Republic (6.500-6.502)

Or even if they do look at them in that way, are you still going to deny that they will change their opinion and answer differently? Or do you think that anyone is ungentle to the gentle or grudging to the ungrudging if he himself is ungrudging[*] and mild? I will anticipate you and reply that I think that only in some few and not in the mass of mankind is so ungentle or harsh a temper to be found.And I, you may be assured, he said, concur. And do you not also concur[*] in this very point that the blame for this harsh attitude of the many towards philosophy falls on that riotous crew who have burst in[*] where they do not belong, wrangling with one another,[*] filled with spite[*] and always talking about persons,[*] a thing least befitting philosophy? Least of all, indeed, he said. For surely, Adeimantus, the man whose mind is truly fixed on eternal realities[*] has no leisure to turn his eyes downward upon the petty affairs of men, and so engaging in strife with them to be filled with envy and hate, but he fixes his gaze upon the things of the eternal and unchanging order, and seeing that they neither wrong nor are wronged by one another, but all abide in harmony as reason bids, he will endeavor to imitate them and, as far as may be, to fashion himself in their likeness and assimilate[*] himself to them. Or do you think it possible not to imitate the things to which anyone attaches himself with admiration? Impossible, he said. Then the lover of wisdom associating with the divine order will himself become orderly and divine in the measure permitted to man.[*] But calumny[*] is plentiful everywhere. Yes, truly. If, then, I said, some compulsion[*] is laid upon him to practise stamping on the plastic matter of human nature in public and private the patterns that he visions there,[*] and not merely to mould[*] and fashion himself, do you think he will prove a poor craftsman[*] of sobriety and justice and all forms of ordinary civic virtue[*]? By no means, he said. But if the multitude become aware that what we are saying of the philosopher is true, will they still be harsh with philosophers, and will they distrust our statement that no city could ever be blessed unless its lineaments were traced[*] by artists who used the heavenly model? They will not be harsh, he said, if they perceive that.

But tell me, what is the manner of that sketch you have in mind?They will take the city and the characters of men, as they might a tablet, and first wipe it clean—[*] no easy task. But at any rate you know that this would be their first point of difference from ordinary reformers, that they would refuse to take in hand either individual or state or to legislate before they either received a clean slate or themselves made it clean.And they would be right, he said. And thereafter, do you not think that they would sketch the figure of the constitution? Surely. And then, I take it, in the course of the work they would glance[*] frequently in either direction, at justice, beauty, sobriety and the like as they are in the nature of things,[*] and alternately at that which they were trying to reproduce in mankind, mingling and blending from various pursuits that hue of the flesh, so to speak, deriving their judgement from that likeness of humanity[*] which Homer too called when it appeared in men the image and likeness of God.[*] Right, he said. And they would erase one touch or stroke and paint in another until in the measure of the possible[*] they had made the characters of men pleasing and dear to God as may be. That at any rate[*] would be the fairest painting. Are we then making any impression on those who you said[*] were advancing to attack us with might and main? Can we convince them that such a political artist of character and such a painter exists as the one we then were praising when our proposal to entrust the state to him angered them, and are they now in a gentler mood when they hear what we are now saying? Much gentler, he said, if they are reasonable. How can they controvert it[*]? Will they deny that the lovers of wisdom are lovers of reality and truth? That would be monstrous, he said. Or that their nature as we have portrayed it is akin to the highest and best? Not that either. Well, then, can they deny that such a nature bred in the pursuits that befit it will be perfectly good and philosophic so far as that can be said of anyone? Or will they rather say it of those whom we have excluded? Surely not. Will they, then, any longer be fierce with us when we declare that, until the philosophic class wins control, there will be no surcease of trouble for city or citizens nor will the polity which we fable[*] in words be brought to pass in deed? They will perhaps be less so, he said.

Instead of less so, may we not say that they have been altogether tamed and convinced, so that for very shame, if for no other reason, they may assent?Certainly, said he. Let us assume, then, said I, that they are won over to this view. Will anyone contend that there is no chance that the offspring of kings and rulers should be born with the philosophic nature? Not one, he said. And can anyone prove that if so born they must necessarily be corrupted? The difficulty[*] of their salvation we too concede; but that in all the course of time not one of all could be saved,[*] will anyone maintain that? How could he? But surely, said I, the occurrence of one such is enough,[*] if he has a state which obeys him,[*] to realize[*] all that now seems so incredible. Yes, one is enough, he said. For if such a ruler, I said, ordains the laws and institutions that we have described it is surely not impossible that the citizens should be content to carry them out. By no means. Would it, then, be at all strange or impossible for others to come to the opinion to which we have come[*]? I think not, said he. And further that these things are best, if possible, has already, I take it, been sufficiently shown. Yes, sufficiently. Our present opinion, then, about this legislation is that our plan would be best if it could be realized and that this realization is difficult[*] yet not impossible. That is the conclusion, he said. This difficulty disposed of, we have next to speak of what remains, in what way, namely, and as a result of what studies and pursuits, these preservers[*] of the constitution will form a part of our state, and at what ages they will severally take up each study. Yes, we have to speak of that, he said. I gained nothing, I said, by my cunning[*] in omitting heretofore[*] the distasteful topic of the possession of women and procreation of children and the appointment of rulers, because I knew that the absolutely true and right way would provoke censure and is difficult of realization; for now I am none the less compelled to discuss them. The matter of the women and children has been disposed of,[*] but the education of the rulers has to be examined again, I may say, from the starting-point.