Socrates’ Argument for Censorship of Stories

In books II and III of the Republic, Socrates asserts that the stories told in his city must be censored before they are told to the citizens and guardians. Socrates finds stories in three main genres particularly problematic. These three genres are stories about the gods and heroes, the underworld of Hades, and stories about human beings. In this paper I will do four things. First, I will address Socrates’ overarching argument for censorship: the impressionability of the general population and youths in particular. Then, I will describe the three genres of stories. After each description, I will address Socrates’ argument for censoring that particular type of story. Finally, I will address the validity of Socrates’ arguments. 

Socrates’ argument for censorship of poets and storytellers in his city stems from the idea that people are impressionable, and are particularly impressionable at a young age. He asserts that “the beginning of any process is most important, especially for anything young and tender” (377b). Therefore, it is essential that the youths of the city are told only stories that are beneficial to society, because “the opinions they absorb at that age are hard to erase, and apt to become unalterable). The youth are, in Socrates opinion, extremely impressionable and apt to internalize the values they hear in stories when they are young. Therefore, it is extremely important for Socrates that the youth be exposed only to stories that will improve their virtues and promote justice. Socrates has no problem with the fact that most stories that are told to youths are false (377a), as long as they they have some truth in them that can benefit the society. These stories are told to provide examples of just behavior, and models of how to live a just and moderate life. As long as the story imparts correct values to the youths, the overall truth of the story is unimportant. Conversely, it is therefore essential that any story that is not directly beneficial to the wellbeing of the city be thrown out (377c), or revised until it becomes useful. Socrates argues that, unfortunately, “the young can’t distinguish what is allegorical from what isn’t” (378d). This means that the youth cannot tell what is true from what isn’t, and are liable to believe anything they are told. For the sake of the city, it is therefore important to ensure that they are only told that which is beneficial to their training as citizens and guardians. In this way, they can be educated in justice and the desired values of the city, while remaining ignorant of any stories that may corrupt their souls. 

I have just described Socrates’ overarching concern for the training of the youth, and his broad argument for the censorship of stories. The youth are impressionable, so they should only be told stories that are beneficial to their training. I will now address the three main genres of concern for Socrates: the gods and heroes, the underworld of Hades, and stories pertaining to human beings. I will also address Socrates’ argument for the censorship of each genre. 

Socrates’ concerns regarding stories about gods and heroes can be broken down into four main categories: stories that pertain to the gods or heroes fighting amongst themselves or committing what we consider terrible crimes, stories that describe gods as tricking or lying to humans, stories that show gods doing bad things to people, and stories that portray gods and heroes being overcome by their desires or passion. I will describe each category and address Socrates’ argument for censorship of each. 

Greek mythology abounds with stories of the gods or heroes fighting each other and acting in ways that are completely unacceptable in civilized society, and especially Socrates’ ideal city. Greek gods are constantly plotting against each other, and fighting each other (378c). The Greek creation myth describes the terrible crimes of Ouranos against his children, and the drastic punishment meted out my Cronos against him, followed by the rise of Zeus over Cronos (377e). Achilles is known to have “dragged the dead Hector around the tomb of Patroclus or massacred the captives on his pyre” (391b), and that Theseus “engaged in terrible kidnappings” (391c). Heroes and gods alike in Greek mythology act in extreme fashions. Socrates maintains that these stories must be censored to ensure that a criminal does not argue that “in committing the worst crimes he’s doing nothing out of the ordinary” because if “he inflicts every type of punishment on an unjust father, he’s only doing the same as the first and greatest of the gods” (378b). If the gods fight and plot against each other, it seems logical that people would as well. Based on the precedence of the gods and heroes, it becomes acceptable for human beings to do likewise if they can point to “similar things...done in the past by close descendants of the gods” (391e). Socrates is attempting to create a city in which “the guardians...think that it’s shameful to be easily provoked into hating one another” (378c). It is therefore essential that in their training they are not told stories of the gods themselves hating each other. If Socrates is to convince the “people that no citizen has ever hated another and that it’s impious to do so” (378c), then it is unacceptable for the first beings (the gods), and their human counterparts (heroes) to have acted that way. If the citizens of the city are to use the gods and heroes as examples of piety and correct behavior, the stories told about them must be conducive to that end. 

Greek mythology also contains many stories in which the gods trick people by appearing an another form than their true self (381d). Myths often tell of Zeus taking different forms to woo mortal women, and of various other gods and goddesses disguising themselves in their dealings with mortals. Socrates finds these stories terribly inaccurate, for if the gods are “the most beautiful and best possible” (381c), they could not possibly cloak themselves as something else, for it is inconceivable that “anyone, whether god or human, would deliberately make himself worse in any way” (381c). Stories of this sort are, to Socrates, simply logically impossible and incorrect. Therefore, they are not to be told to the people of the city. Furthermore, a god could not simply trick a human into thinking they had changed form without actually changing form because no one can be “false to one’s soul about the things that are” (382b), and that form of “true falsehood...is hated by all gods and humans” (382a). 

It is important to note that though Socrates finds stories about the gods committing crimes or acting unjustly incorrect and illogical, he does not necessarily object to them because they are fundamentally untrue, though he has philosophical arguments for why they are in fact false and incorrect accounts of the gods. He objects to them because they illustrate elements of life and morality that he does not want the youth to know of, regardless of the validity of the story. To Socrates, the truth of a story is less important than the message it imparts on the listener. This is why he does not care that the youth are raised being told stories that are, for the most part, complete falsehoods. This ‘brainwashing’ as we might describe it, is not objectionable to Socrates because that is precisely his goal. Socrates wants to indoctrinate the youth of his city with the values that he believes are valuable, to the exclusion of any other values. He does not want unjust or immoderate thoughts to enter the minds of the youth of his city. Therefore, he will educate the youth with only justice and what is right. They will not be exposed to any alternative, and will therefore not exhibit anything immoral or unjust: for how can you be that which you have no knowledge of or have never experienced? In pursuit of this goal, the city must tell falsehoods to the youth in order for them to believe that this is so: that there is nothing but justice and truth. Stories must support this, and so must be tailored to fit this end. 

Socrates takes further issue with stories that claim that both good and bad things come from the gods (380b). Homer claims that “there are two urns at the threshold of Zeus, one filled with good fates, the other with bad ones” (379d). The idea being that all things flow from the gods: the good and the bad, for Zeus is “the distributor of both good and bad” (379e). Socrates, contrary to Homer’s claim, argues that if a god is truly good (which it is agreed they are), then he cannot do harm. If he cannot do harm, he cannot be the cause of anything bad (379b). It also stands to reason, therefore, that if a god is good, he is responsible for good things. Socrates can then claim that “since a god is good, he is not...the cause of everything that happens to human beings but of only a few things, for good things are fewer than bad ones” (379c). It is therefore incorrect to blame bad things on the gods. These stories are deemed “not pious, not advantageous to us, and not consistent with one another” (380c), and should be censored and not told to the youths or the general population. 

Stories about desire and passion overcoming the senses of gods and heroes are also common in Greek mythology, and they pose another problem to Socrates’ city. Often, gods are overtaken by sexual desire, such as in the case of Zeus and Hera, and “the chaining together of Ares and Aphrodite” (390c). Other times, the gods are overcome by “violent laughter” that is “unquenchable” (388e-389a). Achilles is depicted as overcome by “slavishness accompanied by the love of money...and arrogance towards gods and humans” (391c). Socrates does not think that these stories are “suitable for young people to hear––not, in any case, with a view to making them moderate” (390a). If the citizens and guardians of the city are to be moderate, they must not be exposed to tales of gods and heroes acting in such immoderate ways. 

I have just shown why Socrates argues for the censorship of stories dealing with infighting amongst the gods, trickery of humans by the gods, shapeshifting by the gods, and descriptions of the gods being overcome by passion. In each of these cases, Socrates finds fault with either the message the listener could take from the story, or with the logic of the story itself. In either of these cases, the story must not be told to the population or the youths. I will now address Socrates’ concerns about stories pertaining to the underworld: Hades. 

Hades is the dreary underworld of Greek mythology: it is a place to be feared and to avoid, for it is “hated even by the gods” (386d). The afterlife is not pleasant in Hades, and souls “[go] screeching...as when bats fly in an awful cave” (387a). The underworld is to be feared, and people greatly lament those who have died and travelled there. Socrates takes issue with both these ideas: the first being that death should be feared, and the second that the dead should be lamented. Death, Socrates argues, should not be feared, for it will make the guardians cowardly and weak (387c). Instead, the underworld should be praised (386b) and described favorably so that guardians will not fear death. If the guardians are to “fear slavery more than death” (387b) they must not be terrified by Hades. Only if this is true can they truly defend the city and fight to their full capacity. It must be fear of defeat and fear of slavery that motivates them to fight hardest: not fear of death. To the second idea, that the dead should be missed and lamented, Socrates asserts that “a decent man doesn’t think that death is a terrible thing for someone decent to suffer...[and] he won’t mourn for him as for someone who has suffered a terrible fate” (387d). It is cowardly and womanly to mourn the dead (388a). If a man has lived a good life, he should have nothing to fear in the afterlife. It then follows that those left behind (the living) should not mourn his passing, for it is not such a terrible thing after all. Therefore, any story that seeks to convince the listener that Hades is to be feared, or that the dead should be mourned should be banned from the city and not told to the population. 

I have just shown why Socrates argues for the censorship of stories dealing with the underworld of Hades and the afterlife. It is counterproductive in the city to have guardians who fear death and mourn the dead. To be fully effective guardians, they must prefer death to defeat, and not lament the passing of another, for it is not a bad thing to die. I will now address stories told about human beings, and Socrates argument for censorship of those stories. 

Socrates maintains that the issue of stories dealing with human beings cannot be fully resolved, because it requires knowledge about “what sort of thing justice is and how by nature it profits the one who has it” (392c) that they do not yet posses. But, he does list a few of the types of stories that should be censored in the city. Socrates maintains that poets and writers misinform the public by telling us that “many unjust people are happy and many just ones wretched, that injustice is profitable...and that justice is another’s good but one’s own loss” (392b). Further examination of these types of stories is held off for another time, but it is not difficult to see why Socrates would like to see these sort of statements censored. If the three statements about justice and injustice above are true, then there is very little (if any) incentive to be just, and a great deal of incentive to be unjust. If Socrates is to build a city based on justice, where the guardians in particular are unable to act unjustly, it is counterproductive to introduce them to such subversive ideas. 

I have just completed my study of the three genres of stories that Socrates finds problematic: stories about the gods and heroes, the underworld of Hades, and stories about human beings. I have also shown why Socrates argues for the censorship of these types of stories. I will now explain why these arguments for the censorship of stories are successful. 

Socrates argues that young people are malleable and impressionable, that it is unacceptable for the gods and heroes to commit crimes and fight amongst themselves, that the gods do not disguise themselves or trick humans, that the gods are responsible for good things but not bad, that if guardians are to be moderate they must not be told stories of divine passion and desires, that the guardians must not be taught to fear death and the underworld, and that justice must not be portrayed as bad for the individual who is acting justly. If these principles are indoctrinated into the citizens and guardians from a very young age, it is readily apparent that the strategy should work. You can only be that which you have experienced: there is no motivation for acting in a way contrary to what you know. For this reason, the youth, and eventually the guardians, will not act unjustly or immorally, for if they are raised knowing only justice and what is right, they cannot act in any other way. For instance, if a guardian is never exposed to stories telling of infighting amongst the gods, or of the terrors of Hades, there is no reason for him to act similarly towards his fellow citizens, or to fear death. If he never hears about the passion of Achilles (391c), he will not be inspired to act similarly, or use similar historical accounts as an excuse. He will not act in these ways because he will not know that those modes of behavior exist. According to Socrates, this can be accomplished in the ideal city over the course of several generations, given ideal conditions and flawless education by philosophers. By eliminating the telling of these types of stories and themes, Socrates is able to eliminate these harmful elements from his city, and take away any possible justification if someone does act in these fashions. 

In Socrates’ ideal city, it would perhaps be possible for this censorship of stories and general knowledge to take place. However, it the world that we live in, especially in modern times, this tactic of indoctrination is not as realistic a proposition as it might seem. The sheer amount of control that would have to be exercised on the population by the government to promote this system is staggering. There could be no such thing as the internet, international phone calls, free press, or any type of communication with alternative viewpoints. In a city-state such as Athens, or another greek city, this type of isolation could theoretically be possible due to small population and limited contact of the average citizen with outside influences. In this society, the average person had no reason to talk to anyone from outside their city, and in any case would have limited opportunities to do so. The philosopher-kings would have to control the speech of traders, certain merchants, and certain members of the military and government who would be in contact with other city-states. But the general population would not necessarily be a concern, isolated as it would be. 

This is completely different than today, where the average citizen has access to nearly limitless information at the click of a button. Certainly, censorship is possible: China and certain other nations are prime examples of how the government can suppress outside views and commentary. But, there are always whispers of dissent and rumors of different accounts of events. The world today is connected in many more and much more complex ways than the ancient world of Socrates. In practicality, it would be impossible in most situations to completely eliminate dissent or conflicting opinions. 

To complete the task that Socrates proposes in the modern world would require the same idealized situation he proposes in the Greek world: the raising of children from infancy in a morally sterile environment. Imagine, perhaps, a pristine laboratory in which children are exposed only to carefully controlled and monitored stimuli and education, with any signs of deviation eliminated swiftly. Supposing that the regimen is perfect and that those in control of the situation execute the program perfectly, it is theoretically possible for a group of entirely innocent people to be raised. But would these people be truly just? Or would the program fail? This we cannot know. Socrates would argue that it is possible, given the right conditions. But, in any case, how likely is a scenario such as this? The creation of a city or even small group of people with the qualities Socrates desires is as remote a possibility today as it was in his own time. 

In this paper I have done four things. I addressed Socrates’ overarching argument for censorship: the impressionability of the general population and youths in particular. Then, I described the three genres of stories: gods and heroes, the underworld of Hades, and human beings. I also addressed Socrates’ argument for censoring each particular type of story. Finally, I addressed the validity of Socrates’ arguments, and found them sound in theory, though impractical or even impossible in the real or modern world.