Imitation as an Influence

Imitation is defined as “a result or product of imitating” or “the action of using someone or something as a model.” Earlier Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Adeimantus were discussing what to allow in their created State and what to prohibit. These decisions were made based on subject matter: things that would encourage the right moral principles and righteous behavior would be allowed, and things that would encourage the wrong principles and unrighteous behavior would be prohibited. These “things” were the main influences back then: literature, poems, prose, documents, essays, letters, plays, and popular stories were some of the most prominent. All of these contained some form or fashion of a moral or a lesson. However, some of these “lessons” weren’t meant to be followed: maybe they were meant to be learned from, or to show what was to be avoided. But, as humans, these lessons were often taken the wrong way- mislead people imitated the stories and the people in it.

When we are fed material, it shapes us and our principles. We imitate the actions of others, whether they are in real life or in a story. Imitation is one of the greatest influential forces in a person’s life. Think about it- children learn to speak and to walk by imitation, characteristics are formed by imitation, important things are learned through imitation. It doesn’t seem like it plays a major part in shaping the mind, but it does. That is why, when Socrates and Adeimantus were discussing what to allow and prohibit in their State, they took quite a bit of time on things that could be imitated.

Clarification of Imitation

Earlier in their pursuit of a perfect State, Socrates and Adeimantus were discussing the subjects of poetry and what to prohibit in their State. “Enough of the subjects of poetry:” Socrates moved on, “let us now speak of the style; and when this has been considered, both matter and manner will have been completely treated.” After reading this you may raise multiple questions: “Style? Like, fashion?” “Matter and manner of what?” “Treated how?”

In practically the same mindset, Adeimantus says, “I do not understand what you mean.” So Socrates goes on to explain. “Then I must make you understand; and perhaps I may be more intelligible if I put the matter in this way.  You are aware, I suppose, that all mythology and poetry is a narration of events, either past, present, or to come?” Adeimantus replies, “Certainly.” “And narration may be either simple narration, or imitation, or a union of the two?” Here is where Adeimantus gets stuck: “That again, I do not quite understand.” Socrates goes into depth, trying to clarify for Adeimantus.

“I fear that I must be a ridiculous teacher when I have so much difficulty in making myself apprehended.  Like a bad speaker, therefore, I will not take the whole of the subject, but will break a piece off in illustration of my meaning. You know the first lines of the Iliad, in which the poet says that Chryses prayed Agamemnon to release his daughter, and that Agamemnon flew into a passion with him; whereupon Chryses, failing of his object, invoked the anger of the God against the Achaeans. Now as far as these lines,

    ‘And he prayed all the Greeks, but especially the two sons of Atreus,
the chiefs of the people,’

the poet is speaking in his own person; he never leads us to suppose that he is any one else. But in what follows he takes the person of Chryses, and then he does all that he can to make us believe that the speaker is not Homer, but the aged priest himself. And in this double form he has cast the entire narrative of the events which occurred at Troy and in Ithaca and throughout the Odyssey.”

Adeimantus affirms this, and Socrates continues, “And a narrative it remains both in the speeches which the poet recites from time to time and in the intermediate passages? But when the poet speaks in the person of another, may we not say that he assimilates his style to that of the person who, as he informs you, is going to speak?” Adeimantus again agrees, and the explanation goes on, “And this assimilation of himself to another, either by the use of voice or gesture, is the imitation of the person whose character he assumes?” After more teaching, Socrates wraps up with this: “You have conceived my meaning perfectly; and if I mistake not, what you failed to apprehend before is now made clear to you, that poetry and mythology are, in some cases, wholly imitative- ­instances of this are supplied by tragedy and comedy; there is likewise the opposite style, in which the my poet is the only speaker- ­of this the dithyramb affords the best example; and the combination of both is found in epic, and in several other styles of poetry. Do I take you with me?” and, now with a full understanding, Adeimantus says, “Yes, I see now what you meant.”

Put your Guard Up!

Still in the process of creating the perfect atmosphere for their soldiers and young men, Socrates and Adeimantus discuss what to allow and what to prevent their soldiers from hearing. Socrates stated, “..we are determining what classes of subjects are or are not to be spoken of..” As they go over many things that could possibly damage the soldiers’ character, or make wrong actions seem more rewarding or righteous than right actions, and they discover that one of the most prominent things that could discourage moral righteousness is literature itself. Poems, prose, documents, essays, letters, and other popular writings were shown to contain material that would taint and defile these young men and their morals. Socrates and Adeimantus stated many fine works and specific passages of literature that could never be repeated because of the bad influence they would have on the soldiers’ minds. Socrates said,

“And further they are likely to have a bad effect on those who hear them; for everybody will begin to excuse his own vices when he is convinced that similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated by the kindred of the gods, the relatives of Zeus, whose ancestral altar, the attar of Zeus, is aloft in air on the peak of Ida, and who have the blood of deities yet flowing in their veins.”

These bad influences are often not the so-called scum of the world, but the idols and role models that we look up to. These people (or “gods” in the case of Socrates and Adeimantus) make mistakes and sometimes choose wrong over right. When this happens and we are made known of it, we should learn from their mistakes instead of copying them. Better yet, we should try to avoid these “role models” and steer clear of the filth that covers this world. We need to guard our minds and hearts, as in Proverbs 4:23, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” and Philippians 4:7, “And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

The guarding that Socrates and Adeimantus are talking about- the careful watch of what goes into our minds and hearts- doesn’t apply only to imaginary state soldiers, it applies to us now. We need to be wary of what we see and hear, because that’s what shapes us and characterizes us. It is also what comes out of us, like in Luke 6:45: “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.” So put you guard up- don’t let anything evil enter your heart or mind.

The Right Principles

During the process of creating a State, Socrates and Adeimantus decided to set principles for the people in their State. After much decision-making, discussion, and evaluation, they came up with this: “Such then, I said, are our principles of theology – ­some tales are to be told, and others are not to be told to our disciples from their youth upwards, if we mean them to honor the gods and their parents, and to value friendship with one another.” Adeimantus responded, “Yes; and I think that our principles are right.” In their discussions about principles, they emphasize the importance of right and just principles, and also go over what would happen if these principles were to degrade. Socrates and Adeimantus want their principles to define who their people are, and what their morals are. As well as good morals, they wanted their people to have qualities such as bravery, courage, fearlessness, and leadership.  To encourage these good morals and qualities, they decided that they would have to remove any poetry or writing that discouraged this or put other things above the chosen principle. Socrates asked: “But shall we be right in getting rid of them?” and answered his own question: “Reflect: our principle is that the good man will not consider death terrible to any other good man who is his comrade.” Adeimantus replied, “Yes; that is our principle.” Socrates clarified: “And therefore he will not sorrow for his departed friend as though he had suffered anything terrible?” Adeimantus: “He will not.”

“Such an one, as we further maintain, is sufficient for himself and his own happiness, and therefore is least in need of other men. And for this reason the loss of a son or brother, or the deprivation of fortune, is to him of all men least terrible. And therefore he will be least likely to lament, and will bear with the greatest equanimity any misfortune of this sort which may befall him.” The key attribute of these men is for them to feel a certain misfortune far less than another: they want their men to fear slavery more than death.

Shaping the Mind

I have stated before that we, as humans, are easily influenced. We are especially susceptible to influence when we are young; as Socrates stated, “You know also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.”

At that young age is when character starts to form and children take shape. It is essential that, during this time, they are provided with virtuous material: when children observe the actions of others and listen to the stories they are told, they adopt those actions and form mentalities specific to their person. It is so important to give children a good, healthy start- if they are given this start and are taught good principles, they will grow into a logically upright and morally righteous person. If they aren’t taught these things when it is most important, they will grow up unstable and morally unrighteous. Socrates and Adeimantus nailed it on the head when they conversed, “And shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up? We cannot.”

Doggie Philosopher

While discussing which traits a good soldier must have, Socrates mentioned, “Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher?” Glaucon stated what I thought myself:  “I do not apprehend your meaning.” Socrates clarified by bringing in a comparison. “The trait of which I am speaking may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal. Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious?” The light bulb flicked on in Glaucon’s head (and in mine) and he responded. “The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognize the truth of your remark.” I never realized the true genius of dogs: “..he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing.” However, if it weren’t for Socrates and his genius, I would have never come to this dog-centered realization. So the true genius here is Socrates- the human philosopher.

Invent-A-State

“Then in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible.  I propose therefore that we inquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them.” To seek and find the nature of the justice and injustice of the State, Socrates and Adeimantus decide to “create in idea a State.”

A State is created for the needs of the people, which Socrates and Adeimantus pin down as food, a dwelling, clothing, and other things. To make and use the wants of humankind, they build up their State with all of the people that a small State would need: workers, builders, weavers, shoemakers, carpenters, smiths, neatherds, shepherds, artisans, traders, merchants, husbandmen, salesmen, servants, and others. In their State, they would need a marketplace for buying and selling, so that the people could exchange goods. After defining their State and describing their details, Socrates asked, “And now, Adeimantus, is our State matured and perfected?” and Adeimantus replied, “I think so.”

Next, “Where, then, is justice, and where is injustice, and in what part of the State did they spring up?” Adeimantus said, “Probably in the dealings of these citizens with one another. I cannot imagine that they are more likely to be found anywhere else.” to which Socrates responded, “I dare say that you are right in your suggestion, I said; we had better think the matter out, and not shrink from the inquiry.” They decide to expand their State into a more luxurious place, to better gain an understanding of justice and injustice, and send their State to war with their neighbors. In this way, by creating an imaginary State with imaginary people with imaginary jobs, they could find the nature and origin of justice and injustice.

We are Easily Influenced

“But most extraordinary of all is their mode of speaking about virtue and the gods:  they say that the gods apportion calamity and misery to many good men, and good and happiness to the wicked.” Adeimantus is talking about how even their “gods” have turned from justice and virtue to injustice and vice. “And mendicant prophets go to rich men’s doors and persuade them that they have a power committed to them by the gods of making an atonement for a man’s own or his ancestor’s sins by sacrifices or charms, with rejoicings and feasts; and they promise to harm an enemy, whether just or unjust, at a small cost; with magic arts and incantations binding heaven, as they say, to execute their will. The gods, too, may he turned from their purpose; and men pray to them and avert their wrath by sacrifices and soothing entreaties, and by libations and the odor of fat, when they have sinned and transgressed.” He is saying that the “gods” have turned to deceiving humans into giving them gifts and offerings for the threat of being hurt of suffering some type of wrath.

This doesn’t seem to be all that horrible (other than the fact that the “gods” are blackmailing the humans) until you think about how this behavior affects the young population. If the “gods” have ditched justice and virtue in favor of injustice and vice, then shouldn’t they too? The benefits are much greater, and since the “gods” are doing it, it should be okay right?  This is what Adeimantus says: “And now when the young hear all this said about virtue and vice, and the way in which gods and men regard them, how are their minds likely to be affected, my dear Socrates? Probably the youth will say to himself in the words of Pindar- ‘Can I by justice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier tower which may he a fortress to me all my days?'” The fact is, we are easily influenced, especially by people we consider as role models or older figures. If they do something, our first thought is that we should do that thing too. While we may be independent, smart individuals, these people still influence us, for better or for worse.

Appearance is Everything?

“For what men say is that, if I am really just and am not also thought just profit there is none, but the pain and loss on the other hand are unmistakable.  But if, though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly life is promised to me.  Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself.  I will describe around me a picture and shadow of virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail the subtle and crafty fox, as Archilochus, greatest of sages, recommends.”

This is a statement that Adeimantus, in his argument with Socrates, used to support his thesis: justice should be censured and injustice should be praised. If you take this apart, you’ll see what he’s saying more clearly: if he is just, but not seen as just, there is no profit and there is pain and loss involved; however, if he is unjust, but seen as just, there is profit and he will live a heavenly life. Basically, all that matters is how you look, not actually how you are. This seems to be a common theme in our society right now, sadly. Someone that is morally righteous and beautiful on the outside, but the opposite on the inside will be regarded as a better person than someone who is morally righteous and beautiful on the inside, but the opposite on the outside. The world tells us that we need to be beautiful on the outside, but rarely does it mention that we need to beautiful on the inside too- it puts outside beauty way higher on the totem pole than inside beauty. What we need to remember is that appearance is not everything, despite what we’re told. Being beautiful and righteous on the inside is what matters to God, and that’s what should matter to you.

It was Only the Beginning..

I had thought that Socrates and Thrasymachus’ argument had ended with these last words, but I was mistaken. This was just the beginning of a more intense battle. Glaucon wasn’t satisfied with Thrasymachus’ retirement; he wanted them to continue their argument. He said: “Socrates, do you wish really to persuade us, or only to seem to have persuaded us, that to be just is always better than to be unjust?” Socrates responded, “I should wish really to persuade you if I could.” Glaucon said, “Then you certainly have not succeeded.” and off they went.

Glaucon, wanting to revive the argument of Thrasymachus, started off by defining three categories or “classes”: 1) one of pure entertainment with no benefit afterwards, 2) one of knowledge, sight, and health that has benefits afterwards, and 3) one of care taking and medicinal care taking, which have the monetary benefit afterwards. He then asks Socrates which of these three groups he would classify as just; Socrates responds by saying, “In the highest class- ­among those goods which he who would be happy desires both for their own sake and for the sake of their results.”

Glaucon said that Thrasymachus had given up too easily on his argument, and was too easily convinced by Socrates. “First I will speak of the nature and origin of justice according to the common view of them.  Secondly, I will show that all men who practice justice do so against their will, of necessity, but not as a good.  And thirdly, I will argue that there is reason in this view, for the life of the unjust is after all better far than the life of the just – ­if what they say is true, Socrates, since I myself am not of their opinion… I have never yet heard the superiority of justice to injustice maintained by any one in a satisfactory way.” In these sentences, Glaucon states the three main points of the body of his argument, and his thesis was stated earlier to be “Justice is to be reckoned in the troublesome class, among goods which are to be pursued for the sake of rewards and of reputation, but in themselves are disagreeable and rather to be avoided…  he censured justice and praised injustice.” Glaucon’s background for his argument is the “nature and origin of justice,” several long paragraphs talking about the good of injustice and evil of justice, and vice versa. This is the first argument in this book in which I can clearly see the steps and parts, and tell what is going to be elaborated upon.

Glaucon’s brother, Adeimantus, even jumps in to help, saying, “But let me add something more:  There is another side to Glaucon’s argument about the praise and censure of justice and injustice, which is equally required in order to bring out what I believe to be his meaning.  Parents and tutors are always telling their sons and their wards that they are to be just; but why? not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of character and reputation; in the hope of obtaining for him who is reputed just some of those offices, marriages, and the like which Glaucon has enumerated among the advantages accruing to the unjust from the reputation of justice.” Glaucon and his brother have teamed up against Socrates to try convince him of their thesis, in this seemingly never-ending argument.