Ring of Gyges

For my Philosophy of Human Nature class I had this past semester, I wrote a paper analyzing the story of The Ring of Gyges from Plato's Republic. I thought it would be interesting to post it because I know people like myself, going through college, are experiencing new senses of freedom. Like how college can allow a generous amount of independence and freedom, so does the ring for our dear shepherd, Gyges. It is all of a matter of what we students and Gyges plan to do with said freedom ethically that determines whether or not we're just beings. I hope it is as interesting for you to read as it was for me to learn and write about. Enjoy.

-MASR

In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon, a colleague of Socrates and older brother of Plato, tells the story of The Ring of Gyges where a man named Gyges made a living herding a flock of sheep in service to the king of Lydia. Tending to his flock, Gyges came across an opening in the ground produced by an earthquake where inside a man laid dead wearing only but a ring on one of his fingers. Having then taken the corpse’s ring, Gyges quickly learned of the ring’s power. Whenever he put the ring on turned inward, Gyge turned invisible; he must then turn the ring outwards to regain visibility. With such an advantage like this, the shepherd sought out to seduce the queen of Lydia, murder the king, and rule the kingdom, all of which he succeeded in doing.

Glaucon then carries on with an experimental comparison of two men, thought of as different, one just and the other unjust, without this magical ring on but the same, both unjust, with it on. What makes something so magical change the behavior of a human being? How might I act differently when given this ring of invisibility? My first thought truthfully when this question came up was the fact that I have so much on my itinerary where I have to be seen for attendance that I wouldn’t even have time to be invisible. After beating around the bush, I figured that with the ring’s power of invisibility I would probably turn invisible whenever my parents wanted me to do a chore or something. To me, it would simply be a tool of convenience. In order to better answer this question, I did have to ask some of my friends and family.

I received a lot of answers resembling the choices of the two men from the comparison; some answers were intentionally just while others were just selfish. Strangely a majority wanted to rob a bank--which in truth is scary--or listen to private conversations with this magical ring which brings forth relatability to Gyges’ character. However the minority, two people to be specific, had answers that were quite interesting. One friend wanted the power of invisibility in order to stay at a library past closing and read all night. Another friend wanted to use the ring’s power for good with helping hostage situations and fighting against all other crimes. I don’t know if the rather just and intellectually stimulating answers were sincere or not, but it was nice to hear. However, it is strange most people would change their behavior instantly for the worst when they know they can get away with it. But what made the majority feel it was alright to do the things they normally wouldn’t do visible? We can figure that out by analyzing the the definitions of man’s soul and nature.

First we must go over the premises of nature and what it means. I think of nature as a means of purpose. Like how it’s in a peach tree’s nature to grow peaches, it is in man’s nature to pursue happiness. Now, this comes from Aristotle’s viewpoint on man’s purpose or telos. Aristotle argued in the Nicomachean Ethics that if man wishes to be happy, then he should seek the highest possible good. Out of the three kinds of lives Aristotle analyzes, he chooses contemplation as the most idealistic because it offers happiness and intelligence. Contemplation involves rational thinking which according to St. Augustine is acting morally, legally, and and justly. So in a nutshell: happiness brings forth contemplation, contemplations requires rational thinking, and rational thinking allows morality, legal practice, and just behavior. One can not do all these actions by himself, however. I believe infinite knowledge and happiness can be acquired from man’s community and relationships. That way the questions you have can be given an an answer by your colleagues.

It is healthy to have questions every now then to make sure we’re on right path to fulfillment. That way there aren’t any distractions in the way of the fundamental goal. In the case of having the power of invisibility, one can reasonably agree that this ring does play as a potential distraction. How so though? When a ring takes away you visibility, there you can’t be seen by another just as much as you can’t be given their intellectual counsel. According to French philosopher Emmanuel Mounier, man needs social collaboration, his community, in order to fully achieve happiness. humans are by nature social beings. Generally speaking, people don’t willingly live without friends. According to Emmanuel Mounier, seclusion from human contact can be detrimental to man’s psychological health. It is often considered a form of torture in many parts of the world, bearing in mind the instant paucity of this universal knowledge we need so dearly. All progress just pauses. All pursuits toward virtue and happiness just pauses. So imagine how easy it would be for a person to cut off all access of their purpose, of their potential happiness, when given the power of the invisibility. I remember in class we discussed how today’s youth are not as social as older generations because their staring at screens almost all day. The more they stare into their televisions, laptops, iPads, or iPhones, the less time they have at staring at another human being which is where one acquires apathy through the facial expressions. So, it’s even psychologically proven that spending less time with another human being, you have less drive for pursuing morality.

Then how would man benefit more from being in a relationship than from being alone? If we compare the two relationships—man with man and man with artificial matter—we can realize the relationship between man and man is more complex, more important. Unlike the relationship between a man and his object, relationships between man and only man can be philosophized and seek for more knowledge endlessly. A set of philosophers have argued the importance of pursuing virtue, and that collaboration can be a critical way in achieving this. Philosophers Emmanuel Mounier and Aristotle review the significance of relationships based on different vocations. As man should strive for the greatest good, he should strive for the greatest relationships. The people we spend time with will no doubt grant influence over us for better or for worse. And we hold responsibility for our actions no matter what.

We should look at the greatest good, happiness, because you can’t use happiness to create any other good. So, living well and searching for excellence means living for the sake of happiness because happiness is the end game. But in some cases, people don’t see it that way. Instead of having the correct view of happiness, man has this warped view which favoring individualism. Thus, man has ego. He switches “freedom for security” (Mounier 12).

“We have no authentic existence until we have an interior stronghold of values or of devotion, against which we do not believe that the fear of death itself could prevail” (Mounier, Personalism, 71). Because we are naturally good, it makes sense to pursue the greatest good with reason and virtue. Though there is the possibility of using free will to pursue evil, one who is most pragmatic would search for infinite happiness and its source, thus giving them purpose. Man lives with reason. If he acts without such, such an action contradicts his purpose, thus later failing in life. But how can we succeed in our purpose? By becoming social which we can only do when visible, we acquire happiness. So, by becoming invisible we cut off all sociability amongst our peers which then cuts off our purpose of pursuing happiness. This idea can prove selfish actions and unjust behavior drives you further away from happiness. Despite my friends’ intentions of pursuing happiness when wanting to rob a bank, what they think means happiness isn’t so. They’re actually confusing happiness with convenience which does not lead to morality and selflessness. It inevitably leads to finite pleasure. Convenience, like selfish and unjust behavior, involves no social activity with another at its core. So, one reason one would acted unjustly, immorally, and even illegally would be because they’re confused between happiness and convenience. Or maybe because convenience involves less hassle than happiness does.

When one pursues happiness, he then pursues virtue. Virtue can only be achieved for another and not yourself; hence, there is self-sacrifice. In other words, we can achieve our purpose through virtue which means sacrificing ourselves for another. Introducing the subject of personalism: particularly when we come in contact with another being for assistance, exchange or contribution of intellect and the pursuit of eternal good, we engage in personalism according to Emmanuel Mounier. It inspires a general affirmation, a knowledge fund, and wide range of intellectuals or the unity of mankind in the investigation of man’s experience, status and value in philosophy. It relatively resembles an almighty treasure hunt and all of mankind supposedly works together to find the treasure. Unfortunately, we wish selfishly to search for the treasure by ourselves. If there was a path to make our excursion to happiness easier, would we take it? No apparently for most of us anyway. Though in personalism, our purpose should stand unified with our community we witness that there lies a difference in opinion or personality. Hence, confrontation evidently will still slither in the grass.

Overall, this story was told by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic. Glaucon mentioned a way to assure authenticity in people’s intentions actually matching up with their actual actions while invisible. The people with good intentions would properly be monitored making sure that their actions done invisible were just which surely takes away the advantage of being invisible in the first place.

This was ultimately a way for Glaucon to prove to Socrates that “justice is intrinsically preferable to injustice” (LaBossiere, A Philosopher’s Blog, 2009). Truthfully, I couldn’t understand the the story’s relation to justice besides one’s will to act just. Although I was mainly proving why philosophically man should act just, Glaucon was arguing how man naturally prefers injustice. I’d imagine he was arguing how the majority of people viewed justice. Glaucon was implying that human beings only act just in fear of social punishment instead of an authentic pursuit of virtue. But, then I got to thinking about the majority of all my friends and family’s answers if they had the chance to be invisible, the majority was unjust. I found the minority of my friends’ just answers interesting mainly because they were unusual. Come to think of it, in the last paragraph in The Ring of Gyges, people found a just man practicing just deeds even while invisible idiotic. However, they trembled of the idea of an unjust man raiding their homes while invisible. How does that make sense? Wouldn’t the people be happy for the unjust man since they would do what he’d do? Why wouldn’t you want to get away with robbing a bank? I mean robbing a bank means no more student loans and such in my case anyway. Paying student loans is neither a convenient nor happy practice. However, robbing a bank only brings up convenience and not happiness. That says a lot about happiness by the way; it is not easy to achieve. Robbing a bank does not achieve happiness because happiness plays a parallel with the social community. The community as a whole idealistically knows what is just and unjust, and in a way the legal system generally has man’s best interest by enforcing just actions. Justice does not lie within the person searching for joy only for themselves. Justice, or in other words virtue, lies within the person wanting the best for themselves in addition to others. Though it would be nice if man already knew his purpose in life, how he could achieve it, and actually go through with it by pursuing virtue; unfortunately, that is not the case. Man would need help from others to do that. Going back to the importance of personalism, having collaboration and relationships with others not only builds this universal knowledge fund, they also play as some sort of monitor to check your behavior and make sure you’re on the track of virtue and happiness.

Bibliography

• Aristotle, and Martin Ostwald. Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.

• Augustine, and R. S. Pine-Coffin. Confessions. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1961.

• LaBossiere, Michael. "Summary of Plato's Ring of Gyges." A Philosopher’s Blog. December 29, 2009. Accessed January 22, 2016. https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/summary-of-platos-ring-of-gyges/.

• Mounier, Emmanuel, and Philip Mairet. Personalism.

• Plato, G. R. F. Ferrari, and Tom Griffith. The Republic. “The Ring of Gyges”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

• Shmoop Editorial Team. "The Ring of Invisibility, or The Ring of Gyges in The Republic. Shmoop University, Inc. Last modified November 11, 2008. Accessed January 24, 2016. http://www.shmoop.com/the-republic/ring-of-invisibility-symbol.html.

#philosophy #ringofgyges #plato #platosrepublic #personalism #aristotle #mounier