Ok. So Cephalus isn’t exactly a philosopher in the sense that Socrates is a philosopher. Is Socrates really a philosopher, and not just primarily a literary catalyst? He indeed asks a lot of “deep” questions. But that is beside the point. In Plato’s Republic, near the begining, just after Socrates is ”arrested” by powerful young gentlemen, he has a short sit down and pleasant conversation with an old man named Cephalus (Polemarchus’ father). This conversation touches upon the subjects of aging, money (earthy possessions), and, for the first time in the Republic, justice.
I am going to be turning 25 this year, I feel that I’ve lived for a while, and I also feel like I have a decent amount of time left (oh, say, until I’m 87 for an estimate). I’m not rolling in dough. I am part of a middle-class American household. And I believe that justice is more or less separate from love, or at most, is a form of tough love. These facts constitute the lens through which I view Socrates’ conversation with Cephalus.
Will our future experience resemble the past experience of our elders in becoming elders? This is a good question to ask when it comes to the desire to live the good life. What might we want to avoid in order to make the experience easier? What might we try to do in order to prevent the row from being a tough one to hoe? Regardless, it seems as though the conscientious adult would be asking critical questions of him or herself all along the way. Am I acting according to law, custom, reason, etc? What role do emotions have to do with all of this? Cephalus says, “I want you to know that as the other pleasures, those connected with the body, wither away in me, the desires and pleasures that have to do with speeches [philosophical discussions?] grow the more.” Assuming that there is some truth in what Plato no doubt is gathering from hearsay, the elderly find intellectual life more pleasing than the younger do. Why would this be the case? I take it as a given that in general the body of an older person that is well past its prime is more susceptible to pain and injury. But the mind of the older person is allegedly wiser and more refined than that of the younger. This is a stereotypical view. “The wise old male or female sage.” (Mr. Miyagi as one exception) Why would Cephalus gain more pleasure from speeches now? Suppose we exercise a little bit of symbolic interpretation. . . . Cephalus, as Alan Bloom (in his interpretive essay) suggests, represents the authority of old age. This is how it is because the elders say it is so! Cephalus is crowned and engaged in (perhaps half superstitious and half reverent) sacrifices. When he sees Socrates, ever the philosopher, he seems to be reminded of his youthful days as a more active member of the community, of his days as someone who engaged in philosophical type discussion with the other powerful gentlemanly ”youngsters” of his day.
Cephalus says: ”Socrates, you don’t come down to us in the Piraeus very often, yet you ought to. Now if I still had the strength to make the trip to town easily, there would be no need for you to come here; rather we would come to you. As it is, however, you must come here more frequently. I want you to know that as the other pleasures, those connected with the body, wither away in me, the desires and pleasures that have to do with speeches grow more. Now do as I say: be with these young men, but come here regularly to us as to friends and your very own kin.”
Why do people, especially Cephalus, at the Piraeus need Socrates’ company more often? Does it have something to do with the culture of the Piraeus?
Bloom, in an endnote, explains: The Piraeus is the port of Athens, situated some six miles from the city. As the center of Athenian commerce, it was the place to find all the diversity and disorder that come from foreign lands. It was, therefore, the appropriate place in which to consider outlandish ways of life. Furthermore, it was a center of the democratic party. Sometime after the supposed date of the action of this dialogue (probably around 411 B.C.), in 404 B.C., the Piraeus was the stronghold of the resistance against the despotic group of men known as the “Thirty Tyrants,” who ruled Athens after its defeat by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. In that resistance, the family of Cephalus, especially Lysias . . . played a leading role. Polemarchus was executed by the tyrants. Socrates was suspected of sympathy with and influence over the leaders of the tyranny because several had been among his companions. In the Apology (32c-d) he makes a point of showing his disagreement with this oligarchy, and the grounds of that disagreement. But his position in relation to the democracy remains ambiguous. The conversation in the Republuc takes place in the shadow of the “Thirty.” They had much to do with the execution, not only of Polemarchus, but also, indirectly, of Socrates; and the dialogue treats, at least in part, of the tyrannical ambitions of Socrates’ companions. The men who gather here in happy days for a theoretical conversation are soon to fall on evil ones in the practice of politics. The problems of that practice, which are later to be revealed in deed, are here discussed. This is the drama of the Republic, without which its teaching cannot be understood. This friendly association of ten men with who Socrates talks in the Piraeus will be replaced by a committee of ten men who brutally rule in the name of the “Thirty” and put the host of this meeting to death. The participants discuss the best regime but are to experience the worst.
What was it that Cephalus was getting, in his younger days, from visits to a strong and vigorous democratic bastion like Athens? Philosophical discussions can be relaxing and pleasing to the mind as it benefits from the exercise. They can also turn frustrating and lead to disputatious behaviour. I guess it all depends on the prevailing mood of the situation and the relative intellectual capacities of the discussants. But when politics is involved… It is quite obvious that, when theory is put into practice, some type of mess always occurs. Be it a little mess or a big one, theory often just doesn’t square because of the ever-shifting nature of reality, the flux of becoming. Socrates embodies the most calm form of rationality (dealing with the grand questions that occupy humanity in its quest to know itself). It is easy to see that the inhabitants of the Piraeus might need a universal mediator of the kind incarnated by Socrates. Cephalus and his family may very well be one of the most powerful or influential in the Piraeus. I am not sure of how much the trade industry affected Cephalus famly’s wealth or social position. If they would hold sway over the inhabitants of the Piraeus in some way, then the place might be an even stronger political (democratic) force than it is. This is the time of the Peloponnesian War is it not? Cephalus might do well to have a philosophical/political consultant like Socrates. Socrates might point Cephalus’ progeny in the best direction when it comes to a political regime in need of the most controlled and organized debate amongst its diversity of members. The mention of the possibility of Cephalus’ wealth and prestige leads me on to my next section, and finally, to the introduction of the question of justice just before that question is handed down to a younger generation (represented by Cephalus’ son Polemarchus).
What’s done is done! It’s over! You don’t have to worry about the consequences for actions in this life carrying over into the afterlife either because your slate is wiped clean when you die or there is no afterlife. (In my current opinion, and this is subject to change, there definitely is a kind of afterlife, but individual consciousness has a funny role to play, not being embodied and all…) Anyway, all of this incendiary talk is to spark the thought that there is something irreversible about aging that has to do with giving and getting what is due to oneself and others. This leads to the question of justice in general. But first, does having a lot of money make one’s life better? Sure. Why not? Money is, for all intents and purposes, generally a means to an end. The ultimate question to be posed is: Can money (wealth, material possesions, etc) snuff out one’s conscience and make everything better before one kicks the bucket? No. Why? All of the material wealth imaginable can at the most stave off punishments for what one has done or what one has failed to do, punishments for injustice. Of course this all assumes the existence and persistence of a substantial subject. But put that off to the side for the moment. Roughly, according to Cephalus, as one ages, one begins to take more seriously the settling of debts. Conscience, for the adult, is supposed to weigh more or less based upon one’s deeds in this life. Isn’t it? Justice becomes more of a serious issue, and even those who have material wealth begin to seriously tally their offenses. Money can only get you so far in the world. After that, the gods don’t deal in petty human dollars, euros, yen, or whathaveyou. But is justice really the procedure of debt settlement? I have this of yours. I am to give it back to you when you want it back. But say I have Jane’s gun. Jane wants it back. But my dilemma is: Jane’s lost her mind… Go figure… Leave it to the next generation of decide…
The Edition of The Republic of Plato that I have been using is Alan Bloom’s translation with notes, an interpretive essay, and a new introduction. Copyright 1968 by Alan Bloom, Basic Books
