Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Plato, Republic - Revisited
>
Republic Redux, Book 10
date
newest »
newest »
Whether or not we find parts, or all, of the Republic convincing, there is no question of its impact on subsequent philosophical and political thought. We can't in this week get into much depth into the writing of those who followed and responded in one way or another to the Republic, but can we identify some of the primary questions which Plato raised which are still both unresolved and of great importance to philosophical/moral thought to this day?
I am glad that you mentioned the fact that poets do often get to the essential truth, since that is how I feel about genuine poetry, poetry which has stood the test of time and still reaches out to readers today.Poets arrive at the truth in a different way than rational thinking; it might be called intuition, it might be called a creative action, but they do discover and reveal the the truth-- and beauty.
I'm still reading Book X, but I'll jump in on the poetry question. It seems to me that P/S is confusing artists with entertainers.An artist's job is to disrupt, to push us to look at things differently, to reject the commonplaces with which we're all so familiar. What P/S is describing is an entertainer (for example, a poet/dramatist/writer who writes what people like and enjoy experiencing for simple "pleasure").
P/S writes of the poet, "He must, apparently, be reproducing only what pleases the taste or wins the approval of the ignorant multitude" (10.601).
There's a place for this kind of writing (think "beach reads" and how sorry we might be not to have them!). But this is not the purview of the poet. At least, not as that role is seen in the 20th/21st-century. Even when talking about representational (mimetic) art as P/S is, the artist hopes for us to see the subject differently through the work of art than we might see it in "real life." Otherwise, there would be no point in making the art. Or, it would be called "documentation" instead.
P/S's relationship to poetry is complicated throughout the work. He quotes poets frequently but then disparages them later and ultimately calls for them to be mostly purged from the ideal State. But if we take his statements at face value, then especially here in Book X, he isn't making a distinction between poetry and entertainment. His problem with poetry is that it is multiple removes from ultimate reality. I believe he is arguing that we should each be seeking the source or the Good, not someone's interpretation of an interpretation. Having said that, we probably all agree to some extent with Kathy's assessment of the role of the poet in modern society and the distinction between art and entertainment, even though the line isn't always clear. But I don't think P/S would agree with us. Or even if he did he would say we're missing the essential element in his argument, which is that artists at best give us a reflection of a reflection of the Good and not the Good itself.
Everyman wrote: ". . .can we identify some of the primary questions which Plato raised which are still both unresolved and of great importance to philosophical/moral thought to this day?"Here is a quick and obviously incomplete list I came up with.
PHILOSOPHIC QUESTIONS
P1. What is justice?
P2. Is justice in the city doing one's own work and not meddling with what isn't one's own?
P3. Is justice in the individual where reason rules, spirit assists reason and protects, and the appetites desire and work toward acquiring only the necessary or beneficial?
P4. Is justice a universal (Form) or a relative term?
P5. Why should we prefer justice over injustice?
P6. Is injustice ever morally or objectively justified?
P7. Must concerns over the stability of the state trump individual freedom?
P8. What about those who prefer not to risk losing both freedom and safety by giving up one for the other?
P9. How well does the divided line reflect reality?
P10. How well does the analogy of the cave reflect reality?
P11. What is "The Good"?
P12. Is the soul immortal?
P13. Is there an afterlife?
P14. Will philosophic appreciation of wisdom and justice aid us in our choices in an afterlife?
P15. Are individuals pursuit of happiness and rightful liberty more than a stable state can bear?
STATE CONTROL QUESTIONS
SC1. What is the role of education in politics?
SC2. What is the role of the state in education?
SC3. Is censorship of music, arts, and literature ever justifiable?
SC4. What sort of person should rule the state?
SC5. Should the rulers be philosophers?
SC6. Is it ever permissible for a ruler to lie to the citizens?
SC7. Should citizens be allowed full freedom when it comes to sexual relationships and private property?
SC8. Should a class system be used?
SC9. Should principles of specialization be implemented and enforced? (each occupation in the city should be practiced by a person who has a natural aptitude for it; and specializes in it, to the exclusion of competing occupations)
LEGAL QUESTIONS
L1. Are all citizens equal before the law?
L2. Who qualifies as a citizen?
L3. Should women have the same and equal rights as men?
L4. Should women have the same and equal opportunities as men?
HEALTHCARE QUESTIONS
H1. Should everyone have equal access to health care?
H2. Should medical resources be expended to extend the life of an individual past their wishes or the limits of dignity?
H3. Should medical resources be expended to treat illnesses caused by poor lifestyle choices?
H4. Should medical resources be expended to treat those afflicted with terminal disease?
H5. What about the practice of exposure, or in today's terms, abortion?
POLITICAL QUESTIONS
POL1. Is the type of a regime determined by dominant psychological attributes, tripartite or otherwise, of the people that rule it?
POL2. Is there a single ideal form, or Form of political regime?
POL3. Do regimes degrade and cycle through in order, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny?
POL4. Are the degraded political regimes the result of breeding mistakes among the ruling class?
POL5. Is a democracy, like the U.S., "ruled" by unnecessary appetites?
POL6. Is the degradation of a democracy, like the U.S., into a tyranny inevitable, or can it be prevented, and how?
Should the state try to improve the moral qualities of the citizens, or just take them as they are?
Kathy wrote: "An artist's job is to disrupt, to push us to look at things differently, to reject the commonplaces with which we're all so familiar. What P/S is describing is an entertainer (for example, a poet/dramatist/writer who writes what people like and enjoy experiencing for simple "pleasure")."Socrates seems unfair to poetry, and perhaps hypocritical as well. When Socrates creates a "city in speech," is that not poetry? Why does he use metaphorical images, or even outright myths, as didactic tools if poetry is nothing but imitation or playing in the shallows? And isn't Plato's dialogue itself a work of art?
I think he knows that poetry is not only useful but necessary. The philosopher king cannot persuade the cave people to throw off their chains without the use of rhetoric and a noble lie is needed to explain the innate inequality of the races in the city. Music is an integral part of the guardians' education. So maybe it isn't poetry itself that is the problem, but how it is used. Poetry is sanctioned if used for the greater Good by someone who knows what that Good is. Poetry for entertainment purposes, or as emotional expression, would therefore not be permitted.
Or maybe the argument against poetry is simply Socrates' opinion and not Plato's. Plato was the poet, the "maker", in the literal sense, and maybe he was trying to smooth over Socrates' dogmatism on this point. But then I wonder, if this was his intention, why does he dwell on the topic...
Jeremy wrote: "But I don't think P/S would agree with us. Or even if he did he would say we're missing the essential element in his argument, which is that artists at best give us a reflection of a reflection of the Good and not the Good itself."Agreed. So, for me that begs the question: could we talk about poetry in the same way we talk about a bed? P/S apparently sees the poem as a mere representation of something else. But what if we were to think of a poem as a thing that's created rather than a thing created to give the appearance of something else?
Thomas wrote: "Or maybe the argument against poetry is simply Socrates' opinion and not Plato's. Plato was the poet, the "maker", in the literal sense, and maybe he was trying to smooth over Socrates' dogmatism on this point. But then I wonder, if this was his intention, why does he dwell on the topic..."He was being defensive? Notes in my edition state: "Possibly the strictures on dramatic poetry in Chapter IX had become known and provoked criticism to which Plato wished to reply." Is he somehow trying to defend himself from criticism about his own poetry?
Would S/P delineate and justify their work as dialogue that searches for the truth (Form) that is already out there to be discovered vs. muse-ic that creates or makes up mere images that distort or misrepresent the truth?ETA - Much the same way we classify Republic an expository work of philosophy and not one of imaginative literature.
Maybe the restrictions on poetry are a myth, like the story of Er is a myth. We're not supposed to take it as the literal truth, but to entertain the idea that something like it might be, or ought to be, true. So what would that mean? That we should be careful of what we read and listen to?
It seems S/P uses qualities of enlightenment, improvement, and education as criteria in discriminating between philosophy and muse-ic:[600c]. . .“but do you suppose, Glaucon, that, if Homer had really been able to educate men and make them better and had possessed not the art of imitation but real knowledge, he would not have acquired many companions and been honored and loved by them?. . .Most would agree with this as demonstrated in our tendency to value artistic expressions that are also educational or otherwise enlighten us over artistic expressions that do not.
600d] . . .Homer's contemporaries, if he had been able to help men to achieve excellence, would have suffered him or Hesiod to roam about rhapsodizing. . .
I think S/P may also be lamenting a little bit that just teaching the truth both with or without embellishment are increasingly underappreciated tasks.
This page on Plato's attitude toward poetry discusses a few interesting insights.Griswold, Charles L., Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/plato-rhetoric/
David wrote: "Would S/P delineate and justify their work as dialogue that searches for the truth (Form) that is already out there to be discovered vs. muse-ic that creates or makes up mere images that distort or..."I'm wondering about that as well. The fact that he ends with a myth is even more ironic (if that's the right word for it). Is there some kind of distinction to be made between representational poetry/art and the allegorical? In other words, is it a problem when one gives the "appearance" of a thing in one's art, but not when one gives an allegory which is clearly not intended to be representational but rather a kind of cautionary tale about the fate of the soul, as in the Myth of Er?
Except it seems if that were the case, he might not be so hard on Homer, either.
Kathy wrote: "An artist's job is to disrupt, to push us to look at things differently, to reject the commonplaces with which we're all so familiar. ...But this [simple entertainment] is not the purview of the poet. At least, not as that role is seen in the 20th/21st-century."If, as has been suggested, Plato himself was a poet in the broader sense, he certainly was more disrupter than entertainer. And of course the tragedians were far more than entertainers. They were that, of course, but their work was part of a religious festival and certainly had a serious aspect to it.
So I think Plato would have been aware of the broader view of poetry you propose.
Kathy wrote: " Is there some kind of distinction to be made between representational poetry/art and the allegorical? "Yes, that is what I was suggesting in message 13. Art for education vs. art for entertainment. I think S/P would classify the Myth of Er as educational.
David wrote: "Everyman wrote: ". . .can we identify some of the primary questions which Plato raised which are still both unresolved and of great importance to philosophical/moral thought to this day?"Here is ..."
That's quite a list. And an excellent one. Issues that are as pertinent today (in some cases maybe more so) than they were in Plato's time. And I don't think there is any of them that the world at large today agrees on. A few, perhaps, some societies have fair agreement on (some countries at least ostensibly claim to support equal rights for men and women, but far from all), but in general, we are still looking for answers to all those questions.
Nicely done.
Thomas wrote: "I think he knows that poetry is not only useful but necessary. ."May I suggest that he is differentiating between the real and the ideal? His city is an ideal which he is fully aware will never even remotely be fulfilled. In the ideal, perhaps, poetry should indeed be prohibited because in the ideal state we should all be seeking to live justly, which means seeking to live as closely as we can to the Forms, and poetry comes between us and the Forms.
In the imperfect cities in which we actually live, poetry is necessary because we are still in the cave, and we need poetry as a carrier between the pure sun and what our eyes can handle. Poetry is a way of understanding the shadows on the wall, perhaps.
But once we are out in the full sunlight, we leave poetry behind for pure reality.
This, at least, is one way I try to reconcile his opposition to poetry in his ideal city with his embrace of it in his discussions here in the non-ideal real world with his non-pure-philosopher dialectants.
It's not clear to me that things that are closer to the true ideal form are to be preferred. For instance, when I'm hungry, I want real food, not the ideal form of food. On the other hand, I don't want a picture of food either.
I'm a nominalist, but it is funny for me to think that if you don't have some Forms of food in mind when you are hungry, you won't know what sorts of particulars to look for. You might end up like Euell Gibbons and eat rocks, pine trees, or Grape-nuts by mistake. :)
Kathy wrote: "An artist's job is to disrupt, to push us to look at things differently, to reject the commonplaces with which we're all so familiar"This seems to me more of a modernist connotation, the artist's goal being a form of activism. What about art for the sake of beauty? I am thinking here the haunting beauty of Michelangelo's Pieta, the breathtaking beauty of a Bierstadt landscape, the playful and exuberant beauty of baroque architecture, etc., not to mention the classical beauty of ancient Greek art. Back in Book III (403c) art is referred to in the following way:
For a discussion of the arts must end in the love of the beautiful (Grube translation)In the presence of beauty one will always find virtue, justice, and happiness. In the absence of beauty one will find vice, injustice, and misery. Isn't this what Plato is after by creating the perfect city?
Beauty seems to be overlooked in Plato's city. To me, beautiful works of art and of nature are inspiring, uplifting and important.
Rosemarie wrote: "Beauty seems to be overlooked in Plato's city. To me, beautiful works of art and of nature are inspiring, uplifting and important."I agree, he doesn't spend much time on the subject. I would have liked for him to elaborate on it much more and how it connects everything that is good.
David wrote: "I'm a nominalist, but it is funny for me to think that if you don't have some Forms of food in mind when you are hungry, you won't know what sorts of particulars to look for. You might end up like ..."Animals do well enough looking for food when they are hungry, and I doubt they worry about Forms.
Kerstin wrote: "In the presence of beauty you will always find virtue, justice, and happiness. In the absence of beauty you will find vice, injustice, and misery. Isn't this what Plato is after by creating the perfect city? "I was not left with the impression that beauty and happiness were stated goals in building a just city; they were more like byproducts benefiting the city in an overall sense but not individual citizens. S/P's city was about achieving a hierarchy of virtues; specifically wisdom, courage, and temperance, that resulted in overall state of justice framed in a strictly controlled class system manifested in the principle of specialization.
Often one will find other combinations in art. What about repulsive beauty, cruelty and eternal suffering and misery?
Peter Paul Rubens The Fall of the Damned ca. 1620
I can convince myself of the beauty in it as a masterfully executed painting. Of course there are the arguments suggesting divine justice, but it would take quite the apology to objectively accept there is any virtue, justice, or happiness depicted in the scene. However, as far as consequences in the afterlife of living an unjust life, it seems to be on par with Socrates' Myth of Er. It is a good thing we read Repuiblic so it shall be well with us.
+1 for mentioning Bierstadt - My fav!
Everyman wrote: "May I suggest that he is differentiating between the real and the ideal? His city is an ideal which he is fully aware will never even remotely be fulfilled. In the ideal, perhaps, poetry should indeed be prohibited because in the ideal state we should all be seeking to live justly, which means seeking to live as closely as we can to the Forms, and poetry comes between us and the Forms. "
There might be another way to look at it. Before Socrates tells the Myth of Er, he asks Glaucon if he "will return to me what you borrowed in the argument." (612c) This "borrowing" occurred in Book 2, around 367, where Glaucon asks Socrates to "take away the appearances" and show justice as justice by itself, the Form of justice, in other words. Now that the hard work is over, and justice by itself has been shown to be best for the soul by itself, the appearance and reputation of justice can be restored with a myth.
Maybe poetry is a kind of dessert, an unnecessary luxury, but one that may be enjoyed once the priority of reason and the Forms are established.
(I also have to wonder if Glaucon returning what he borrowed is a deliberate echo of Cephalus' definition of justice at the beginning of the dialogue. And just as Cephalus leaves the discussion to attend to some religious ceremonies, Socrates ends the discussion with a story about the gods. Maybe the literary structure of the dialogue is an another luxury we can enjoy, once we have wrestled with the dialectic.)
Kerstin wrote: "This seems to me more of a modernist connotation, the artist's goal being a form of activism. What about art for the sake of beauty?
Plato treats beauty as a rational Idea rather than something that occurs in the natural world. The best city (the aristocracy ruled by the Philosopher King) is also called the "beautiful city," not because it is beautiful to look at but because it is good. Beauty in art or nature seems to be something that Plato enjoys almost subversively. The dialogues are first and foremost rational works, but they are also literary gems, or -- dare I say it -- works of art. Plato must have known this. I wonder if he ever admitted it?
Socrates clearly seems fascinated by the well-organized state-oriented totalitarian system in Sparta. I wonder if he ever discussed its effects with the great philosophers from that city.
Commenting on the Myth of Er at the very end Socrates says:[621c]. . .But if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil. . .Is Socrates trying to found and lead his own religion when he says, "guided by me"? Reading around the levity in a tongue-in-cheek article on Huffpost on how to start a religion, Socrates arguably meets most of the requirements. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danweis...
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...
1. It’s all about sex: Keep your followers obsessed with sex. First, make sex taboo. . . ~ Would the guardian's strict control over reproduction, as well as holding wives in common meet this requirement?
2. Go old school:. . .people have an awful lot of respect for generations of yore. . . ~ Does altering the celebrated poets and to what he believes are the rational roots of the nature of God and gods meet this requirement?
5. Cheat death: Let’s face it, no one is thrilled about the prospect of dying, particularly if it is going to be a permanent condition. . . ~ Does Socrates' censorship goal of preventing the fear of death, as well as his assurance that all will be well in this life and after, and that rewards will be collected in the afterlife qualify for this requirement?
7. Make up a little history - Unfortunately, new religions, by their very nature, do not possess a long legacy. It’s going to take some creativity on your part to invent one. . . ~ Again, would censoring and rewriting parts of the epic poems with the truth as he sees it accomplish this?
8. Forgive but don’t let them forget: With enough rules in place, we are all bound to sin. It is important to walk a fine line between having your adherents simultaneously feeling guilty for their misdeeds and feeling gratitude for absolution. . . ~ Is Socrates' use of dialectic the Ancient Greek equivalent to an E-meter (see Scientology); breaking down previously held convictions leading to a new enlightenment? Socrates admits this can be hard on a person psychologically and suggests age restrictions for dialectic.
9. Find some enemies:. . . ~ Evidently Socrates' made enemies and they found him.
10. God:. . . ~ Clearly Socrates had his own Ideas on the nature of God, the gods, and the Good.
I would not be surprised to have read an Amen! from Glaucon at the very end. I wonder if there is more to the charge of impiety against Socrates than we have been lead to accept?
David wrote: "Commenting on the Myth of Er at the very end Socrates says:[621c]. . .But if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil. ...."
Interesting, but I'm not at all sure that Socrates is guiding anyone anywhere. A prophet who says he knows nothing isn't going to inspire much confidence in his followers. It would be like letting Yogi Berra drive the bus: "We're lost, but we're making good time."
Christian and Muslim theologians would come along later and use some of Plato's ideas (or maybe just Plato's "Idea") to rationalize their theologies, but I can see Socrates making quick work of any dogmatic system. Maybe that's why Plato founded an Academy rather than a church... not that Socrates would have approved of that either, had he been alive.
And speaking of Plato's followers, isn't it strange that no one in the myth of Er chooses the life of a philosopher?
Roger wrote: "Socrates clearly seems fascinated by the well-organized state-oriented totalitarian system in Sparta. I wonder if he ever discussed its effects with the great philosophers from that city."The great philosophers of Sparta! Are you suggesting that Socrates is employing a bit of irony, perhaps?
Thomas wrote: "A prophet who says he knows nothing isn't going to inspire much confidence in his followers."After reading Plato's Republic I am convinced that Socrates' claim of knowing nothing is just facade that could be called another useful lie. This facade is useful in rhetoric as a tool in anatreptic dialogue and It projected a humble attitude that served as both a disarming persona and protective cover. In this last aspect, I am reminded a bit of Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heros who consistently exclaimed, "I see nothing! I know - nothing" as a way of avoiding trouble whenever he did see and know more than his nervous sense of self-preservation could bear.
Many positive claims are made with justifications however sound or unsound, which is not a characteristic of many of Plato's other books that Socrates steers into an ending state of aporia. S/P spells out very clearly what he thinks justice is and why it is preferred over injustice. He makes very bold claims about the nature of God and the gods. He makes claims in his descriptions of the tripartite city, the tripartite psuche, how they should be structured and why. There are positive claims made concerning the divided line, Forms, math, physical objects, and images and the relationships between them. The closest he comes to a state of aporia in Republic is after the anatreptic dialogue with Thrasymachus and when he refuses to define the Good, and instead gives us the example of the sun as a child of the good, but even here he claims to know for himself what the Good is.
Specifically concerning the Myth of Er, it is the modern reader that make references to the story as a myth. S/P seems to treat this tale as actual belief by not referring to it as a myth, parable or allegory. The notes attached to this point in the Tufts/Shorey translation at Plat. Rep. 10.614b, indicate: The Epicurean Colotes highly disapproved of Plato's method of putting his beliefs in this form.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...
Therefore the final argument in Republic is not a speculative "myth"; it is a positive knowledge claim about the afterlife and its consequences. If other translations lead to a different classification of this story I would like to learn of them.
ETA: I could not resist letting my spirited side assist.
Thomas wrote: "Roger wrote: "Socrates clearly seems fascinated by the well-organized state-oriented totalitarian system in Sparta. I wonder if he ever discussed its effects with the great philosophers from that c..."I was certainly employing a bit of irony. If Socrates is, all I can say is that it's extraordinarily subtle.
David wrote: "Thomas wrote: "A prophet who says he knows nothing isn't going to inspire much confidence in his followers."After reading Plato's Republic I am convinced that Socrates' claim of knowing nothing i..."
I have hard time taking the Republic in a "positive" manner when Socrates acknowledges that the city is only a "paradigm." The problem is essentially the same one that faces all forms of idealism: the practice cannot live up to the theory, and the example provided here is the classic one (so to speak.) The Beautiful City is one in which absolutely no one would want to live. I also don't think that Socrates can adequately define justice without defining the Good, and this is impossible. I think you're right that the Republic is not aporetic in the way the early dialogues are, but I think the results of the Philosopher King's rule are evidence enough that the final definition of justice is at best insufficient.
Therefore the final argument in Republic is not a speculative "myth"; it is a positive knowledge claim about the afterlife and its consequences.
He calls it a myth (muthos), and it certainly appears to be one. He doesn't mention this myth anywhere else in the dialogues... if he thought it was positive knowledge, I would expect it would turn up somewhere. I think it probably serves a different purpose here.
Thomas wrote: "I have hard time taking the Republic in a "positive" manner when Socrates acknowledges that the city is only a "paradigm." The problem is essentially the same one that faces all forms of idealism: the practice cannot live up to the theory,..."Will be interesting to keep this problem in mind as we read the Blithedale Romance.
Thomas wrote: The problem is essentially the same one that faces all forms of idealism: the practice cannot live up to the theory, and the example provided here is the classic one (so to speak.)"This does not seem to be a problem for other, more successful prophets. In fact, it seems to be another requirement. :)
Despite his protestations, Socrates does seem to know some things--mainly why some explanations don't work. But I will take him seriously when he says he's not certain what will work. He seems to have made some working hypotheses, explanations he has not yet found a reason to reject. He will live by them until he finds something better. Sort of a philosophical scientific method.
P/S returns to his attack from Books 2 and 3 on poetry, now including storytelling. But here he is even more hostile to poetry. He offers two justifications. First, poetry is even more removed from the Truth of the Forms. The Forms are Truth. The human construct based on them is one step removed from that Truth. But a poem or painting based on the construct (a poem or drawing about a house) is two steps removed from Truth. It takes us further away from Truth. (An assertion that many poets would say is the exact opposite. Worth discussing!!)
Second, the poets appeal to the irrational, not the rational, part of the human soul. The philosopher should be concerned only with rational thought.
And then we get the Myth of Er (isn't this a story/poem?), bringing us back full circle to the issue of life after death which is what Cephalus was concerned with at the start of the dialogue.
In the end, Socrates claims that he has demonstrated that the just life is the superior life to live in this world. Are you satisfied that he has proved his point?