Essay 6

After answering Glaucon's Challenge in Book IX, one would think the Republic would draw to a close. Yet there are presumably some loose ends needing tied, including revisiting the proper role of poetry and its importance qua education. The entire Republic, however, concludes with Plato's argument for the existence of an immutable and eternal soul and, subsequently, the Myth of Er. The Myth of Er draws on Ancient Greek mythology and the immortality of the soul to once again argue that it is better by far to be the just man thought unjust than the unjust man thought just, since the time spent thusly is infinitesimally brief compared to the entirety of existence experienced by the eternal soul.

Suppose, however, that a skeptic were to respond that Plato gives up the whole game by invoking the Myth of Er. Recall first of all Adeimantus' amendment to Glaucon's challenge in Book II that the unjust man thought just would even be able, through sacrifices and honors, bring the gods about to his side. But even setting that amendment aside, secondly, the Myth of Er simply ignores the three 'proofs' of the previous book that being just is vastly intrinsically better than being unjust regardless of the extrinsic consequences of being just but thought unjust.

So the skeptic might say to Plato, "in closing the Republic with the Myth of Er, you've in effect undermined your own arguments (if not contradicted them) by once again invoking the extrinsic value of being just over being unjust."

What arguments might you give in defending Plato against the skeptic's charge that Plato has betrayed his own purpose by closing with the Myth of Er?