related to. In this way, Socrates seeks to establish total loyalty to the state from day one, with no emotional attachments to family members getting in the way.
He also advocates a sort of eugenics-based system, in which only the strongest and most virtuous people are allowed to reproduce. Any sub-par babies are to be mysteriously disposed of.
More progressively, however, Socrates believes that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men when it comes to education and work, with women even allowed to become Guardians if they can prove themselves to be suitable for the task.
A key idea in The Republic is Socrates’ theory of the tripartite soul, which states that people are governed by three different parts of their psyche: the rational, spirited and appetitive parts. Each of these corresponds to a different citizen’s role; the rational part is linked to Rulers, the spirited to Auxiliaries, and the Appetitive to Workers. Justice in the individual, Socrates asserts, is the psychic harmony of the tripartite soul.
Another famous analogy in The Republic is the Ship of Fools, in which a captain of a ship is blind and deaf and unfit to steer it. The rest of the crew fight to decide who will take over, the ship travels off-course, and all descends into chaos. The analogy is designed to show how political systems cannot operate without specialisation of work; only the captain who has been trained in steering a ship should be in charge of one, and the crew should in turn go off and do the jobs which they are experts in, not try and steal the captain’s job. In a similar way, Socrates believes that only philosophers should be the Rulers of the city. Only they have the greatest wisdom and can make the best decisions for the kallipolis.
One last key idea in Plato’s Republic is his Theory of Forms. In simplified terms, a Form is a sort of a template: it is the unchanging, truest form of something. For example, beds come in all different types: double, single, four-posted, canopied. What they all have in common – what makes them all a bed – is that they all relate to the Form of a bed, the ideal bed, which exists in the world of Forms. Only philosophers can gain insight into the world of Forms, which cannot be perceived through our physical senses, but through thought. As Warburton puts it, ‘Philosophers, with their love of wisdom, gain access to the world of Forms, and thus the possibility of knowledge, through thought; perception restricts us to the flux of the world of appearance.’ Socrates believes that a philosopher’s ultimate aim is to see and understand the Form of the Good.
Socrates is known for having his reservations when it comes to art, especially mimetic art, and poetry, as they can both give their audience a negative few of the gods (he is particularly against Homer who, in his epics, depicts the gods as very petty), and distance them further from the world of Forms. Take the example of mimetic art, which seeks to replicate real life. But real life is one step away from the world of Forms as it is; copying it again takes us back another step. Therefore, Socrates says we should ban such forms of art.
Criticisms
Much of Socrates’ argument for the definition of justice rests on the premise that justice in the state relates directly to justice in the individual, which is a claim he leaves unsupported.
If justice in the individual is, as Socrates claims, the harmony of the three parts of the soul, yet reason prevails most in the Rulers, then surely it follows that only Rulers can truly be just.
Some claim that the kallipolis is a state founded on deception, which is morally unfair to the citizens. This claim is largely founded on Socrates’ suggestion of teaching citizens the ‘noble lie’, the Myth of the Metals.
His Theory of the Forms cannot be supported through any kind of evidence.
Some call his kallipolis totalitarian, based on its censorship of art and poetry, the ‘noble lie’, and eugenics-based systems such as the breeding of the strongest.
Here you can read my book-by-book summary of Plato’s Republic.
Here you can read my essay on Goodness, Truth and Beauty in Plato’s Republic.
2 – Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
A key concept in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is that of ‘eudaimonia’ – though commonly translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘welfare’, this is a difficult term to accurately translate into English. Aristotle advocates that we should all strive for a eudaimon life, and whether someone has achieved eudaimonia can only be ascertained at their death (i.e., if a person does something terrible right at the end of their life, any chance of eudaimonia they might have been working towards is ruined). Importantly, eudaimonia is an end, never a means. It is also not the same as hedonism; hedonic orientation involves the deliberate pursuit of self-indulgence and pleasure, while eudaimonic orientation involves striving to do what is good and right and meaningful, with the long-term goal of achieving a eudaimon life.
According to Aristotle, all human beings have a characteristic function unique to us as a species – an ‘ergon’. For him, the ergon is ‘rational virtuous activity’. A good human being, he claims, is someone who excels in this rational virtuous activity. He distinguishes two types of virtue: moral and intellectual. Here he introduces his idea of the Golden Mean. This concept essentially states that moral virtue lies between its 2 extremes. This does not always mean moderation of action. For example, if someone were to see a child being kidnapped by an attacker, the least extreme course of moral action might to be call the police, while the most extreme might be to try and kill the attacker. The medium between these, and the best example of moral virtue according to Aristotle, might be to push away the attacker. This is not necessarily an act of moderation, but it does lie between the two extremes and is therefore the best option to take.
Aristotle makes distinctions between intentional and unintentional actions. He further divides unintentional actions into involuntary ones (actions from compulsion or ignorance) and non-voluntary ones (actions that were unintentional but which the doer does not regret doing). An example of an involuntary action might be killing someone with a drug intended to save them. A non-voluntary action, on the other hand, might involve asking someone to pass you a hot pan that you didn’t realise was hot; they burn their hand on it, but you do not regret asking them because you didn’t like them anyway.
Aristotle introduces the concept of ‘akrasia’, which roughly translates as ‘weakness of will’. If you submit to akrasia, you are choosing through a lack of self-control to do what you know to be detrimental to your chances of achieving eudaimonia. This can range from seemingly trivial instances to much more significant ones. Examples of akrasia taking over might be overeating in a given moment, or cheating on your significant other. Interestingly, though, for Plato, genuine akrasia cannot exist. This is because he believes that once you have seen the Form of the Good you automatically can do nothing but act in accordance with it.
A final key point in the Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s advocation for a contemplative life. He argues that this is the best way of life because it is closest to the one which the gods live.
Criticisms
Aristotle says that all human beings have this fundamental characteristic unique to us, the ergon. He says the ergon is the capacity for rational virtuous activity. But do humans even have a fundamental ‘human nature’ to be reduced to? If so, why is it our capacity for rationality that separates us from animals – why not our capacity to play musical instruments, or speak complex languages?
Some philosophers would argue that values are largely incommensurable. Who is to say that a contemplative one is always the best lifestyle for everyone?
Some have labelled the ideas presented in Nicomachean Ethics as egoistical. However, much of Greek ethics as a genre was focused on individual character development; this is nothing unique to Aristotle.
Aristotle claims that those who are good-looking, have children and a good income are more likely to achieve eudaimonia. This is a potentially elitist view and leaves little to be hoped for for people who might not fit this very specific category.
Aristotle’s main point is actually left a little vague. How exactly does he want us to lead our lives? Should we be pursuing a life of virtuous action, or of contemplation? He seems to advocate for both, but many would argue that you cannot have it both ways.
3 – Boethius: The Consolation of Philosophy
The Consolation of Philosophy describes how Philosophy, personified as a woman, visits Boethius in his prison cell. It was written while Boethius was in a prison cell awaiting execution for an act of treason which he denied. In the book, Philosophy reminds Boethius that as a philosopher he should be immune from the effects of good or bad fortune. Warburton summarises Philosophy’s argument: ‘It is when she is adverse that Fortune best serves humanity. Good fortune dupes us, because it gives us the illusion of true happiness; but … adversity teaches us the frailty of the sorts of happiness that wealth, fame and pleasure can inspire. It teaches us which of our friends are true friends.’
There are clearly elements of stoicism in Boethius’ writings, especially in his idea that true happiness must come from within. External factors such as wealth and fame have nothing to do with a person’s happiness. Further, he argues that calmness and resilience in the face of external adversity is vital to a happy existence.
Boethius counters Philosophy’s argument, saying that evil people always seem to flourish, while the good suffer. She assures that him the good are rewarded in the end with true happiness.
One key concept in The Consolation of Philosophy is the idea of divine foreknowledge, as opposed to predestination. God’s foreknowledge of how events will pan out is, Boethius claims, perfectly compatible with humans having free will. This is because foreknowledge of events is not the same as choosing how events will occur, and further, God’s perception of the future (and time as a whole) is fundamentally different from ours anyway.
Criticisms
Some thinkers have argued that Boethius’ rejection of wealth and fame as significant factors in a person’s happiness is just the rationalisation of his hopeless personal situation – as Warburton puts it, the ‘self-serving argument of a desperate man’. But even if this were the case, does that make Boethius wrong? Of course, Aristotle believed that wealth and fame were essential for a eudaimon life.
4 – Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written to essentially be a guidebook for princes and, more generally, rulers, detailing exactly how they should act and present themselves. It is often cited as being unnecessarily cruel and ruthless, hence the origin of the word ‘Machiavellian’ used today.
Machiavelli believed that it was in a prince’s interest to be feared, rather than trusted. Fundamentally, he thought that people are manipulative and deceptive by nature, and therefore it is foolish to ever trust anyone. He claimed that princes should appear to be good and trustworthy but should actually be cunning and ruthless where necessary. He often refers to the term ‘virtù’, meaning ‘prowess’ rather than ‘virtue’. As Warburton puts it, ‘virtù is the ability to act swiftly and effectively to do whatever will secure the safety and continuing prosperity of the state. This may mean making false promises, murdering those who threaten you, even, where necessary, butchering your own supporters.’
Interestingly, Machiavelli makes the distinction between virtù and mere thuggery, saying that an action, especially one that is negative or violent, should always be committed in order to benefit the state. If it does not benefit the state – i.e., if there is no reason for it – it is not a demonstration of virtù and should not be commended.
Interpretations
Philosophers such as Rousseau have argued that a view so extreme and ruthless as Machiavelli’s must surely be a work of satire.
Many readers have understandably interpreted The Prince to be shamelessly amoral. However, Machiavelli does condemn cruelty that does not benefit the state somehow; any immoral actions he advocates for are always justified somewhere down the line.
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin believed in what is known as value pluralism, the idea that conventional morality does not always fit the circumstances. And so Berlin believed that the typical, Christian idea of morality as applied to ordinary people cannot always be applied to the very different situation of a prince or ruler.
Criticisms
Still, it is indubitable that Machiavelli held the success of the state over the human rights and welfare of the individuals it governs.
There is also an understanding among some thinkers that Machiavelli was too cynical about human nature. Your average person would not be prepared to excel in virtù as Machiavelli seems to believe.