(intro music)

Hi! I'm Chris Surprenant, and I teach in

the department of philosophy at
the University of New Orleans.

This video is part of my series
on human well-being

and the good life, and it examines the
account of well-being presented by Plato's

character Socrates in
the Platonic dialogues.

If you've taken an introduction
to philosophy class,

it's very likely that you have
read Plato's Apology.

This dialogue provides Plato's version
of a speech given by Socrates

to defend himself against the charges of
corrupting the youth and impiety, charges

that Socrates ultimately was convicted
of and sentenced to death.

This dialogue contains one have the most
frequently cited lines in the entire

history of Western thought.

When speaking to the jury to
explain why he can't simply stop

what he is doing, why he can't stop
annoying people by constantly

questioning them about what they believe
and why, Socrates says that he can't stop

examining his own life because the
unexamined life is not worth living.

That statement provides tremendous
insight into Socrates's understanding

as to what it means to live a good life.

What Socrates is telling us is that the

person who merely wakes up in the morning,
goes to work, does his job, comes home,

watches television, goes to bed,
and then repeats this process,

day in and day out for his entire life,
never really reflecting on what he ought

to be doing or what he values and
why, that that life is not worth living.

But for Socrates, participating in this

type of rational reflection about
what you value and why,

that is, doing philosophy, is not enough
by itself in order to live a good life.

What is also needed is that an individual
becomes a master of himself, using his

reason to rein in his passions, as
well as doing what he can to help

promote the stability of his community.

And these topics are explored directly
in Plato's dialogue Republic.

While most people think
of Republic as a political

dialogue that focuses on the nature of
justice, it is perhaps better understood

as a dialogue focusing on virtue and the

role of philosophy, community,
and the state in helping to

create the conditions that
make living well possible.

At the beginning of book two, Glaucon,
one of Socrates's interlocutors in the

dialogue, poses a challenge to Socrates.

Glaucon tells the fable
of the Ring of Gyges,

which, like the One Ring in the
Lord of the Rings, has the power

to make its wearer invisible.

He notes that the person who
wears the ring, through

various types of deception, would
be able to get anything he wanted:

power, money, or even a good reputation.

The moral of this story
seems to be that it's not

important to actually be just, but
rather merely to appear to be just.

And so his challenge to Socrates is:

"Why must an individual be
just in order to live a good life?

Isn't it simply necessary for that
person to appear to be just?

In the remaining eight and
a half books of Republic,

Socrates attempts to address this challenge.

His solution is to see justice not
just as a political condition,

but also as a state
of a person's soul.

Understood politically, justice requires
each person in the city to mind his own

business, doing the particular job that

has been allocated to him
to the best of his abilities.

Socrates claims that operating in this
manner will allow the city to thrive,

which is in everyone's best interest.

When the boys object
that one implication of

this position is that particular
individuals or classes of individuals

will not be happy with this arrangement,
Socrates responded that he is not

concerned with the happiness of
particular individuals or classes of

individuals, but rather with the
happiness of the city as a whole.

Here, we see that, for Socrates,

a well-ordered society trumps
individual freedom.

In addition to understanding justice
politically, Socrates also sees

it as a state of an individual's soul.

He compares the soul
to a two-horse chariot.

One of these horses, which he associates
with a person's appetites or desires,

Socrates says, is stubborn,
and must be controlled.

The other horse, which he associates with

spiritedness, is noble and can
be used by reason, which he

associates with the charioteer, to
help control the stubborn horse

But if a person doesn't learn
how reason can make use of

spiritedness in order to rein in desire,
then that person will be just as

misdirected as the chariot controlled
by the stubborn horse.

When understood in this way,
it seems obvious to Socrates

why being just, in addition to

participating in philosophical
investigation, is necessary

in order to live a good life.

The just person not only does his part
in order to maintain the stability of

the society and the community,

but is also in control of himself
and is not ruled by his desires.

Is Socrates' position reasonable?

While us moderns might find it odd

that his conception of the good
life would be tied so closely to

what appears to be a significant
restriction of individual freedom,

Socrates might respond that freedom
outside of a well-ordered community or

well-ordered soul is simply lawlessness,
and lawlessness is inconsistent with any

conception of human well-being and
what it means to live a good life.

Anyone who might want to refute Socrates's
position at the very least would need to

show how an emphasis on individual freedom
does not lead to this kind of lawlessness.

And so what we see in the Socratic
dialogues is a conception of human

well-being and the good life that
emphasizes both the importance of

rational reflection and an individual
doing his part to contribute to the

stability of the community as a whole.