THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS IN SOCIETY FOR THE LIVING ORGANISM THAT IS HUMANITY: AN EXAMINATION THROUGH PLATO'S 'THE REPUBLIC'

ABSTRACT

The primary aim of this study is to discuss whether the existence of different professions that humans, as biologically living organisms, undertake to sustain their lives within social structures and social life is natural or not, through the lens of Plato's "The Republic." In "The Republic," Plato seeks to build an ideal society. According to him, individuals are born with different abilities and must work in professions that align with these abilities. In this context, it is emphasized that each individual must play their own role to maintain the integrity and functioning of the social structure. The study discusses the effects of the existence of various professions on society as framed by Plato's "The Republic." Furthermore, humans are evaluated from biological, social, and sociobiological perspectives. The research concludes by examining whether the existence of different professions in society is natural or necessary, in connection with Plato's work.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Основная цель данного исследования — обсудить, является ли существование различных профессий, которые человек как биологически живой организм принимает на себя для поддержания своей жизни в социальной структуре и социальной жизни, естественным или нет, на основе произведения Платона «Государство». В «Государстве» Платон стремится построить идеальное общество. По его мнению, индивиды обладают врожденными различиями в способностях. Им необходимо работать в различных профессиях, соответствующих этим способностям. В этом контексте подчеркивается, что для поддержания целостности социальной структуры и ее функционирования каждый индивид должен выполнять свою роль. В работе обсуждаются последствия существования различных профессий для общества в рамках произведения Платона. Кроме того, человек рассматривается с биологической, социальной и социобиологической точек зрения. В заключение, исследование обсуждает, является ли существование различных профессий в обществе естественным или необходимым, связывая это с произведением Платона.

Keywords: Plato, The Republic, society, human, sociobiology, professions.

Ключевые слова: Платон, Государство, общество, человек, социобиология, профессии.

Introduction

Humans are as much biological beings as they are social ones. From a biological perspective, humans are a species that lives in groups. When viewed sociologically, a human is an individual who lives within a specific social structure. Biologically, humans have certain fundamental needs. It is known that individuals living in a social structure also have needs that must be met for their survival. To fulfill many of these needs, individuals in a social context must work in some capacity to sustain their lives. Considering this situation, while it is natural for a person to strive to meet their basic biological needs, is it also natural for an individual working in any job to exert effort to sustain their life and meet their needs within a social structure? The main question and boundaries of this study are whether the existence of different professions in society is a natural situation for an individual, who is an organic structure from a biological perspective, or not. This question, which forms the general framework of the study, is discussed in light of Plato's "The Republic" and the concept of humanity from biological, sociological, and sociobiological perspectives.

Materials and Methods

This study utilized a qualitative method. As a data collection technique, a document-based approach was used. Both primary and secondary sources related to the study were examined.

Human from Biological, Sociological, and Sociobiological Perspectives

From a biological perspective, humans are organic structures. Organically, humans are primates. Having gone through various evolutionary processes, humans are entities that adapt to geological environmental conditions and live in groups with other humans. According to C. Darwin's "Theory of Evolution,"^[1] organisms that adapt to their geological environment survive, while those that do not become extinct. Looking at the evolutionary development of humans from the past to the present, various species such as Homo habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, etc., eventually led to the emergence of Homo sapiens (modern humans) (9,s. 66-85).  The reason for the extinction of other species has been their inability to adapt to their environment. In Darwin's theory, organisms that cannot adapt to their environment become extinct (5, s.97-100. 3, s.6-7).  Biologically, humans possess universal emotions and instincts. The universal emotions inherent in humans include feelings such as love, fear, disgust, and so on. Instinctively, like other organisms, humans struggle for survival, reproduction, and caring for and protecting their offspring.

From a sociological perspective, humans are individuals who live within a specific social environment. A person is born into a particular social context and sustains their life by adhering to the norms of that environment while interacting with others (2, s.261-278). Humans undergo different socialization processes in their social development.

The first socialization process involves the individual adopting values that align with the structure of their family, producing moral, religious, and traditional value judgments appropriate to their family. The second socialization process is when the individual integrates with society and adopts the norms of the community in which they live. The third socialization process involves the individual synthesizing the value judgments acquired from both their family structure and the society at large. This completes the individual's socialization process. From a sociological standpoint, an individual is a being who lives alongside society and exhibits thoughts and behaviors appropriate to that society (4, s.117-140).

To examine humans from a sociobiological perspective, it is first necessary to explain what sociobiology is. Sociobiology emphasizes that certain behaviors and thoughts of humans are hereditary, drawing on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to sociobiology, the social behaviors of humans are actually inherited from their ancestors. As mentioned above, Darwin explains his Theory of Evolution through natural selection. That is, organisms that adapt better to their environment survive, while those that do not become extinct (5, s.97-100. 6, s.6-7).

According to sociobiology, individuals who cannot integrate with society and do not accept the norms and rules produced by that society cannot survive within it, and the existing social system expels such individuals. However, sociobiologists argue that some of these norms are also transmitted to humans through heredity. From a sociobiological perspective, humans acquire some of their thoughts and behaviors through their social structures, while others are performed as a result of their organic biological makeup, and some are integrated with the social structure through evolutionary advancement. As a result, certain hereditary social behaviors emerge (3, s.175-186).

Plato's 'The Republic' in the Context of the Existence of Different Professions in Society

Examining the main ideas of  Plato's philosophy, his understanding of the ideal state, and the social structure and division of labor within that state will help us understand whether the existence of different professions in society is natural or necessary.

Plato, the founder of systematic philosophy, based his philosophy on the "Theory of Ideas." He placed the concept of the virtuous person at the center of his philosophy (1, s.133-155). Therefore, explaining Plato's understanding of the state and the idea of the virtuous person, along with the Theory of Ideas, is important for gaining more in-depth knowledge of the topic. Until the Renaissance, in Ancient Greece, Plato and the thinkers who followed him philosophized within the framework of the concept of the virtuous person. However, after the Renaissance, this idea of the virtuous person was rejected and replaced by a more self-serving, individualistic understanding (10, s.27).

Plato states that the relationship between the state and the individual is intricate. According to him, humans are social beings, meaning that people must always be in interaction with one another. This is because humans have different needs and require the help of others to meet those needs. In a state, for example, food needs to be met by farmers, clothing by weavers, and shelter by builders. A state is also necessary for these individuals to conduct their transactions smoothly (11, s.27-46). As thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have noted, the absence of a state—referred to as the natural state—leads to chaos. From this perspective, a state is essential and serves as a guarantee for people to live safely and interact with one another.

According to Plato, society is composed of individuals with different natures. Some possess a nature of gold, others silver, copper, or bronze. Those with a gold nature are good rulers, while those with a silver nature serve as helpers to the gold-natured individuals. Those with copper and bronze natures continue their lives as weavers and farmers. Plato suggests that the children of these individuals can have different natures from their parents and should be raised according to their own nature, independent of their parent's nature (7, s.121-122). For instance, if a ruler's son has a copper nature, or if the son of someone with a bronze nature has a gold nature, he should be raised accordingly. However, Plato later revised this idea, proposing that having a gold nature does not preclude someone from being a guardian; if raised correctly, they could indeed fulfill that role (8, s.42-63).

According to Plato, the soul has three parts: the rational part and the irrational part. The rational part is concerned with knowledge, while the irrational part is associated with pleasure and desire. Additionally, there is another aspect that is under the command of the rational part but sometimes acts contrary to its dictates—this is the part of the soul associated with anger. If anger is under the control of reason, it does not pose a problem; however, if it is not, it becomes a significant issue.

Plato argues that when these three aspects serve reason, a person begins to progress toward becoming a virtuous individual. He also categorizes virtues into different groups. The virtue that philosopher-kings strive for is wisdom, the virtue sought by guardians is courage, the virtue everyone aspires to is moderation, and the virtue that those who do their jobs correctly seek is justice. A person may know about one topic but not about another; such a person is knowledgeable but not wise. Similarly, someone may be courageous in many areas but not in others; this person is brave but not courageous.

Just as we cannot reach ideals, Plato asserts that we cannot attain virtue either; we can only strive along that path.

Finally, when considering what Plato believes to be the most ideal structure of the state, it is aristocracy. However, his notion of aristocracy is not limited to the traditional understanding of a noble class; it refers to a group composed of virtuous individuals. Plato emphasizes nature over lineage, arguing that in an ideal state system, it is a person's nature, not their ancestry, that matters. For example, if a farmer's child has a golden nature, they too are considered part of the aristocracy. According to Plato, if such a group governs the state, society, individuals, and the state itself will be managed in the best possible way. In contrast, systems like timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and monarchy do not allow for the establishment of an ideal state or system. Therefore, from Plato's perspective, the only ideal state is one governed by the aristocratic model he designed (12, s.141-148).

In Conclusion: Having Different Occupations In Society Is Not Natural, But Necessary

In Plato's example of the state, everyone in the state and the social structure has a different role and a goal they wish to achieve. The existence of different roles and goals is actually related to the systematic structure of the state that Plato established. In other words, people determine their purposes and objectives based on the frameworks of the system. However, this is not a natural path. In this case, individuals have mapped out their routes based on predetermined frameworks. In contrast, in an organic structure, there is no pre-established system. Considering modern sciences, it is observed that the world does not operate as a perfectly functioning system but rather has a chaotic structure. Given this situation, the formation and development of living beings is entirely coincidental. Darwin has also made explanations that support this view. For something to be considered natural, there should not be a systematic planning process beforehand. In this context, can the existence of different occupations and a social order be accepted as natural? Of course, this is not natural, but it is necessary. Humans are social beings that live in groups. In order to sustain their lives, people must construct a social structure and establish a system. However, this social structure and the different occupations within it are not a natural process; they arise from human necessity and should be regarded as such.

Reference:

1. Akbay, Y.E. İdealar teorisi bağlamında platon’da akıl ilkelerinin analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2017. 28, s.133-155.
2. Baran, A.G. Toplum, Birey ve Çevre İlişkileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1993. 1, s.261-278.
3. Burcu, E. Evrimci Teorinin Sosyolojik Düşünce Üzerindeki Etkileri Ve Sosyobiyoloji. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1998. 2, s.175-186.
4. Coştu, Y. Toplumsallaşma Kavramı Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi, 2009. 2, s.117-140.
5. Darwin, C. Türlerin Kökeni, 2019.  s.97-100.
6. Özgökman, F. Evrim Teorisi Tanrı İnancını Dışlar Mı?. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2015. 1, 41-60.
7. Platon, Devlet, çev. Cenk Saraçoğlu-Veysel Atayman, Bordo Siyah İstanbul: Klasik Yayınlar. 2005. S.121-122.
8. Senemoğlu, O. Antik Yunan Siyasal Düşünüşünde İnsan Doğası ve Toplum Anlayışı: Platon ve Aristoteles. İnsan ve İnsan Dergisi, 2016. 10, s.42-63.
9. Şimşek, F. Paleolitik dönemde insan türleri. Uluslararası amisos dergisi, 2017. 3, 66-85.
10. Taş, H.İ. Bireycilik: nedir, ne değildir? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Felsefe Ana Bilim Dalı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 2013. s. 27
11. Topakkaya, A. Adalet kavramı bağlamında aristoteles - platon karşılaştırması. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2008. 6, s.27-46.
12. Yılmaz, Z. Platon’un tiranlık eleştirisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2005. 2, s.141-148.