Plato’s political philosophy is the first great theoretical examination of political life and is arguably the core of Plato’s philosophy generally: his most comprehensive and well-known work, the Republic, centers on the basic political question of justice. Among the political issues that Plato explores are the questions of the best and best practicable forms of government (in the Republic and Laws), the scope of political knowledge or political “science” (in the Statesman), and the proper way to evaluate forms of government such as democracy and oligarchy. Plato’s understanding of politics, moreover, goes beyond his presentation in these three dialogues. The Gorgias discusses justice, the Apology presents Socrates’ trial and conviction, and the Crito concerns obedience to the laws. The scope of what Plato discusses under the rubric of politics, moreover, is broader than what we typically include in political studies in the early 21st century. It includes questions such as the relation between political life and philosophical inquiry itself, the meaning of virtues of character and their connection to politics, and the elements and powers of the human soul. The student of Plato’s political philosophy must therefore also study many dialogues that examine specific virtues of character such as courage and moderation that are central in the three political dialogues. The basic issue in understanding Plato is clarifying what he meant in any particular dialogue. This is a difficult matter both because of the depth and subtlety of his understanding and because of the complexity of the dialogue form in which he wrote. For, it is not obvious how to proceed from statements made by particular characters to Plato’s own intention and understanding. Related interpretive issues concern the relationships among Plato’s thirty-five dialogues, and whether the interpreter’s emphasis should be on Plato’s intention, or, rather, on his biographical and historical milieu, or his relevance for contemporary controversies. Some scholars take a developmental approach, such as in Klosko 2006 (cited under Books on Plato’s Political Philosophy), which attributes inconsistencies or anomalies in the thought of Plato to his progress, experiences, or both. Some scholars take a unitary approach, such as in Lewis 1998 (cited under Journal Articles on Plato’s Republic, Statesman, or Laws), which finds a consistency in the thought of Plato. Some scholars employ a literary approach, such as in Klein 1965 (cited under Books with Significant Chapters on Dialogues Treating the Virtues), which connects an assessment of the drama of a dialogue to its assessment of the argument. And other scholars take an analytic approach, such as in Vlastos 1978 (cited under Books on Plato with Noteworthy Chapters on Plato’s Political Philosophy), which assesses a dialogue with little or no reference to its dramatic elements. See Griswold 1988 (cited under Books with Significant Chapters on Plato’s Overtly Political Dialogues) for more on these debates. Central substantive controversies include matters such as the following: What precisely is Plato’s understanding of the forms of government, of the soul, and of justice and other virtues? Are the virtues linked or disparate? What does Plato mean by connecting virtue and knowledge? How is his understanding of politics connected to his broader discussion of the “good” and of the ideas or forms? These matters have issued in an enormous body of interpretive material: they have been grappled with not only by early-21st-century and earlier scholars, but also by the greatest minds of the ancient, medieval, and modern world.
The Republic between past and future: interpretation and appropriation of Plato’s political philosophy in the twentieth century
