Reconsidering The Analogy Of City And Soul In The Republic

The Republic of Plato is a typical example of exploring justice in the city and justice in the soul.The method he uses is the analogy of city and soul,which has been criticized by many scholars.For example,Williams holds the view that the analogy of city and soul is inconsistent when it comes to dealing with justice in the city and that in the soul.Bl?ssner thinks that the analogy of city and soul is not a philosophical argument but rhetoric.In this paper I will argue against these two views.In other words,I will argue that the analogy of city and soul is a philosophical argument and it succeeds.Firstly,by analyzing the three views of conventional justice in the city and reconstructing Socrates' refutation of these views,I will demonstrate that Socrates has presupposed the validity of the city-and-soul analogy in the process of rebuttal.Secondly,the way in which Socrates develops the analogy of city and soul is to construct in speech three cities,which finally became the three constituent parts of the perfect city(Kallipolis),and to provide argument for three divisions of the soul.The analogy of city and soul is valid because the three parts of the city are imitations of the three parts of the soul.Thus,I can successfully avoid Bl?sser's accusation that the analogy of city and soul is just rhetoric not an argument.Thirdly,the analogy of city and soul shows that justice of the city and justice of the soul share the same structure.The justice of the city lies in philosophers ruling the guardians and producers.The justice of the soul lies in reason ruling spirit and appetite.The Justice of the city is an imitation of the justice of the soul,because only the justice of the soul is the direct rule of reason.Thus,this paper responds to Williams' s criticism and demonstrates the validity of the analogy of city and soul.