The Republic Book V, Part 2 Summary

As you have most likely heard we enter into the second half of The Republic Book V
learning about what the role of women and children should be in our ideal city, as they pertain
to the Guardians. Socrates tells Glaucon Then the cause of the highest good for the city has
been shown to be the community of women and children among the assistants.1 He then
reminds Glaucon of the topic of private ownership among the Guardians which was discussed
earlier in their conversation. It was established that the Guardians should own nothing, rather
everything that they needed would be supplied for them by the multitudes.
Socrates elaborates on the subject of ownership and gives further reasoning as to why
this should be the case. He asks Glaucon Further, will not lawsuits and accusations against each
other vanish almost entirely from among them? For they will all have common, nothing private
except their body; which you see, makes them free from quarrels and factions as far as human
quarrels come from possessing wealth or children and kindred.2 This question/statement paints
the picture clearer for Glaucon as to why he should want the women and children to be
communal rather than possessed. With this arrangement multiple problems are solved. There is
no cause for dispute over wives, or children, much the same as physical possessions such as
property, or goods. Everything belongs to everyone.
It was previously explained how this would create more of a sense of family among
citizens because it would be very possible that any two people could be of blood relation.
Socrates points out yet another advantage of this. This type of environment will promote order
and respect among the youth. He points out thatShame will restrain him from touching one
1 Page 306
2 Page 307

who may be his parent, and his fear will be that others may come to the sufferers help as sons or
brothers or fathers.3 It is explained to Glaucon, who agrees, that with this type of life the
Guardians will be happiest. The Guardians will take great satisfaction in knowing that they are
the saviors of the city as a whole and they themselves and their children are crowned with
free food and free everything else that life needs.4
The conversation between the Socrates and Glaucon shifts back to the role of women and
children, compared to the men regarding warfare. Should women have as equal a role as the
men? Socrates says that women should, hunt with them like dogs, and share everything in
every way up to their power5, also They will march with the men and they will also bring
along any children who are strong enough, that they may grow up, just like the children of other
craftsmen. Glaucon concurs to this (of course), and examples are given to show Socrates
reasoning for exposing children to such things. Socrates gives the example of the potters son
who watches and observes for countless hours before touching any piece of pottery. Socrates also
points out that, given the presence of children, the Guardians are more likely to fight harder for
the childrens sake.
Over the course of the next few pages they go through arguments for how cowards
should be treated for acts of desertion or in the case of live captured combatants. It is agreed that
deserters should be downgraded from Guardians to craftsmen and farmers. Should one be
captured alive he should be presented to his captors as a gift, to use their captured game as

3 Page 307
4 Page 308
5 Page 309

they like.6 Acts of valor shall be rewarded with more sexual encounters, thus encouraging
offspring from such courageous bloodlines. Also in this particular part of the argument the
treatment of enemies is hashed out. Great preference is given to Hellenic (Greek) enemies. Greek
enemies from neighboring city states are not to be taken as slaves. Citizens from other Greek
factions than the Athenians will not run the risk of having their cities raped, pillaged, and
plundered. The idea behind this reasoning is that they are Greek, therefor they are the same race
of people, and should be treated in a way that leaves the door open for future friendships.
Socrates asks, And they will quarrel as expecting one day to be friends again?7
Here is where a huge part of the conversation starts to become clearer in purpose. The
conversation moves toward justice. Socrates begins to explain how justice, and the city they have
created tie together. Glaucon is asked, If we do find what sort of thing justice is, shall we claim
that the just man must in no way differ from perfect justice, but must in all respects be such as
justice is? Or shall we be content if he gets as near as possible to it and has more justice in him
than any other man?8 This is where Socrates comes to admit that the city they are building is
absolutely impossible. He compares their city to a painting of the perfect man and makes a
valid point. It is decided that even if such a man were impossible, the painter is not any less a
painter because of this. Here the idea is that even if they know that the city is impossible, it is
still a model for a perfect, ideal city. In the same way that a city who strives to be like the one
created by these men, will become a good city; a man who tries his hardest to be as close as he
can to the definition of perfectly just, he should be considered a just man nonetheless.
6 Page 311
7 Page 315
8 Page 317

Socrates has an exception to the rule here. Even though it is admitted that such a city is
impossible, he tells Glaucon of one possibility. The only way for the perfect city to become a
reality is The philosophers become kings in our cities. Glaucon is shocked to hear such
dangerous talk. Socrates goes on to say that if the philosophers cant become kings, then the
kings must become lovers of wisdom and philosophy. He takes the long way around explaining
what it is to truly love, making comparisons to wine drinkers, and with those who love honor.
According to Socrates to truly love is to desire the whole. In regards to wisdom he says, Then
we may say the philosopher, the wisdom lover, desires wisdom so, not merely parts but the
whole.9 A true Lover of wisdom knows beauty itself. He is able to see beautiful things and at the
same time knows what beauty is. An imitation philosopher is only able to appreciate things
that partake here and there in beauty.
With this the men roll into the difference in opinion and truth. The man who knows true
beauty is worthy of being called knowledgeable. The sight fanciers and imitation philosophers
are merely opinionated. They lack in knowledge but are not ignorant. They are the ones Socrates
speaks of when he asks So since knowledge belongs to what is, and ignorance of necessity to
what is not, for this thing between, something must be sought between ignorance and acquired
knowledge, if there really is such a thing between?10 He is referring to people who opine,
philodoxers. Philodoxers are lovers of opinion. Socrates lumps them into the grey area between
knowledge and ignorance. They are classified as knowledgeable (in respect to the different
powers), but a darker shade. The philodoxers are the people who love beautiful sounds and
sights, the imitation philosophers.
9 Page 320
10 Page 323

Book V concludes when Socrates makes the case to Glaucon that, there is beauty in
justice. The philodoxers love to have their opinions about what is just and unjust. This is where
they fall short of wisdom. they opine all these but know nothing of what they opine.11The
point he makes here is that the philodoxer will believe justice to be open to opinion. The
philosopher will see the beauty in the truth, the truth in justice and know that truth is
unchangeable, therefore not subject to ones opinions.

11 Page 327