Page 16 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes
Virtue Soul Class
Wisdom Rational Rulers
Courage Spirited Soldiers
Temperance Appetitive Artisans

Myth of Metals and of Earth-born
Plato sustained his arguments that individuals differed in their capacities and nature with the
help of a “noble or a royal lie” which would be uttered by the lovers of truth, the philosopher
ruler. The Myth of Metals and of the Earth-born rationalized the fact that all human beings were
born of earth, and their bodies were mixed with different metals; the philosophic-rational ones
were made of gold, the spirited-courageous ones of silver, and the appetitive ones of bronze. The
myth explained and justified individual and class distinctions in a manner that was comprehensible
to a lay person. The myth was necessary to sustain the Ideal State, by convincing everyone of their
rightful place in society, and the obligations their stations in life entailed. It also suggested that in
spite of their differences, all individuals were born of the earth.
Plato recommended that the philosopher ruler, who was entrusted with the task of assigning the
different roles to the individuals, propagate the myth in the best interest of the community as a
whole. Nietzsche criticized Plato for founding a just and a rightly ordered society with the help of
a necessary lie. In Plato’s arguments, the usefulness of the social ordering never became clear. The
myth, according to Nietzsche, was fabricated by Plato not merely to protect philosophy from
political persecution, but also to give philosophy its political influence.
What Plato does not seem to realise is that the compulsory acceptance of such myths is incompatible
with philosophy, and involves a kind of education which stunts intelligence.
The abuses of the myth far outweighed its uses. It led to rigid class divisions where the ruler was
made to look superior to the ruled. This was justified on the basis of race, education and scale of
values. Since Plato deliberately ignored the conception of justice as equality before law (a widely
prevalent view at that time), this was done with the purpose of convincing his readers that the
Ideal State was indeed “just”. Equalitarianism and humanitarianism, accepted as ideals by Athenian
democracy, undermined his belief in natural privileges, his anti-individualism, and above all the
fact that the state was to exist for the welfare and freedom of its individual citizens.
For Plato, human faculties were not hereditary. An individual’s functional role in society was
determined by his own natural aptitude, and not by parental lineage. To ensure that the parents
did not manipulate to get the best for their child, they were made to give up their child to the state,
which in turn would categorize and educate him in the appropriate faculty that he was endowed
with. Social mobility between the classes was assured. This in itself was a revolutionary step,
considering that all ancient societies were stratified, and Athens was no exception. But Plato, in
his eagerness to radically restructure the existing arrangements, proposed a more “fair” scheme,
where the hereditary became important to discern individual endowments, but not beyond that.
Once the identification was made, every individual could hope to find a rightful place in tune
with his talents.
The apparently just arrangement was controlled by the guardians. They would decide and place
individuals in accordance with their nature. However, no remedial steps to prevent manipulation
by the guardians themselves were suggested. Very likely, the means would defeat the end. While
Plato’s critics castigated him for subordinating the interests of individuals to the requirements of
the social whole, for his admirers the “polis and individual soul was subject to a common Form of
righteousness; and the individual is no more subordinate to the polis than the polis is to the

10 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY