ARCHIVE - PLATO'S REPUBLIC - No Spoilers, Please - MAIN DISCUSSION

[Pamela]

I like your point about Pericles. Looking at Thucydides' praise of him and the Athenian Democracy, it certainly seems as if he were close to the idea of a philosopher-king. I'm not sure that Plato would have thought so, but he did have prejudices both of democracy and of Athens. Even Thucydides at one point says that the democracy of Athens was actually ruled by Pericles. I guess the real lesson to be learned from all of them is that there is no perfect system of government and all have baser aspects that need to be guarded against. So benevolent dictator or philosopher-king? Maybe they go hand in hand.

[Jeffrey]

Reply to Pamela, Questions for Book 8, 2.

(view spoiler)[
I think it is well to consider Jefferson's comments about democracy in conjunction with Socrates' views. Jefferson maintained a properly functioning democracy required a well informed and educated electorate. In Socrates's day there wasn't any mass media to disseminate information, Basically the people were dependent primarily upon word of mouth. In Athens of the day most education was craft training. There were no public schools to provide a basic level of general education to all citizens.

Then there were the private tutors, the sophists, who were not teaching logic or ethics but were mainly teaching speakers how to manipulate public opinion.

Since the ideal city was focused on finding people with the right character and capacity to lead and desired to teach only them the art of philosophy or statesmanship, it doesn't appear that democracy was well suited for the city in speech.

(hide spoiler)]

[Pamela]

Jeffrey wrote: "Reply to Pamela, Questions for Book 8, 2.


I think it is well to consider Jefferson's comments about democracy in conjunction with Socrates' views. Jefferson maintained a properly functioning demo..."



(view spoiler)[I think you're right that Socrates views were similiar to Jefferson's ideas about an educated electorate since his argument was for a highly educated system of guardianship. Socrates/Plato was interested in the moral development of men as leaders and hoped that the good government would naturally follow. Plato was a fan of the City-state of Sparta. I guess the final argument is whether or not you believe that men are capable of governing themselves even if they are not educated. In both Athens and Jefferson's America they were imperfectly educated and still managed to use democracy well (America being actually a Republic). (hide spoiler)]

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Very interesting comments, Jeffrey and Pamela. Thanks.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Everyone, next week we will be talking about Book Nine and Book Ten. Week Five - June 13th - June 19th.

Book Nine: On Wrong or Right Government, and the Pleasures of Each - 571a-592b, pages 436-465
and Book Ten: The Recompense of Life – 595a-621d, pages 465-501

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

General comment on philosophers.

(view spoiler)[
It occurs to me that in order to become a philosopher, you have to be pretty well off. Someone making shoes probably doesn't have the time to contemplate the nature of reality.

Very little, if anything, was said about the economic structure of the perfect city. The lowest class, the craftsmen/makers, are the only ones who produce anything, hence the only source for the money which would support the guardians and soldiers. Presumably there would be some sort of taxation scheme.
(hide spoiler)]

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Everyone, for the week of June 13th - June 19th, we are reading Book Nine and Book Ten of Plato's The Republic.

My edition - by Plato translated by W.H.D. Rouse

The fifth week’s reading assignment is:

Week Five - June 13th - June 19th
Book Nine: On Wrong or Right Government, and the Pleasures of Each - 571a-592b, pages 436-465
and Book Ten: The Recompense of Life – 595a-621d, pages 465-501

Chapter Overview(s) and Summary

Book Nine - On Wrong or Right Government, and the Pleasures of Each
(view spoiler)[
Socrates describes the tyrannical man, who is ruled by lawless desires, such as wanting to sleep with his mother, or to murder someone. These desires come upon us during sleep, but the tyrannical man lets them govern his waking behavior. His father was a democratic man, who is not lawless but does indulge in desires. The son is led astray by bad companions and can’t escape his life devoted to lust. He is terribly unhappy because he can never totally satisfy his desire, becomes impoverished and commits crimes. The tyrant is the most unjust and the most unhappy man.

Socrates says there are three sorts of people: truth-loving, honor-loving, and profit-loving. These correspond to the three parts of the soul: reason, the spirited element, and desire. The profit-loving man is only interested in satisfying his desires and needs money to do so. The honor-loving man has had experience with money and what it can buy, but gets more pleasure from his success and reputation. Only the philosopher has had a taste of both of these ways of life, but has concluded that reason provides the best and most long-lasting pleasure. The just man has the pleasure of knowledge, which is the only real pleasure, because other pleasures are only the absence of pain.
(hide spoiler)]

Book Ten - The Recompense of Life
(view spoiler)[
Socrates has finished his description of a just society and a just man. He now goes back to his complaint about poets, and banishes them from his city. Poets and dramatists produce word-pictures which seem to show us reality, but they are at least two removes from reality, as a picture of a bridle is two removes from the actual thing. Poets can corrupt even the best people, by inducing sympathy with characters who grieve excessively or who perform the grossest sort of humor.

He next describes what happens to the soul after death. There’s a place with two tubes going up and two going down. Good souls go up one tube to be rewarded for 1000 years and when they’re ready to be reborn, come down feeling really good. Bad ones go down to be punished for 1000 years and come up all dirty. Both types can then pick the type of life they want next, and can even decide to become an animal. Only the philosophic soul picks his next life correctly.
(hide spoiler)]

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Questions for Week 5

Book 9
(view spoiler)[
1. This description of the tyrant doesn’t seem to align with what we know of modern tyrants like Hitler and Stalin, or perhaps even tyrants from ancient Greece. How would a man Socrates describes even gain control of a city-state?

2. Socrates seems to be saying that honor-loving and profit-loving men aren’t really happy, but is that really true? Granted that you can go too far in each of these endeavors, but it seems that you can still be a good person and behave honorably.

(hide spoiler)]

Book 10
(view spoiler)[
1. Is poetry/drama really that bad? Even if it shows people behaving badly, they are usually shown the errors of their ways during the play.

2. This idea of reincarnation seems a bit random. Why would Orpheus want to be a swan?

(hide spoiler)]

[Christopher]

Vicki wrote: "
Questions for Week 4


Book 7

1. What do you think of the allegory of the cave? Does thinking of reality in this way help us live better lives?

2. Once the philosopher has made it out of the ..."

Sorry for the late response. I just finished reading the last bit of The Republic and now I have some time to respond to the last questions about this classic philosophy text. So, without further ado, here are my responses to the questions for books VII and VIII.

Book VII
(view spoiler)[
1. What do you think of the allegory of the cave? Does thinking of reality in this way help us live better lives?

I'm not sure that it is the best way to look at reality. Rather, I think it could be used as an elitist response to different points of view. "Oh you think like that? Well, that's because you're being deceived. I know the truth and, thus, my point of view is better than yours." For example, after seeing Sen. Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally recently and texting some pictures to my family, my dad, who is a conservative, sent me a copy of Plunder and Deceit by Mark R. Levin. Though I haven't to read it yet, from the book description and the title, the main premise seems to be that people are being deceived and allowing a massive federal government to erode their rights (I'm sorry if I have oversimplified or misrepresented the argument to anyone who has read this book. I plan to read through this next week). But the key problem I already have with this argument is that people are being deceived. What makes the author think that people are being deceived? Might they not just have a different view about where the limits of the government should be placed? What makes the author think that he has a better grasp on the truth than those who disagree with him? This is also true of liberal authors as well. Thus, the simile of the cave can be an excuse for people to say that others who do not think like them are deluded and, thus, must be saved from their wrong thinking.

2. Once the philosopher has made it out of the cave into the sunlight, doesn’t it seem cruel to make him go back down and struggle to free the others from the cave?

Here is where I am going to contradict myself from my previous answer. Let's assume for a minute that a person DOES have a better grasp on reality and that person sees others suffering from their wrong views on reality. Why not try to save them from such a fate? Indeed, according to my Christian beliefs, once someone has been saved by Jesus Christ, the believer is commanded to share the Gospel with those who do not believe. To a certain degree, this is true of other religions as well. I think the question for our modern world is, with so many different religions and ideologies claiming to have a grasp on the truth, what is the appropriate way to go back into the cave and save people? Is it through competition in the marketplace of ideas as the Modern West claims? Or can one use pressure or even torture to convert people to their way of thinking as Christians during the Reformation believed was appropriate or radical Islamists in groups like al Qaeda or ISIS practice in the Middle East today?

3. Since I got my BA is math, I was pleased to see Socrates’ emphasis on math in his course of education for future guardians. But don’t people need to also study literature and history?

I would agree with you that literature and history do have a place in the education of people as they can be representations of the Good that Plato has been writing about, even when a fictional or historical character does something wrong. If interpreted correctly, can't literature and history also be representations of the Good too? Thus, I am quite baffled by Plato's denigration of the arts in general. It seems elitist in the extreme to me.
(hide spoiler)]

Book VIII
(view spoiler)[
1. Socrates says that the ideal state, aristocracy, degenerates first into timocracy and then into oligarchy. I don’t see much difference, do you?

The difference is subtle, but there is a difference in Plato's thinking. A true aristocracy is based on the skills of the aristocratic class, not its wealth. Timarchy, which Plato based on Sparta's constitution, is still an aristocracy, but it gives specific roles to those in the aristocratic classes regardless of whether a person is fitted for that role. And oligarchy is an aristocracy based purely on wealth. This is what I understand from the text, but please correct me if I am wrong.

2. Socrates seems to have a really bad view of democracy. Is that how it really was in Athens at the time?

In fairness to Plato, the democracy of Athens did kill his mentor, Socrates. And it did so without really understanding what his teachings were about. Not to mention that the democracy of Athens, without the leadership of Pericles, made the disastrous decision to invade Sicily during the Peloponnesian War, something that would've been fresh in Plato's mind as much as the execution of Socrates. Also, because democracy involved everyone taking part in debates on policy, it's hard not to imagine how chaotic this could become. It's best to keep these faults in ancient democracies like Athens in mind before applying them to our modern democratic-republican systems of government today.
(hide spoiler)]
by Mark R. Levin

[Christopher]

Vicki wrote: "
Questions for Week 5


Book 9

1. This description of the tyrant doesn’t seem to align with what we know of modern tyrants like Hitler and Stalin, or perhaps even tyrants from ancient Greece. Ho..."

Here are my last responses to this discussion on The Republic. It's been great to take part in this discussion and re-read this seminal book on philosophy, now with a little more wisdom, understanding and discernment under my belt. I hope this has been enjoyable for everyone else as well. So, without further ado, here are my responses to the questions for books IX and X.

Book IX
(view spoiler)[
1. This description of the tyrant doesn’t seem to align with what we know of modern tyrants like Hitler and Stalin, or perhaps even tyrants from ancient Greece. How would a man Socrates describes even gain control of a city-state?

I disagree. I think, in the main parts, Plato has the description of a tyrant quite right. He has a lawless character and burns through the resources of his state quite ruthlessly. And while it is not completely true that a tyrant doesn't have any friends, it is true that those "friends" aren't necessarily friends like we have. They are more like partners in crime who assist the tyrant in getting to the top or staying on top and once their usefulness has run its course, the tyrant crushes them. Thus, tyrant gains power by being a false friend to those who would put him in power and then disposes them once those "friends" are no longer needed or hurt the tyrant's chances of staying in power.

2. Socrates seems to be saying that honor-loving and profit-loving men aren’t really happy, but is that really true? Granted that you can go too far in each of these endeavors, but it seems that you can still be a good person and behave honorably.

I would think that is true. For those consumed by a need to gain more, whether it is wealth or power or fame, there will never have enough of those things to satisfy them. In that sense, it is like an addiction and in order for people like these to get their fix they must acquire more of it. That is not to say that there are not people who have attained great wealth, power, and/or fame and still been happy people. But I think people who have remained happy after attaining these things have always preserved their humility to a great extent. Think of Abraham Lincoln who acquired the greatest amount of power any president had up to that time, yet always listened to the advice of his peers and always used self-deprecating humor to deflect criticism. Or think about Andrew Carnegie, one of the wealthiest men in America at the end of the 19th century, who donated huge amounts of his fortune to charities, public libraries, museums, etc. The key to keeping your head on straight once you attain greatness in some form or fashion, is to cling your own humility.
(hide spoiler)]

Book X
(view spoiler)[
1. Is poetry/drama really that bad? Even if it shows people behaving badly, they are usually shown the errors of their ways during the play.

I think Plato is way off the mark here. Poetry, drama, and art in general, can be used as representations of the good even when characters a doing bad things. What it takes is some training in morality and interpretation in order to judge the good from the bad. For example, we can still hold up Odysseus from The Odyssey as an example of a hero while still recognizing his character flaws. We do the same thing all the time in our lives with people we read about or even interact with. So, why not in art as well?

2. This idea of reincarnation seems a bit random. Why would Orpheus want to be a swan?

I must confess that this part completely went over my head and I have had to cheat by looking at the Sparknotes for this question. The idea of reincarnation should probably not be taken literally as a belief that ancient Greeks held (please correct me if I am wrong). Rather, it should be taken allegorically to show the value of wisdom and a life dedicated to philosophy. Orpheus, one of the wisest men in Greek mythology, sees that being reincarnated would open him up to all the pains and sorrows of life once again, so he chooses the life of a beautiful swan to live a new life of peace. Odysseus seems to make a similar choice by choosing to be an average man rather than a great one. Thus, I think Plato is making one final point to say that wisdom and the life of a philosopher can help us know what kind of life is the best kind. Is it unsurprising that that life to Plato is the life of a philosopher?
(hide spoiler)]

[Pamela]

Vicki wrote: "
Questions for Week 5

Answers for Book 9
(view spoiler)[
1. This description of the tyrant doesn’t seem to align with what we know of modern tyrants like Hitler and Stalin, or perhaps even tyrants from ancient Greece. How would a man Socrates describes even gain control of a city-state?

It's odd that you would use Stalin as an example since it was he that I kept thinking of while reading the description of a tyrant. Only I thought he didn't really fit in with the idea that these young men fall in with loose companions, etc. From 16 on, Stalin was only around a group of monks. However, both Hitler and Stalin certainly eventually fit Plato's description : "...And you know that a man who is deranged and not right in his mind, will fancy that he is able to rule, not only over men, but also over the gods?

2. Socrates seems to be saying that honor-loving and profit-loving men aren’t really happy, but is that really true? Granted that you can go too far in each of these endeavors, but it seems that you can still be a good person and behave honorably.

Socrates/Plato is a good one for stating everything in absolutes. Of course, these men can be happy but not in the sense that Plato means it which is in a "pure" state of happiness. At some point, he speaks of balance. Sort of an "all things in moderation" that makes far more sense. (hide spoiler)]


Answers for Book 10
(view spoiler)[
1. Is poetry/drama really that bad? Even if it shows people behaving badly, they are usually shown the errors of their ways during the play.

For someone who is so adamant about not including poetry and drama, Socrates/Plato sure seems to be familiar with all the plays, myths and legends of his culture. He can quote Homer at will and even talks about how delightful all of this is. Then, it's back to business and a long discussion of how badly this would destroy the purity of thought necessary to the City/State.

2. This idea of reincarnation seems a bit random. Why would Orpheus want to be a swan?

I thought this section was very interesting and it made me wonder if Plato was the progenitor of some types of religious theology. Certainly the idea of re-incarnation is central to Hinduism and the idea of a place where you are punished for a certain length of time before rising to heaven is reminiscent of the Catholic doctrine of Pugatory. Punishment for sin whether temporary or permanent is, I think, found in every religion.

Poor Orpheus had good reason not to want to rejoin mankind. First he lost Eurydice forever in a kind of Lot's wife way, and then, he was torn apart by a group of women. So I can see why a swan with its picture of serenity and beauty was appealing. They even mate for life.
(hide spoiler)]

[Pamela]

I, too, have enjoyed this discussion and it was nice to re-visit Plato now that I'm older and have more understanding for the philosophy. This is the third re-read for me and it's been a long time since the first two when I was more enthralled with the language than the ideas. Thank you,Vicki, for leading such a good discussion. The questions were nicely thought provoking.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Thanks, Pamela and Christopher, for your comments on the book. This was my first exposure to The Republic and I'm not sure I understood everything. I may have to revisit it later.

[Jeffrey]

I would like to suggest that if Republic is done again it should be with a less compressed schedule. It would be better, I opine, to use a two week schedule per book. First week to read, second week to discuss. I don't think anyone could absorb much at this reading speed on a first review and most participants would be relying on memory of prior exposures at this speed. A slower schedule than I have proposed would be better. Perhaps an entire summer would be even better.

[Pamela]

I think you could read The Republic over and over and get something new out of it every time.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

I just ran across this fiction book based on Plato's perfect city. Sounds interesting.
by Jo Walton

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Guys you did great and we will continue the discussion here so whatever you want to discuss - please feel free.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

It should be in spoilers Noirfifre.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Noirfifre's post in spoilers:

(view spoiler)[I finish reading around November 2016 but I did not return to share my thoughts. I sincerely apologize. My thoughts are general so I did not insert any spoilers

Review

Difficulty at times following who was speaking in this long winding conversation. However, in a twist the conversation/dialogue for the presentation of ideas is quite captivating. One of the things Socrates does that is sought of irksome is ignoring/ delaying questions and continues on a complete different tune from the discussion? So many subjects in one conversation that it becomes tedious to remember all the topics discussed.



I got frustrated by the time I got to Book 6 because I was so focused on trying to get a direct answer or definition for Justice. However, whilst reading half way through Book 7, I realize that in my quest to find a definition, I had to let it go and pay attention to the discussion at hand. I find it fascinating that a dialogue published around 380 BC is so applicable to today’s issues of government policy and family. I still cannot tell you what Justice is in relation to Socrates but perhaps it is the determination to decipher good and bad. (hide spoiler)]

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Noirfifre for you:

(view spoiler)[Justice is not simply a contract and is more than a set of laws or agreements among citizens not to harm each other - Justice is more than simply going about your life and not harming others - it is saying that the constitution and your way of life has a profound affect upon the individual (any individual) and his or her ethical and moral well being. The nature of individual morality and the order of society are inextricable and the two cannot be separated or be apart. So justice emphasized the importance of the common good. A society should aim at the common good and that always overrides individual good. So don't be deterred by any confusion - because right up until his death - Socrates - would say "I know nothing". Understanding justice according to Socrates is not an easy concept. (hide spoiler)]

Law and Justice - Plato’s Republic - 7.2 Socrates and Virtue

https://youtu.be/5zeH9jjwWD8

Law and Justice - Plato’s Republic - 7.3 Introducing Plato’s Republic

https://youtu.be/Y6clo3Ss-80

Source: Janux

[Marren]

Bentley wrote: "Noirfifre for you:

[spoilers removed]Law and Justice - Plato’s Republic - 7.2 Socrates and Virtue

https://youtu.be/5zeH9jjwWD8

Law and Justice - Plato’s Republic - 7.3 Introducing Plato’s Republ..."

Thank you Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

You are welcome and I highly recommend the other videos in the Janux series - they might help.