Philosophy Books Club discussion

The Republic
This topic is about The Republic
81 views
Book of The Month > The Republic

Comments Showing 1-47 of 47 (47 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
For this coming September, let's go back with the classics. Starting off with Plato's The Republic. Feel free to post and contribute what you know.


message 2: by J (new) - rated it 4 stars

J I read this in its entirety a few years ago in my Ancient Philosophy class. I was struck mostly by the idea of the philosopher kings, and other than a great band name, the idea is credible for a decent empire, especially compared to the plutocratic oligarchy we have in America today.


message 3: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Thank you for replying to my email and accepting my invite. It cannot be denied that Plato's The Republic has hugely contributed Western Philosophy in every specific branches it covers whether it's political philosophy, Epistemology, etc. I'm interested in what you meant by plutocratic oligarchy more? What can you say about it in line with Plato's The Republic?


Kitap (kitab-reader) | 12 comments Billy - were you wanting us to read the Desmond Lee translation in particular or any translation we have on hand? :)

Cheers,
Jason


message 5: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Any Translation can be read. But you can also point out your favorite ones and what makes it stand out on your view.


message 6: by J (new) - rated it 4 stars

J Billy, what I mean is, by having leaders who can benefit personally by their decisions which affect the nation as a whole, said nation will never see a government for the people. Plato's idea of philosopher kings who are taken care of well, but who cannot make extra money or attain further assets, would result in the nation benefiting from objective, logical decisions made by leaders.


message 7: by Ivy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ivy Catherine (theglorythatwasgreece) | 1 comments I read this when I was in third year college because it was mentioned in our Lit. class (intro to Classicism). I think my favorite part is Book X where he argues that poets are liars and artist are thrice removed from reality.


message 8: by Rose (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Hi, Bill! How are you? My name is Rose, I am brazilian and I'll be reading with you this month... :)

I have a question... Are we going to have a reading schedule, so everybody is at the same part of the book?

Thank you in advance...


message 9: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Thank you for emailing me back. I'll post tomorrow the break down of chapters we need to read for this month.


message 10: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Hi Guys! I'm just checking the book now. By the end of day, I'll post the scheduled readings for this month.


message 11: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Thanks for letting me into this group. As a political theorist I and my colleagues have much to debate when it comes to Plato. He is both appealing and repulsing at the same time. For me, the best way to think about Plato is like witnessing a car crash. One is amazed at the destruction, but yet cannot turn away. For The Republic, one is amazed at the structure, content, and level of thinking, yet is repulsed by the anti- democratic themes, level of control the state may have, depending on how one looks at it, and concerned about the themes of who is a philosopher king? All of which I am excited to learn and discuss with everyone.


message 12: by Billy (last edited Sep 01, 2015 11:40PM) (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
I agree with Mike. When I read the republic, that appealing & repulsive feeling kick in. But this is one of my favorite books to be discuss & debated. But the discourse of "what is Justice?" is so universal, it goes beyond academic philosophy I've seen in my college years.


message 13: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
So here's the plan. I've posted the schedule readings ( but you can still read in your own pace ):

Book I & II - Sept 1-6
Book III & IV - Sept 7-13
Book V & VI - Sept 14-20
Book VII & VIII - Sept 21-27
Book IX & X -Sept 28-30

Most translations has their own introductions and appendixes, feel free to share them as well. Just cite the writer and page and the edition in case we want to check it.


message 14: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Rose wrote: "Hi, Bill! How are you? My name is Rose, I am brazilian and I'll be reading with you this month... :)

I have a question... Are we going to have a reading schedule, so everybody is at the same part ..."


Hi Rose, here's the schedule reading dates..


message 15: by Rose (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Hey, Billy! Thank you very much! :)

I already started reading The Republic long time ago but didn't finish... I'll start all over again now... I'm reading in the portuguese version. I have the ebook in english but I hate reading on the computer... lol


message 16: by J (new) - rated it 4 stars

J Mike, while I too felt some of what you mention, I feel the repulsion less and less as our "democracy" seems more and more like a despotic oligarchy with only the illusion of being a gov. by and for the people. A true philosopher king, the one Plato imagines, would be much more appealing than the current state of affairs, in my opinion. I do not like the idea of censoring poets and such, but no writer is perfect, and it is especially hard to try to design a utopian government.


message 17: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Ok, I am new everyone. And I feel that I missed something about an invite for this book? I know, a newbie, But I decided to read this whole work again, for the first time on my nook. I am seeing how that affects my interpretation. If a moderator would send a new link, if that is needed, I will then answer and say YES, or whatever I have to do to get into the Book of the month group. Or just email me and tell me I am no philosopher king. lol


message 18: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Hi mike. Your welcome to join us. I apologized I've missed sending you an invite. Feel free to post your reflections. :-)


message 19: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Thanks Billy. I just want to be sure that I am not interfering with the any pre defined rules. Thanks


message 20: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Mike wrote: "Thanks Billy. I just want to be sure that I am not interfering with the any pre defined rules. Thanks"

Your welcome Mike. :-)


message 21: by Anthony (new) - added it

Anthony Schultz (anthonyrschultz) | 1 comments I mistakingly thought that I already had a copy of it floating around, but it turned out that I only had a selection of readings from "The Republic." However, I did finally pick-up the Benjamin Jowett translation via Amazon.

I heard that the Jowett translation is considered to be the most highly regard academic version-- Does anyone have any insight on whether this is true or not? Or, is it more of a preferential thing?


message 22: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark (hendersonhome) Is it possible to respond to a person's comments? I'm using GR on my iPad and it's not clear.


message 23: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Hi Mike! yes you can respond to a person's comment.


message 24: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Well after reading the first two books, I am reminded again of the genius of Plato and his undemocratic methods.

First in the opening discussion of dividing things into three categories and then reasoning which category Justice belongs.

Categories:

1. Things we find desirable in themselves
2. Things we find desirable in themselves; and for their consequences.
3. Things we find desirable only for their consequences.

Throughout the first part of Book II Plato has this dialogue between Thrasymacus and GLaucon on where this belongs.

First they argue that 1. is not entirely sufficient. and he uses the analogy of the man with the power of invisibility with the ring. Showing that while justice is desireable, it can lead to consequences that are unjust. It also falls apart because Socrates shows that as a moral argument it falls apart because Justice is suppose to be somethign one would choose regardless of consequences.

For argument three, one would argue that as long as the consequences are the goal. This can lead us to the question of is justice to be achieved by any means necessary?

Plato argues for the second category. And the rest of the book is to show how Justice is to be desirable both for itself and the consequences. The Happy city is a just city? And he will then go about constructing this.

It is important to note this because Plato in Book I has shown that the commonly held belief is that Justice is the advantage of the stronger.

Socrates says this is not the case. Justice is a "compromise" between The origin of Justice (359) and te essence of justice ; it stands between the best and the worst. The best being to do wrong without paying the penalty and the worst to be wronged without the power of revenge>" A mean between two extremes.

But then he begins on how to educate a city? First, I think it is best to remember that Plato is trying to theoretically construct an ideal state and by extension an ideal place for justice to flourish. But he begins by censorship? This bothers me and I would like to see what other things about this. I think we all have this issue. I am using the GRUBE translation.


message 25: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Thank you Mike! I was busy during the weekends so it took my time reflecting on the book. But as a reader I was surprise how Plato's work transcends it's time making it a timeless inquiry of the nature of justice. I have question and please help me with this--"Who was the audience that Plato sought to
influence with the republic?"


message 26: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
To: Billy: Who was the audience that Plato sought to influence with the republic?

You have asked the ultimate question. First we have to remember that Plato was writing at a time when Democracy was at its height in Athens. 508-323 BCE. Democracy was an experiment that was aided by Clestophenes. Forgive spelling. This is also a time when Greece is constantly at war between the two largest powers Athens and Sparta. Each power was fairly equally balanced out. In the end, Sparta actually won the war, but lost its soul in the process, for both Athens and Sparta destroyed each other. That is the lesson of Thusydides who wrote his Histories on the war. I am doing this from memory so I apologize if I make unforeseen errors.

So Greece and Athens from 479- into the early 300s is in a constant flux. Plato is living during this time of war. Mostly toward the end of he Peloponnesian Wars. He blames democracy, as we will see, for the causes of the wars, which were before his time, and he sees the affect of democracy through inadequate leadership upon his city.

A couple of other things. First what is a Tyrant, and Socrates.

In the modern world, Tyrant is a bad word. It means a leader who has usurped or obtained in some way legitimate or not, power. In Greece, a Tyrant was actually a man of the people. it was considered a possible good thing. The only problem was what do we do when the Tyrant dies? He will usually die through assassination or someone has killed him through vengeance. We can imagine all these things. When the next person, usually the son of the first, takes over he is not usually as effective as his father. Tyrannies seldom last beyond the 3rd generation. Plato is also addressing the problems of tyrants, though he does not see this as much a problem as he would see democracy.

Socrates. First, the only reason we know about Socrates is because of Plato. Socrates was his teacher. Another reason he hates Democracy--- Democracy killed his teacher an honorable man in his eyes. (latin translations use Isocrates sometimes) Socrates, I am told, never published or wrote anything? Now that may seem strange to us, but given the fact that education was usually the exclusive realm of the rich and powerful, this is not such a surprise.

So to answer the question Who is Plato addressing or attempting to influence. The Greeks. He wants the Greeks to set up an ideal state with qualified people to rule and to protect everyone else. For him that means the average person who does not have the talent or understanding of politics or power should trust and let the professionals do their job.


message 27: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
I spelled it wrong!!! I am sorry group the mans name was Cleisthenes. I do apologize. Here is a link that one can use to get more information. Though Wikipedia is not the best source, it has gotten better over the years and it has other sources were we can go to find accurate information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleisth...


message 28: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
That's okey Mike. Thank you for answering my question. Feel free to ask questions as well guys!


Kitap (kitab-reader) | 12 comments Brief thoughts on the first two Books (using Desmond Lee's translation):

* Funny to see that the argument put forward by Thrasymachus the Sophist is not much different from Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, or contemporary cynical "common sense" - that justice is what those in power says it is, and that the mere appearance of justice, particularly if built on a structure of injustice - gets you benefits.

* Plato's argument against Thrasymachus is pretty weak and relies on the uncritical acceptance of lots of vague assertions on Socrates' part. I was not impressed, even though I wanted to be (i.e., I want justice to be "better" than injustice)

* The just man gets crucified. Lots to unpack there, particularly as Socrates/Plato relates to Christian history and theology.

* Glad to see that Glaucon isn't entirely satisfied with Socrates' argument against Thrasymachus, since I am not entirely satisfied either.

* Interesting that the overall thrust, the development of a model of the ideal society, is a means of arguing that justice is superior to injustice. I have to regularly remind myself of that as I proceed through the remaining text, to see how Socrates/Plato reconnects those seemingly disparate themes.

* Note that it isn't simply censorship that Plato advocates, but a particular kind: removing the stories from the canon that indicate that confusion, mixed motivations, etc. are fundamental to reality (i.e., to the gods) as a way of inculcating the notion in people that clear thinking (i.e., philosophy) accurately reflects reality. Contemporary scholars of mythology often assert that myth is self-contradictory because it is an accurate reflection of reality, which is also self-contradictory and replete with apparent flaws; fascinating to see Plato zero-in on this at the beginning of his ideal society.

* Before Plato's ideal society is established, how does one impose the conditions necessary for the creation of the ideal society, since one is necessarily operating in the constraints of the non-ideal society? In other words, who raises the children in the "new faith"? It's the problem of all utopian visions, the question of how to get there from here.


message 30: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Jason. I would argue that Plato is presenting the simple definition of justice as that of might make right. But, the rest of the story is how Plato destroys that argument. Might is not enough. Remember, Plato is trying to prove that justice is not just the desire for consequence or desireable outcomes. It is a balancing act between the two


message 31: by Billy (new) - added it

Billy Candelaria (azriel) | 24 comments Mod
Mike wrote: "Jason. I would argue that Plato is presenting the simple definition of justice as that of might make right. But, the rest of the story is how Plato destroys that argument. Might is not enough. R..."

Harmonious relationship of the different facets of man. But in Plato's view Reason should rule. Don't you think it can have it's pro's and cons?


message 32: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Book III, for me, is a bit more intellectual. He is describing what kind of education that the Guardians must have. At the same time The beginning of Book IV, is where the meat of the matter begins

Where do we find justice? How do we know that our society/city is good? If it is good it will have 4 characteristics: Wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. in the end Justice means the harmonious result that results when everyone is actively engaged in fulfilling this role and does not interfere with others.

The rest of Book IV is explaining how we get there. But does anyone have the problem with the fact that the Guardians are an elite group, though they are not suppose to be rich? They have the "wisdom". Is this the same thing that we all reject from others? That being we don't like to be told what to do even if it is better or superior advice.


message 33: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Just updating. Acc to Book IV, the City and the individual must have these elements

1. Wisdom
2. Courage
3. Moderation
4. Justice

In order to get to justice, We divide up the city into three classes Guardians (who represent wisdom), Auxiliaries (Who represent Coursage), and The rest (Moderation)

Now, Plato goes through great pains to indicate how each class of individuals will be chosen. It sounds like a very good system. However, Does it escape anyone that Plato is not taking into account human nature. I mean the human nature that is present in all societies. Nepotism - we all want to help out families and friends get a job. But Plato, rightly so, says that this is not a good thing. However, it happens in real life. And if a child is born of Guardians and it does not have the capacity of understanding for the job, what parents will willingly let their children be "demoted"? It is a quandary.

Moderation appears to be the overarching theme in which we all are to balance society. However, how does one do that with all the various extremes in society? Such as those that will have great wealth and those that have great wisdom, but are not to be wealthy?


Justice for the individual is "something like this, It does not lie in a man's external actions, but in the way he acts within himself, really concerned with himself and his inner parts, He does not allow each part of himself to perform the work of another, or the sections of his soul to meddle with one another. 443 d, e, f.

At the end of Book IV: Plato begins to foreshadow what may be as a form of government. He appears to not make a preference so long as the leaders or Guardians are as he describe the government/city will be just. However, Does it not escape that government and city are a construct of nature, though a social construct.

He also assumes much in his great dialogue. One thing to keep in mind. The role of the Tyrant in Greek history. I hope I am not offending anyone, I tend to teach several subjects and I am not trying to be professorial.

The Tyrant: Is not the same as we think of in the modern sense. The Tyrant is a man of the people. Someone who would gain popular favor and work with others to take over government. A Tyrant is not a just person, for Plato, because the tyrant is working against his nature by disrupting his natural place in society. He is or believes that his sense of wisdom is best above all others. Hence, he may do well but after the tyrant dies, how is power transferred. Sometimes, and most likely, to the oldest son who has worked with his father. But, the son does not ave the same political connections that his father had. Hence, it may last for a while, but he will grow paranoid of plots and his rule will become much more controlling and less trusting. Ironically, Plato states that a kingship is acceptable though? Thoughts on this?


message 34: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
What does anyone think of the notion of the Principle of Specialization. This is introduced by Plato who has said that everyone in the city must do what they do best. Not what they want to do .

IF the good of others depends on my doing what I can vest do, and I neglect this just because, I don't fancy doing it then this is immature and selfish behavior?

What are anyone's thoughts on this. I find it a bit disturbing. I am good at one particular occupation, but I hate it. Should we not also have the potential to do what we want and thus in turn what is good for society? Plato does not think that this is a good thing? What do others think?


Kitap (kitab-reader) | 12 comments Though I do think people have innate capacities and things that they are naturally good at, I balk at the idea that everyone has one and only one thing that they are good at and at which they must work to the exclusion of everything else. While not everyone is cut out to be a Renaissance man, Plato gives the generalist short shrift in his drive to have a perfectly harmonious society.

I tend to agree with Robert Heinlein that specialization, especially the Platonic Principle of Specialization, is the purview of insects and not human beings:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.


I don't have a fundamental problem with Plato about having an aristocracy - as in "rule by the best" - in charge. (So long as I am included in that concept of "aristos," of course.) What I do have problems with is that Plato implicitly recognizes the imperfection of human nature (as Mike noted above), devises various ways of working around these tendencies (e.g., the Myth of the Metals, censorship of poetry for the Guardian classes, etc.), and realizes that compulsion must be used to ensure that this new society is appropriately established -- all without acknowledging that such compulsion would effectively establish an order behind the order (infinitely regressive) and do away with the aristocracy before it was even created (i.e., quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) His Republic is utopian in the worst sense of the term... and by the end of Book IV it has done little to flesh out the concept of "justice."


message 36: by Rose (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Mike wrote: "What does anyone think of the notion of the Principle of Specialization. This is introduced by Plato who has said that everyone in the city must do what they do best. Not what they want to do .

..."


Mike, do you think we can relate the phenomenon of an Invisible Hand, pointed by Adam Smith, to this specialization Plato talked about so long ago?


message 37: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
It has been awhile since i have looked at Smith. But I do think that what Plato is trying to do is set up a hierarchy whereby the just state works because everyone is doing what they do best. There is no room here for what people may "want" to do. This makes it a very unhappy life for the merchant who wants to be a farmer, as one example. He appears to believe that there is something natural in humans and their abilities. And he feels that it can be corrupted by a "bad" education.

I understand where Plato is coming from here. He lived during the declining years of Democracy in Athens. SPOILER ALERT: Plato has no love of Democracy, for people who are not working with their natural talents are dangerous. This can work both ways. But what he is saying is that the Guardians should not be challenged as such an that everyone has their place and this should not be challenged. The problem with idealistic notions is that they only work on paper. Human nature is, in my opinion, not really taken into account.


message 38: by Rose (last edited Sep 17, 2015 01:10PM) (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Mike wrote: "It has been awhile since i have looked at Smith. But I do think that what Plato is trying to do is set up a hierarchy whereby the just state works because everyone is doing what they do best. The..."

Mike, I found some researches about this topic (Smith X Plato). Although there are some similarities, they seem to expound the question of the division of labour in opposite ways.

Here is a quote from a study I found on the internet:

"Adam Smith's conception of the immanent regularities governing the division of labour is strikingly diverse. First of all, he has the opposite approach to Plato with regard to the relation between human nature and the division of labour. If we suppose that Smith adopted Plato's idea about the economic significance of the division of labour (an idea which is though common in all economists before Smith, for instance Petty, Quesnay, Turgot ...), we have also to accept that Smith turned upside-down Plato's conceptual structure, since he regards the 'natural talents' of different people to be 'not the cause, as the effect of the division of labour'. For him, the cause of the division of labour is man's 'disposition to truck, barter and exchange' "


message 39: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Rose: Much deeper that I can really get into.

I would say that Plato ideally finds that everyone is capable of some ideal task. Whatever it is, Philosopher King, Auxiliary, people who work for the market. Each is doing what they do best, not necessarily what they want to do. Remember Plato goes into great detail about ensuring that everyone serves the city through their talents. And to do a job that is contrary to one's talents is not good for the city or the individual.

As for Smith, I would say that you are correct that in the development of an industrial economy and a broader division of labor, the talents of people in a market atmosphere will show through much faster. At the same time, what happens when a talent becomes outdated? Plato's model and division of the city fits in his three part system. It allows for adaptation. I am not so sure about what Smith says. Neither have a good explanation for what happens when a person's talent becomes obsolete?


Kitap (kitab-reader) | 12 comments Mike wrote: "The problem with idealistic notions is that they only work on paper. Human nature is, in my opinion, not really taken into account."

I could not agree more, Mike. This is why the term utopia literally means "ain't no such place." Plato never explains how we get from the society in which we live to the society he envisions, other than through a vague compulsion; as well, he never quite explains whom will do that compelling. A temporary tyranny of the philosophers?


message 41: by Mike (last edited Sep 26, 2015 08:35PM) (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
Well we have gotten to the Cave. I think that this is a very timely allegory. The struggle for the man to obtain knowledge and to emerge from the cave and to go back and try to influence others that the reflections are not real. Is this not the road of many people who are the first to go to college and then go back home to only be marginalized? It is also a way to tie the allegory of the ship owner with the cave. Why in a democracy are we who have little knowledge of a subject reluctant to let others who do have knowledge have a respectable status? Why do we punish these people who have knowledge, and I don't just mean initials by their name, to do what they do best unencumbered by those who think they know better? It is often said, and I agree, that a wise man knows that he cannot know everything, but he/she has the ability to understand who to go to for that knowledge. What are other people's thoughts about this. We are so ready to follow demagogues who, clearly, do not have a grasp of knowledge, a form congresswoman from Minnesota comes to mind, when every fact is points to the contrary. Why are we so reluctant to dismiss facts that are so ironclad? Thoughts? If we want a better society do we follow Plato's plan? I have severe reservations about setting up a social structure he describes knowing that it could be just as corrupt as any system. Plato does not seem to be able to put in safeguards to prevent this problem. We have to trust his system and yet, we hesitate. Thoughts?


message 42: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 1 comments Hi. Could someone enlighten me, which Plato's teaching are we discussing here?
I'm new to this group. Is there a reason why there is only 1 topic posted?


message 43: by Rose (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Andreas wrote: "Hi. Could someone enlighten me, which Plato's teaching are we discussing here?
I'm new to this group. Is there a reason why there is only 1 topic posted?"


Andreas, we were reading The Republic. Now I think we are going to start The Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle.

:)


message 44: by Mike (new) - added it

Mike (glaucus) | 75 comments Mod
A new question to end all this. What does anyone think about Plato's ideal state? I think that it is "ideal" but it is definitely both a product of its time and revolutionary. I do think that Plato does not separate the person from the state. The state is merely an extension of the person. Hence, his state or city, I am using state and city interchangeably. is almost an organic growth. He discusses the different kinds of state in describing the flaws in Dictatorship, Timarchy, Oligarchy, and Democracy. Hence, Can we say definitively that Plato was no deocrat? he disliked Democracy and why can we say this? What problems do people see with the construction that Plato sets up?


Kitap (kitab-reader) | 12 comments A few questions to follow-up on Mike's.

Is Plato's ultimate goal to describe the ideal political system, as he saw it? Or is he describing the ideal individual psyche, the "inner" political system if you will, with the "philosopher" in charge of and harmonizing all the disparate elements and subsystems?

I'm concurrently reading Independent People , an Icelandic novel about human stubbornness and willfulness that is simultaneously very grim and very funny. That odd mix of tones makes me wonder to what extent is Plato being sincere in his depictions of the ideal state and to what extent is he being ironic and having fun with the reader? In other words, how much does he believe his own arguments (such as they are) and how much of what he says is said to provoke the reader, to challenge the reader, and make him or her think more deeply about all these questions?


Annice22 | 1 comments I'm nearly finished with the Republic. It's been a while since I've read a philosophy book so it took me a little while to get started.


message 47: by Rose (new) - added it

Rose Rocha dos Santos (roserocha) | 19 comments Mod
Annice22 wrote: "I'm nearly finished with the Republic. It's been a while since I've read a philosophy book so it took me a little while to get started."

Annice, we will love to know about your opinions! :)


back to top