Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Plato, The Republic
>
Preliminary thoughts on reading Plato
date
newest »
newest »
These are a few of my personal thoughts and suggestions which may make your reading of the Republic more enjoyable and/or rewarding. Use whatever (if any) of this is helpful to you; disregard whatever is not. If you disagree with any of what I've said, feel free to say so!1. My view of Plato (not original with me, it’s the view of many commentators) is that he didn’t view philosophy as a product but as a process. His dialogues aren’t intended to be a textbook or treatise of his thought. Rather, he chose the dialogue form quite intentionally to make clear that the heart of philosophy is interaction, not conclusion; doing, not being. I believe that he wants you to interact with him, to argue with him, to think not just about where he gets to but how he gets there, and whether you would wind up at a different place. I think it’s a mistake to just read him thinking “I want to understand that Plato believed about ______.” I think one best reads him thinking “let’s do some philosophy with Plato as a guide.”
2. Plato was incredible precise in his writing. Nothing is wasted, nothing is meaningless. The smallest comment can be filled with meaning, and with multiple meanings. If you’re tempted to skip over passages because they don’t make sense, or view passages just as filler, I suggest asking others here how they made sense of them, because I firmly believe that everything in Plato is of value, even those passages that at first seem valueless.
3. I don’t believe that Plato expected or even wanted us to believe every argument he makes. Rather, I think he wants us to evaluate the merits of and problems with each argument, to follow it through, to see whether it leads us into truth or into error; sometimes we will find that a train of thought is a dead end and go back and try another; sometimes we will find an argument that doesn’t make sense to us and wonder whether maybe it didn’t make sense to Plato, either, and then ask well then, why is it in here? Because for sure it’s in there for a reason.
4. There are people who have studied little but Plato for much of their lives, and still find new things and new meanings in him. I view our reading and discussion here, particularly for those who are new to Plato, as an introduction to his thinking and his process of doing philosophy, with I hope the desire, at the end of the reading, to explore him in more depth on your own (or if we choose to do so here, in discussion of further dialogues). I think it can be very helpful to read some background material and commentary, but I encourage you not to get so involved in such materials that you lose sight of the primary goal of engaging personally with Plato. In the end what matters, I believe, is getting an idea of how to do Platonic philosophizing and of many of the key questions and ideas he brings forward for discussion.
5. Whatever else, enjoy the reading! There's no exam, nobody is getting graded, this is entirely for the pleasure of engaging with one of the most intelligent men and richest works in all of Western thought. Have fun!
Everyman: In the end what matters, I believe, is getting an idea of how to do Platonic philosophizing and of many of the key questions and ideas he brings forward for discussion.
This introduction is very helpful by setting some parameters for reading (and easing the pressure I am feeling about The Republic). Perhaps it will become clear during the discussion, but what is the meaning of "Platonic philosophizing?"
This introduction is very helpful by setting some parameters for reading (and easing the pressure I am feeling about The Republic). Perhaps it will become clear during the discussion, but what is the meaning of "Platonic philosophizing?"
Zeke wrote: " Everyman: In the end what matters, I believe, is getting an idea of how to do Platonic philosophizing and of many of the key questions and ideas he brings forward for discussion. This introducti..."
To me, it's about debate, both; internal (with ourselves) and external (with others). It is about challenging both; our own assumptions and the assumptions of those around us.
I guess I was wondering whether "Platonic philosophizing" is different from other kinds. But your comment does open a prior question that I also don't have any good definition for, namely, "What does it mean to philosophize?"
I've always assumed it has something to do with systematic thought. And I've also generally tended towards Hamlet's view:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I've always assumed it has something to do with systematic thought. And I've also generally tended towards Hamlet's view:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Zeke wrote: " ...what is the meaning of "Platonic philosophizing?" ...I meant by that seeking philosophic truths through the process of inquiry that Plato pioneered in the dialogues.
Zeke wrote: "your comment does open a prior question that I also don't have any good definition for, namely, "What does it mean to philosophize?""You really do love to open cans of worms, don't you? :)
Back to the root meaning of the term, lover of wisdom, I suppose the easiest answer is that to philosophize is to seek wisdom. Wisdom about what, you will next ask? To which I think Plato would answer, "anything to do with answering the question how we should live our lives to be the best people we can be."
And what, you will then ask, does "best" mean in that context? And I'll answer, I think the answer to that may lie in reading Plato, and particularly the Republic.
If that winds up being a circular argument, well, then it does. It's the best I can do early on a Saturday morning when the calm water, bright blue sky and sunshine, and delightfully comfortable temperature are all calling me to be up and out.
P.S. I hope that didn't sound snide or dismissive. It wasn't meant to! Yours are fair questions, but perhaps will be easier to answer after rather than before we read the Republic.
Zeke wrote: "I've always assumed it has something to do with systematic thought. And I've also generally tended towards Hamlet's view:"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I love a can of worms on a hot summer day!
This is a great preliminary question and some excellent answers have been given already -- for starters, it is about debate, as Vikz mentioned. In my opinion, the word that comes closest to what Socrates does is not philosophy, but dialectic, which is pretty much the same thing as debate.
Philosophy as a system of thought or body of knowledge was very much a real thing in Plato's day, and there were teachers who went around teaching their "philosophies" for profit. (We meet one of those teachers, Thrasymachus, in Book 1.) But Socrates was not one of these. He repeatedly insists that he "knows nothing," so how could he possibly have anything to teach? Instead, he questions the philosophies that are being taught and in many cases shows them to be on very shaky ground.
But there is a complication. Socrates is not Plato. Plato is Socrates' greatest student and he uses Socrates' method of questioning to great effect, but Plato does have ideas of his own. Ideas that Socrates might not have agreed with. Ideas that taken as a whole might even comprise a "philosophy" of the sort that Socrates was so critical of.
So there are a lot of worms in that can. Enough to go fishing with all day long, and then some.
Wow, if this is the standard of debate (Socratic debate) now, I really can't wait to begin this book. These discussions should be good.
Be careful about making assumptions that "answers" (versus perhaps "insights" or even "choices") exist.
Lily wrote: "Be careful about making assumptions that "answers" (versus perhaps "insights" or even "choices") exist."Someone once said (I don't know who) "that there are no answers only more questions".
As one who knows little (and very little about this topic)and who doesn't even have all that many strong opinions, I am content to be a can opener!
I recall from our earlier discussions of the Greeks that how to live a good life was a very important concern. So I was not surprised that Everyman's answer included: To which I think Plato would answer, "anything to do with answering the question how we should live our lives to be the best people we can be."
It prompts a further question--though I don't know if this one will open any worm cans. Would it be accurate to say that throughout history there has been some tension between this approach and some others? I am pretty sure that is the case in the contemporary academy and think it may have been so earlier in history as well.
I recall from our earlier discussions of the Greeks that how to live a good life was a very important concern. So I was not surprised that Everyman's answer included: To which I think Plato would answer, "anything to do with answering the question how we should live our lives to be the best people we can be."
It prompts a further question--though I don't know if this one will open any worm cans. Would it be accurate to say that throughout history there has been some tension between this approach and some others? I am pretty sure that is the case in the contemporary academy and think it may have been so earlier in history as well.
Zeke wrote: "Would it be accurate to say that throughout history there has been some tension between this approach and some others? I am pretty sure that is the case in the contemporary academy and think it may have been so earlier in history as well. ..."Zeke, what are you calling "this approach"?
Lily wrote: "Zeke, what are you calling "this approach"? "I had the same question. I couldn't tell from the context whether it was the Platonic approach, or whether it was seeking how to live to be the best person one can be.
Which ties in with Boethius -- whether the goal of life is wealth, power, happiness, or...
oooooooo, loving how this is starting. thanks, Everyman for opening this thread. these discussions are already making me smile. i took a few philosophy courses back in college which i thoroughly enjoyed. but there's a whole world of things i've yet to acquaint myself with in philosophy, Plato included. i'm excited to dive in.
Zeke wrote: "Would it be accurate to say that throughout history there has been some tension between this approach and some others? I am pretty sure that is the case in the contemporary academy and think it may have been so earlier in history as well. "A.N. Whitehead famously said that "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Which doesn't mean that there hasn't been tension, starting with Plato's student Aristotle. Raphael's School of Athens is a nice visual depiction of this tension.
Plato is generally considered to be the "founder" of idealism as a philosophical school of thought, and we will see in the Republic how he steers the conversation towards a recognition of the ideal. Idealism was, and is, a powerful concept, but it has its weaknesses, and those weaknesses have become the history of Western philosophy after Plato. Those would be the footnotes. There are lots of them. ;)
Zeke wrote: "I recall from our earlier discussions of the Greeks that how to live a good life was a very important concern. So I was not surprised that Everyman's answer included: To which I think Plato would answer, "anything to do with answering the question how we should live our lives to be the best people we can be."It prompts a further question--though I don't know if this one will open any worm cans. Would it be accurate to say that throughout history there has been some tension between this approach and some others? I am pretty sure that is the case in the contemporary academy and think it may have been so earlier in history as well"
Normative ethics theories are indeed a can of worms. There isn't even agreement on the means through which we can define 'the best people we can be', what's least on what 'best' means. Generally, though, there are three big groups of theories -
1. virtue ethics which claims that bestness lies in the virtues a person posses (there are various ways to define virtues too), not in our actions - how you act towards others is nothing more than a reflection of your virtues so it's of marginal importance - you could compare it to the sola fide stance Protestantism takes as opposed to the faith and works position Catholicism has;
2. deontology ('deon' in Greek means duty, obligation) which says that the best people we can be is dictated by our duties - obviously, there are many different kinds of defining duty too, the main difference between deontology and virtue ethics, though, is the emphasis on acts rather than qualities and rules which dictate these actions (which unlike definitions of virtues tend to be negative rather than positive - virtue ethics says 'love your neighbour', deontology says 'you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour');
3. teleology ('telos' means end, purpose) which rather than looking at virtues/qualities or actions in themselves, looks at how they affect both the person performing them and the person(s) they're performed on - for example, if lying has a positive effect it's considered the path to becoming 'the best person we can be' although lying goes against our duty and/or virtues.
On top of that there's also pragmatic ethics which says that normative ethics are not enough to guide us to becoming 'the best people we can be' because they speak in too vague and general terms. Pragmatic ethics look as specific situations (say, abortion) and bring together different views on that specific situation in order to best inform us about what we should do. And, of course, later on, some troublesome notions of free will and personal responsibility as well as distrust for the notion of truth come in and ruin the shiny pyramid of normative ethics by making it impossible for philosophy to even occupy itself with such matters. But if we were to dive into what philosophy can do (which is quite different from what it does), we'd actually start talking about epistemology and the problem suddenly spirals down not only into pre-socratic philosophers, but also into other fields of knowledge such as logics or linguists. There's really no reaching a definite answer.
That's all vaguely irrelevant, though I think I just wanted to show that one of the trickiest parts of studying philosophy is the fact that it's nearly impossible to study any author, text or issue on its own, even The Republic which is one of the earliest texts of Western philosophy is tightly connected with a lot of other different strands of philosophy and you have to systematise it and structure it carefully and thoroughly. At least charts and lists are the only way I can make sense of philosophy.
So my advice to Plato newbies (not that I'm a particularly proficient Plato reader, I've only read Phaedo and sections of The Republic and The Symposium) would be write down everything! Plato's prose (in a good translation, at least) often flows unusually well for a philosophy work because it's in dialogue form and it's not burdened by jargon - and although that's a good thing it also means that it can slip right through your fingers and you can find yourself lost in it.
Sorry my question wasn't clear. Everyman, and others, explained that philosophy began as an examination of how to live a "good" life. In short, it is a very practical exploration that is intended to influence a person's behavior. My sense is that over history this shifts and the study of philosophy becomes...something else. Perhaps it becomes more an explanation of the "way things are." As one example, I have seen Nietzsche criticized for not being too prescriptive and not systematic enough.
As I said, I am not schooled in philosophy at all, so I don't really even have the vocabulary to ask the question. Still, at least I should have asked it clearly.
As I said, I am not schooled in philosophy at all, so I don't really even have the vocabulary to ask the question. Still, at least I should have asked it clearly.
Zeke wrote: "As I said, I am not schooled in philosophy at all, so I don't really even have the vocabulary to ask the question."
This might actually be a good thing. I tend to think that once you have the vocabulary, the vocabulary also has you. Socrates shows the problem of vocabulary over and over again as he takes apart the philosophical "systems" of sophists in almost every dialogue, and we'll see in the Republic how difficult it is to define a common concept like "justice." I think the best approach is to have no preconceptions about Plato, or philosophy, but to think critically and examine everything, because you never know when you're going to wander into a spectacular production of the Royal Nonesuch. Look out for the Duke of Bilgewater.
Zeke wrote: "Sorry my question wasn't clear. Everyman, and others, explained that philosophy began as an examination of how to live a "good" life. In short, it is a very practical exploration that is intended to influence a person's behavior. My sense is that over history this shifts and the study of philosophy becomes...something else. "Very much so. One of the reasons I love the early philosophers. (The other is that they intentionally wrote for the ordinary reader.)
The early philosophers weren't concerned with theories or esoteric ideas; they were concerned with the very basic questions of how we should live, how we should worship, where we came from and where we are going. They intended their ideas to make a difference in the way people live their lives. I find much modern philosophy follows a quite different approach. (Off topic, I find the same in much of modern literary criticism, but that's another issue.)
I gave a reference earlier to an on-line PDF version of Bloom's translation of the Republic. This also contains his short (only four pages) Preface to the Second Edition, which I highly recommend. It makes several very interesting points. One is a brief discussion of theories of translating Plato, and the choice he has made to make as literal a translation as possible rather than try through the translation to help the reader understand some of the challenging points in the way the translator understands them.
Another very interesting point he makes is how his contemporary students interacted with the Republic, and how those interactions changed over the years of his teaching it.
Finally, he talks briefly about Rousseau, and particularly Emile, which he also translated. He calls Rousseau one of the great readers of Plato, and Emile a "natural companion" to the Republic. I have not read Emile for nearly 50 years and have no immediate memory of it; if anybody has read it recently or has a better memory of it than I do, it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on their natural companionship as the discussion proceeds.
Patrice wrote: "My feeling is that, at least in part, philosophy turned into science.The closest we come today to "knowing" anything is through use of the scientific method. So in a way, I do think that "philoso..."
Part of philosophy is science, or at least natural philosophy is, and it was that way in classical Greece as well. Do you think Plato (or Socrates) would have objected to the scientific method?
Patrice wrote: "I think of Plato's Greece as similar to our own society...."But it wasn't, unless one puts significant caveats or boundaries on the meaning of "similar"? (Which you take a crack at in your next sentence, but I have just been listening to a series of lectures on world history which lead me to wonder if the cultures colliding today are really comparable in either number or characteristics to those colliding in ancient Greece.)
Patrice wrote: "I think of Plato's Greece as similar to our own society. So many diverse influences, so many cultures colliding, and there he was struggling to find one true thing. "I suspect that there are considerably more differences than similarities. But not something I have the energy to get into at the moment! Maybe down the road as we get into the Republic and start seeing suggestions of the culture in and to which he was writing.
The aspect of Patrice's post (#25) I was most struck by was the tension between the questioning of science and the assertive certainty of politics. I recall a comment some politician (whose views I was sympathetic with) saying of his opponents, "I wish I could be as certain of anything as they are of everything."
Great point about the failure of anyone to ask of George Tenant (though can be applied to many others on both sides of the aisle), "Why do you think this? How do you know?"
That need not be a challenge. That is just seeking understanding.
My sense is that this is what Socrates will be doing.
My sense is that it will also lead to some "truths" that we will find uncomfortable.
Great point about the failure of anyone to ask of George Tenant (though can be applied to many others on both sides of the aisle), "Why do you think this? How do you know?"
That need not be a challenge. That is just seeking understanding.
My sense is that this is what Socrates will be doing.
My sense is that it will also lead to some "truths" that we will find uncomfortable.
Patrice wrote: "When George Tenet said that Iraq was a "slam dunk", someone should have asked "how do you know?" "Maybe it was a noble lie. :( On the subject of similarities, I remember reading Donald Kagan's book on the Peloponnesian War a few years after the start of the Iraq War and being struck by the similarities between this apparent folly and the Athenians' invasion of Sicily. (Kagan is a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, btw.)
Certainly there are differences between our societies, but I think the similarities are also unmistakeable, and perhaps more important.
Patrice wrote: "Thucydides was looking back at the war, 20/20 hindsight. It's a masterpiece but in the end I was annoyed by that smug knowledge of what had already happened! "He was an active participant in the war, which in my eyes lends him more credit than most historians, particularly since his odd circumstances allowed him to view the war from both Athenian and Spartan perspectives. And isn't all history written from hindsight anyway? Poor Thucydides!
Let's not get too far astray from The Republic yet!
Everyman wrote: "Let's not get too far astray from The Republic yet!"Indeed. We're champing at the bit, as usual.
A bit of the history which would have been very familiar to Plato’s original audience may be helpful. Remember, all this is BC, so dates are backward to what we’re used to!507 The Pisistraid tyranny that had ruled Athens was overthrown and replaced by a democracy. The fact of democracy was very important to Athens, and will come up in the Republic either explicitly or by implication a number of times.
480 The Greeks defeat the Persians in the Persian War. (The term Greeks is at that point in history more a modern convenience than an accurate political statement. In reality there were many small city states which came together under threat of invasion from the vast Persian empire but also warred at times among themselves, and were proud of their independence.) This date is significant because it marks the beginning of the ascendency of Athens as the dominant city state.
477 Founding of the Delian League, initially an association of Greek city-states around the Aegean sea which formed an alliance to continue resistance against Persia, but over time came almost to be viewed as an Athenian empire.
469 Pericles comes to power. While Athens is technically still a democracy, it is clear that Pericles was the dominant political figure and effectively the central power. This marks the beginning of what is generally considered the Golden Age of Greece; the building of the Parthenon, the era of the great tragedians, the .
431 Beginning of the Peloponnesian War, primarily Sparta and its allies united against Athens and its allies. Causes of the war are complex, as with all wars, but a significant factor was the expansion of Athenian power and influence and its domination of the Delian League.
429 Approx. Date of Plato’s birth. We’re not sure exactly when. He had two older brothers, Adeimantus and Glaucon, who both appear in the Republic.
415 Athens sends large army to Sicily and lays siege to Syracuse. It turns out to be a massive disaster, on the scale of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. The Greeks 200 ships and a large number of soldiers; it is generally seen as marking the beginning of the end of the war, though Athens manages to fight on for another 10 years.
404 Sparta defeats Athens to end the Peloponnesian war. Athens is basically destroyed. Delian League is disbanded. Plato is 25, and the defeat has a lasting impact on him and his writing. Sparta installs a pro-Spartan oligarchy in Athens, known as The Thirty. Critias is one of the leaders of the Thirty; he is an uncle of Plato, and apparently invited Plato to join the government. [Critias has a dialogue named after him. We have only a portion of the dialogue; it was apparently the second of three dialogues of which the first is the Timaeus. The portions of the Critias we have mostly deal with Atlantis and the war, 9,000 years earlier, between those living within and those living without the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibralter).]
403 Democracy is restored, but in a much diminished Athens.
399 Execution of Socrates
388 Plato’s first trip to Syracuse, hoping to put some of his political ideas into practical effect. He is not particularly successful in this.
386 Plato returns to Athens and founds the Academy. Aristotle became a student at the Academy at about the age of 17, later became a teacher, and remained there for twenty years.
347 Plato dies.
We do not know the order or dates of the writing of the dialogues, but there is general agreement that they fall into three groups, early, middle, and late, and that the Republic falls into the middle grouping.
A few other items of random information which Plato presumably assumed that his readers would know. Although the dialogue was written some time after Athens’s defeat by Sparta in the Greek civil war, most scholars believe that the dialogue is set in about 410, while the war was still underway and before the overthrow of the democracy. So Plato was writing with knowledge of the defeat of Athens but at a time before that defeat. (Akin, perhaps, to a book written about life in the South during our own Civil War but written after the end of the war when the outcome was known.)
The Piraeus is the port city for Athens, about 6 miles from Athens. Like most port cities of the ancient (and even the modern) world, it was a place where people of many different cultures, nations, and classes mingled and traded. It was considered much less culturally “pure” than Athens, and more open to a variety of religions and worship of foreign gods. It was also the center of opposition to the tyranny of The Thirty after the defeat of Athens. You may find these factors relevant to the question why Plato chooses to set this dialogue in the Piraeus rather than in Socrates’s native Athens.
The characters of the dialogue were actual people whose histories the Athenians would have known.
Glaucon and Adeimantus were older brothers of Plato. Glaucon is Socrates’s original companion in his visit to the Piraeus: “I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon...” All the other characters are ones already at the Piraeus for various reasons.
Cephalus is not an Athenian, but a Greek from one of the other colonies living in the Piraeus.
Polymarchus, his son, was killed by the Tyranny of the Thirty. He was a casualty of the fight against the Tyrants and died fighting for democracy. Surely Plato’s choice of him for a role in the Republic is not accidental.
Thrasymachus is a professional teacher of rhetoric, a Sophist. While sophistry today is given a bad connotation, that was not the case in Athens. A democracy, after all, runs on rhetoric; political power is based on who can persuade the people to vote with or for them. Wealthy citizens paid considerable sums to Sophists to teach their sons the arts of rhetoric so they could become successful in the political realm.
Clitophon plays only a small part, for what we may decide are good reasons. He also has a dialogue named after him, though some wonder whether the dialogue was actually written by Plato.
Another small note, about the title: "Republic" is somewhat misleading, at least if this term is understood in the common sense, as rule by the people. The Greek title is Politeia (no definite article) which is more general, meaning something like "form of government." The root of the word is polis, meaning city.
I've been reading a little background info on Plato. Some I found to be quite interesting. Will post this evening.
EDIT: I picked up a couple of books on Plato. I did a quick read through Paul Strathern's Plato in 90 Minutes. I don't know how he is rated as an authority on Plato...but much of what he has in his book seems to be in line with the wikipedia page. So for what it's worth (and I found it of interest as it seems to address what/who influenced Plato towards his idea of forms):
From Plato in 90 Minutes Paul Strathern
"It was Pythagoras who most deeply influenced Plato, and to him we must go for the source of many of Plato’s idea…. (11).
Plato was to be deeply influenced by Pythagoras’s famous saying, ‘All is number.’ Pythagoras believed that beyond the jumbled world of appearances there lies an abstract harmonious world of number. In fact, his conception of number was closer to what we would call ‘form.’ …. The ideal world of number (or forms) was filled with harmony and was more real than the so-called real world… (11).
- - - - - - -
"Plato was a well-known wrestler, and the name by which we know him today was his ring name. Plato means broad or flat: presumably in this case the former meaning, referring to his shoulder (or, as some sources insist, to his forehead). At his birth in 428 B.C. Plato was given the name Aristocles (12).
Plato was born into one of the great political families of Athens. His father Ariston was descended from Codrus, the last king of Athens, and his mother was descended from the great Athenian lawmaker Solon (12).
[Plato studied under Socrates for 9 years.]
[Plato left Athens after the death of Socrates and traveled for 12 years.]
[Studied for 3 years with Euclid ---not the famous geometer.]
[Then journeyed to North Africa to study with the mathematician Theodorus.]
“After this he seems to have traveled on to Egypt. According to one persistent story, he now wished to visit some magi in the Levant and ended up traveling east as far as the banks of the Ganges, but this seems unlikely (20).
“After more than a decade of traveling, Plato arrived in Sicily, where he visited the crater Mount Etna. This was a great tourist attraction of the period… (22). [In Sicily, Plato made contact with the followers of Pythagoras]
Pythagoras’s theory had a profound effect on Plato, who came to believe that the ultimate reality was abstract. What began as numbers with Pythagoras was to become forms or pure ideas in Plato’s philosophy (23).
EDIT: I picked up a couple of books on Plato. I did a quick read through Paul Strathern's Plato in 90 Minutes. I don't know how he is rated as an authority on Plato...but much of what he has in his book seems to be in line with the wikipedia page. So for what it's worth (and I found it of interest as it seems to address what/who influenced Plato towards his idea of forms):
From Plato in 90 Minutes Paul Strathern
"It was Pythagoras who most deeply influenced Plato, and to him we must go for the source of many of Plato’s idea…. (11).
Plato was to be deeply influenced by Pythagoras’s famous saying, ‘All is number.’ Pythagoras believed that beyond the jumbled world of appearances there lies an abstract harmonious world of number. In fact, his conception of number was closer to what we would call ‘form.’ …. The ideal world of number (or forms) was filled with harmony and was more real than the so-called real world… (11).
- - - - - - -
"Plato was a well-known wrestler, and the name by which we know him today was his ring name. Plato means broad or flat: presumably in this case the former meaning, referring to his shoulder (or, as some sources insist, to his forehead). At his birth in 428 B.C. Plato was given the name Aristocles (12).
Plato was born into one of the great political families of Athens. His father Ariston was descended from Codrus, the last king of Athens, and his mother was descended from the great Athenian lawmaker Solon (12).
[Plato studied under Socrates for 9 years.]
[Plato left Athens after the death of Socrates and traveled for 12 years.]
[Studied for 3 years with Euclid ---not the famous geometer.]
[Then journeyed to North Africa to study with the mathematician Theodorus.]
“After this he seems to have traveled on to Egypt. According to one persistent story, he now wished to visit some magi in the Levant and ended up traveling east as far as the banks of the Ganges, but this seems unlikely (20).
“After more than a decade of traveling, Plato arrived in Sicily, where he visited the crater Mount Etna. This was a great tourist attraction of the period… (22). [In Sicily, Plato made contact with the followers of Pythagoras]
Pythagoras’s theory had a profound effect on Plato, who came to believe that the ultimate reality was abstract. What began as numbers with Pythagoras was to become forms or pure ideas in Plato’s philosophy (23).
Everyman wrote: "3. I don’t believe that Plato expected or even wanted us to believe every argument he makes. Rather, I think he wants us to evaluate the merits of and problems with each argument, to follow it through, to see whether it leads us into truth or into error; "Thanks for this comment/insight. I have read several of Plato's dialogues and certainly found them to raise many of the important questions that have formed the basis of western philosophy (in keeping with the previous comment about 'footnotes to Plato').
But many of the dialogues also left me disappointed with the weak reasoning at a critical juncture (Meno is a good example). Perhaps what I should have done at that point--rather than trying to figure out how to reconcile the dialogue--was to develop my own thoughts on the topic.
Emerson's essay on Plato from Representative Men is a charming, if somewhat over-the-top introduction:Great geniuses have the shortest biographies. Their cousins can tell you nothing about them. They lived in their writings, and so their house and street life was trivial and commonplace. If you would know their tastes and complexions, the most admiring of their readers most resembles them. Plato especially has no external biography. If he had lover, wife, or children, we hear nothing of them. He ground them all into paint. As a good chimney burns its smoke, so a philosopher converts the value of all his fortunes into his intellectual performances.
Plato; or, the Philosopher
from Representative Men (1850)
Everyman wrote: "These are a few of my personal thoughts and suggestions which may make your reading of the Republic more enjoyable and/or rewarding. Use whatever (if any) of this is helpful to you; disregard whate..."Thanks for this, Everyman! I love to learn but have wandered through life without ever engaging with philosophy in any intentional way. I find I was rather intimidated by trying, and bogged myself down somewhat in preparation instead of turning to the group.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Symposium (other topics)The Republic (other topics)
Phaedo (other topics)
This thread is open for anybody to share thoughts, either their own of those of commentators they found particularly helpful. (General comments only, not specific to the Republic until the Book 1 thread is opened, please.)
In particular, those who have read Plato before might have some helpful thoughts for Plato "newbies."
However, if you want to approach The Republic with an entirely open mind, feel free to skip this entire thread. Nothing said here will be necessary to participate fully in the textual discussion.