Plato’s Republic For what reason did Plato make his characters the way he did? Plato created completely different characters for Republic, each representing a different role within the society he lived in. For example, Thrasymachus represents people of intellect, while Polemarchus represents spirit as a warrior, and Cephalus represents appetite, as he has money and age. Each type of character has different points of view than the others, especially when it comes to the word “justice.” Cephalus follows Greek tradition, with the feeling that justice means being honest and holding to legal obligations. Polemarchus feels that friends are owed help, while enemies are owed harm. Thrasymachus simply feels that those who are strongest are just, and that injustice is a virtue. What does the character of Socrates think of these opinions on justice? Socrates seems to shoot down every single response the men propose. With each opinion, he finds a way to repute it. Cephalus is stunned into silence when Socrates brings up a hypothetical example about a madman being returned a weapon that belongs to him. Socrates also brings up, this time to Polemarchus, that everyone’s opinion of a friend and an enemy is different. He says to Thrasymachus that injustice cannot be a virtue while wisdom is also a virtue.
I agree that Plato made all his characters the way he did to have each one represent a different role in society. Having three completely different characters who each offer a different role in society really helps to understand how points of views vary drastically between the different members of society. It also helps to follow the Socratic method of elenchus. Each character has a different views of how things should be done, and each character is able to refute the other's ideas in a certain way. Getting many different opinions that vary help to come up with the true idea they are looking for. As for Socrates, he is different than the other characters. He is obviously smarter than them with how he can refute each of their definitions of justice. The only problem with him is he can't come up with an actual definition. He is able to refute them all, but never give a real answer. Maybe that is because there is no true definition to justice.
I believe the characters are really just there to further Plato's own arguments. They are not fleshed out characters with solid arguments. Socrates dispels each of the easily enough. They are only there to forestall any arguments or debates that might arise were Plato to not frame this in a form of argument, with it's own inherent defense.
I agree that you are right on all of these characters and what they represent. I believe that it is very important that we see every different aspect so we can truly understand the point that Plato is making. Each of these characters arguments go along with their spirit such as the warriors justice is to do harm to his enemies. All of their initial arguments are refuted with relative ease by Socrates. They were very simple hypotheticals to mention and drew us further into what is justice.
I think the reasoning behind Plato's characters was to represent different view points. By doing this Plato was able to take the arguments that people of different classes might make and refute them instead of just arguing against one agrument.
Socrates character constantly shoots down the arguments of the other characters. While he has not given his own definition on what justice is he continues to give examples that refute the other characters definition.
It is easy to agree with Glaucon and Adeimantus’ argument that it is not beneficial for one to seek justice or live justly for justice’s sake. One only acts justly for the rewards that they may receive in life or the afterlife. They even argue that the just man is disadvantaged compared to the unjust man. Despite the fact that living a just life may give one a moral high ground, it is pragmatic to be unjust, if you can get away with it. Before Socrates can offer a conclusive response however, he launches into a large scale allegorical example of justice in the form of a city. At the end of book four, there is still no complete refutation to Glaucon’s argument, although the layout of the city offers an example of justice on a large scale.
What is meant by the passage regarding love between men and boys?
In book three, Socrates discusses the importance of the love between men and boys. He states that, due to the perfection of their education, the boys should end up having traits that make them desirable to all. Socrates believes that, despite their desirability, the love between these boys and men should go no further than the love between father and son. The love between the two should not be tarnished by things of a sexual nature.
Did Plato actually think the ideal city would work in practice?
When described by Socrates, the ideal city sounds perfect. However, one must question whether or not Plato’s system would actually work in practice, or if, like communism, it would generally fail. It is easy to argue that, if there was any problem at all in the raising of the guardians, the city could become a tyrannical dictatorship.
It is definitely good that Socrates clarifies that the love between boys and men should not go beyond father and son. I agree with Socrates that the love between father and son is very important, for multiple reasons. In the way Socrates was speaking of, having desirable traits to all, men and women, I find it interesting that Socrates feels this comes from their education. Traits that are desirable could come from a multitude of things, from the way one is raised, to traits directly from parents, to the culture surrounding one. I can agree that a good education could help to bring about desirable traits as well, but I am not sure I agree that it is the ONLY reason the boys end up with very desirable traits.
It is interesting that Socrates seems to dodge responding to Glaucon's argument. It seems to me that it is beneficial to be unjust if you can get away with it, but most do not. Those who are unjust and get away with it can get leaps and bounds ahead of those who are just because there is nothing holding him/her back. The other answers where sufficient enough.
I think that the portion of the book that speaks of love between older men and boys is very important because feelings could have been taken advantage of in that time period. Many boys needed mentors and people they could be apprentices to and they relied on these men for guidance. This could be taken advantage of by the wrong person and I think it was vrey important to state that it should be a teacher-student or father-son relationship between the men and boys instead of making it a complicated love affair. Valuable lessons can be learned from a mentor but it is important not to get too close.
I don't believe that Plato's ideal city would have any chance of actually working in the real world. People do not act in the ways that Plato believes they would act. His ideas on how humans behave are unrealistic. People are always going to want to want personal property and things like that. At this point I would also agree that justice has not been proven to be beneficial within itself. So far justice is just some undefinable term that hasn't fit into any of Socrates' ideas.
A Utopia is a beautiful idea. A world without pain and suffering where everyone had a place and they never needed to worry over anything. But at the same time it is a nightmare. A world where you are a slave to the system that you are born into. Forced to be what ever society demands of you, and no way to change your class or profession if you change as you get older and mature. Human's are a species where we have natural cycles of rebellion during the terrible twos, adolescence, and middle age. The repercussions for acting out would have to be extreme to keep a society like this going and there are many times when biologically humans will act poorly. How would our modern understanding of human's and our biological imperatives work in this ancient idea of utopia work? How would it survive with our modern technology like the internet? Would these distractions be taken away for the integrity of this Utopian society?
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? As Glaucon tells the legend of the ring I find it fascinating. He states that the people go down in this crater created by the story. For me I think his point that no matter what is going people are always curious and want to know what is going on or in this case what is this crater and what is it doing here. When the ruler takes the ring, he may think I found something and this is mine and no one can have. Throughout human history people have always wanted things and do whatever it takes to have the best. For this ruler he may think I have a gold ring and he soon finds out it has special powers. As the ring’s setting is facing him he became invisible to the ones around him. I think this shows that even though humans in a way wish that same could not see us but in reality no one can go unseen. As the ring’s setting is facing outward he becomes visible again. Glaucon’s point might be that some views of some people may be overlooked or invisible while others are not but in reality no matter your view everyone can see it. This does not mean they have to agree with it. Another point might be that there is no real difference between a just person and an unjust one. If one becomes invisible one can really not show who is who. Deep down everyone is equal and by putting a label on someone can change a person’s view of that person. Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person? I believe he does this because to him a city is nothing without the people. Elaborating on the city can have an impact and better understanding of how the people inside work. The people are who create the city and in order to fully understand them one must first understand the city as a whole. He says there are three main classes of people within a city, the producers, guardians and axillaries. Each play an important role and help shape the city. Without any of these there might not be a city or the city would not be like it is. Each person also plays a role in the class they belong to. Without this all working together the city might not be as it is or with different people might be a different city. Also the way Socrates sees the city for himself might be different than someone else so I believe he is trying to make a broad overview of what he believes a perfect city is in his mind.
What are Socrates’ concepts of education?
I believe Socrates believed that education involved music, poetry and physical training. Music and poetry can be seen throughout ancient Greek history. Physical training plays a bigger role in Sparta or in the time of war. Ancient Greeks always felt accomplishments I believe in winning so the more training the better. They try to live up to what the gods set for them. Music and poetry play a role in the arts. Ancient Greek is also known for its art and culture. I believe for Socrates, these play a role in developing a person how can fully understand what it mean to Greeks.
Re: Socrates discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person.
I felt he discussed the qualities of a just city before the concepts of a just person because he was rather -communal- in his approach to justice, rather than taking an individualistic approach to what justice was.
To Socrates, specialization and classification defined justice. A perfect city could only function if people were given. It wasn't about self-determination, but about the good of the city and the "greater good" (whatever that means). I agree with you that in order to understand the role of a person, you had to understand the role of the class one belonged to.
I believe that Glaucon’s point regarding the ring of Gyges was that people tend to behave unjustly when no one else is looking. When they think they can get away with it, people will do whatever they please, regardless of whether or not it is “just”. I assumed that Socrates discussed the qualities of a just city before the qualities of a just person because it was easier for him to describe a just person after having described a just city. He compares the two to looking at large print and small print from a distance. It will be easier to understand the small print (the individual) once we understand the large print (the city). I believe that music and art were included in the guardian’s training to keep them from becoming hardened people that they may have become if they were just subjected to physical training. This also allows them to understand their culture. That being said, particularly for the auxiliaries, physical training is equally important to education in music and art.
I think that the purpose of including the ring is, to tell that people will act unjustly or do what ever they want when no one is there to see them. Since no one can see them they can get away with their unjust actions and not have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Socrates discussed the qualities of a city, in order to help him describe what justice is to other people. So they would understand him more clearly. Socrates thought that music was an important concept to teach because it was the best way to teach harmony. Harmony would help see people differently. It would bring their soul grace. So teaching harmony to the guardians would make them more rounded and able to understand their people better.
Jessica Bourdage Socrates’ Justice Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person or what justice is? Why does Socrates apply such an analogy? In order to understand justice in the terms of an individual Socrates decides to look at the justice of a city first. He compares it to trying to read small letters in the distance and said that if you found larger letters that were the same as the smaller ones, it would be much easier for you to examine the smaller letter after seeing the larger ones. (line 368d)He hopes that by creating a city they will see where the justice of it comes from and from that be able to relate it to the individual and find the justice in the individual. A city is made up of individuals so by looking at the bigger you can understand the smaller.
What point does the ring of Gyges represent about injustice? The ring allowed the person who wore it to turn invisible. So the guy who found the ring “seduced the king’s wife, attacked the king with her help, killed him, and took over the kingdom.” (line 360a-b) The basic idea is that anyone would take advantage of the opportunity to do injustice if no one would know about it. If you could have whatever you wanted and act like a God, you would. “We’ll catch the just person red-handed travelling the same road as the unjust.” (line359c) The only thing that keeps people just is their reputation. If a person can be unjust but seem just in the eyes of his fellow people, he’s the one that is profiting the most. A person wouldn’t want to be just but seem unjust to his fellow people. If you’re going to be just you want the honor that goes with that. The only reason that anyone would be just when they didn’t have to is because they believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s what they conclude at the end of Book IV that to be just is like being healthy it’s good for your soul and injustice is bad for your soul.
How does Socrates’ plan to educate people in his city?
He believes that everyone should do the work that he is naturally best suited to do. There should be specialization. One of the key people in the city will be the guardians. They must be educated first in music and poetry and then in physical training. Socrates believes that children are most malleable when they are younger so that is when it’s important to teach them. They have to be careful of the stories that the children are told. He says that no stories about the “gods warring, fighting or plotting against one another” should be told because they aren’t true. (line 378c)By being educated in music and poetry a person becomes more graceful. After learning that they must learn physical training. “They must be like sleepless hounds, able to see and hear as keenly as possible and to endure frequent changes of water and food…without faltering in health.” (line 404a-b)There has to be a balance between the music and the physical training. Too much music leads to softness and overcultivation and too much physical training leaves people hard and savage. Socrates wants his guardians to be a mix of these two.
I agree is a just person wants honor then they need to do whatever to receive it but they are also what happens if the just person turns unjust. He mentions that it would be just as bad for the unjust person to receive these powers as it was for the jus person. Humans can have two sides and I think he does a good job at trying to see both sides and realize what would be better if anything. I also agree with Socrates talking about the children. He believes that the center of the society is based on what the children become and where they go in life. The specialization does play a key role in what is going on in Socrates just city. Without it he believes there would be no city and humans would have nothing.
Since the ring allowed people to turn invisible, I believe that people would act unjustly. They would use the ring to do things that are not acceptable in society and since they are invisible they would not get caught. I agree that it is important to teach the children the important things in society, since they will be the future rulers one day.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
When Glaucon speaks of the ring of Gyges he is speaking of the unjustness of human nature. He says, that if/when a person has the chance, they will seize it to do things that are in their interest and fulfill their appetitive desires. He says that a man only acts justly in the face of recognition when he says, "...one is never just willingly but only when compelled to be" (36). He talks about how whenever someone can do something unjust and get away with it, then he will. I think it's very symbolic that the man from Gyges was a shepherd before he found the ring. This makes him from a very humble background and one would probably come to the conclusion that he was probably a just man. However, having the power to do as he pleased without anyone stopping him made his virtues disappear and he became unjust and only concerned with fulfilling appetitive desires. Glaucon says that "..every man believes that injustice is far more profitable to himself than justice" which would make man more likely to do the unjust thing to economically better themselves (36). The majoriry of men are driven by appetitive desire because they haven't had the education to have a rationally driven mind like a philosopher.
A quote that I found very interesting from Book I that doesn't really have to do with justice but was an interesting thought was "...those who have made it for themselves are twice as fond of it as those who haven't. Just as poets love their poems and fathers love their children, so those who have made their own money don't just care about it because it's useful, as other people do, but because it's something they've made themselves" (5). I think it's an interesting comment on human nature. I feel that people that have made the money they have are definitely more stingy with it and less likely to put it toward excess causes.
I also read that quote and thought a bit on it. It is similar to how people have blinders for their children, their kids are adorable and can do no wrong in their eyes, but that is because theyr ar theirs and they created them. Others might very well believe that child is a brat.
Money is also a good tie in with that quote and I can relate to it personally. When I saved for my first car and prepared to use my own hard earned money I almost didn't go through with it. Spending all that money - MY money - was hard. It was much easier to spend my parents money freely because it wasn't mine and I din't earn it.
The Ring of Gyges is a good story to bring up about appetites in this book because it does reflect on justice, and human nature. It does seem that in most cases when man is capable of committing unjust acts with impunity that he will do so if he stands to gain from them. I also like the quote and can completely understand why. If you work for something you are going to value it far more than if it was simply handed to you. I also believe that it is better to work for what you have because you learn a great deal from the work you do instead of obtaining “old money” which eventually creates problems in society.
I completely agree with Danelle's perspective in that when one earns what they are in possession of one tends to hold that thing with greater value than if it was just given to them. Perhaps if Plato designed a system where all classes had to earn their keep then his system would be impenetrable. I do not really see a way that that would work though given the structure of his "perfect city". Also, I do not agree with Glaucon and his perspective that every man would become corrupt because unlike Glaucon I do not believe all people are the same and tempted by the same provincial items. Some children develop according to the pattern of events that happen throughout their life not according to what one would say about them at birth. Where I admire what Plato and Glaucon are trying to do I do not think people can be grouped together so easily.
I believe that a person would do an injustice if they wouldn’t be caught and they had something to gain from it. Being just doesn’t get you anywhere. It’s simply what most societies deem as the right thing. By being unjust someone could become wealthy. Such as the man in the story who used the invisibility to take over the kingdom. The problem is whether someone wants honor or money. If they want money they would be more willing to be unjust while if they want honor they would act more justly. The ring takes the decision away and someone can have both honor and money.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? The legend of the ring of Gyges refers to a mythical ring that allows the person wearing it to be completely invisible to the rest of the world. This individual can then do any action he pleases and not face the consequences because no one can catch him in the act. In Plato’s Republic Glaucon mentions stealing from other’s homes, raping women, killing people, releasing people from prison, and basically any other action that would “make him like a God among humans” as possibilities while wearing the ring. Glaucon’s point then is that when the eyes of society are averted, when the rest of humanity is looking away, every individual will take advantage of this opportunity. Glaucon states that it does not matter if an individual is just or unjust, he will still act “unjustly” if no one is watching. Glaucon goes on to discuss the idea that humans are not naturally just but just only because they are “compelled to be,” and that once in private every human will act with injustice if they are given the opportunity; that injustice is profitable where as justice is not. He concludes his point by stating that, given the ring, if an individual did not commit any of the above crimes he would be publically praised. However, in private, his peers would actually think that he wasted the opportunity but do not voice this opinion because they do not want to appear unjust. I found this passage to be very meaningful and insightful, and as I read past this it still lingered in the back of my mind. This is the classic situation in which we can truly see an individual’s morals, and similar social experiments have gone on for centuries around this idea of what we do when no one else is looking.
Discuss the lines “…for old age brings peace and freedom from all such things. When the appetites relax and cease to importune us…. we escape from many mad masters.” (329d) and any significance they have in modern times. I found these lines to be the most interesting I encountered in the first four books, and I very much liked this perspective on old age. In relation to justice, the central theme of The Republic, Plato is essentially saying that we should respect our elders and that the older individuals in a community have a unique viewpoint. The character that speaks these lines, Cephalus, is intended to represent the appetitive part of Plato’s tripartite soul. Therefore, Plato is getting at the idea that one cannot truly be just until all these other needs and desires are stripped away. This idea has interesting consequences in the modern world we live in today. Take, for example, the fascination the culture of the United States today has with youth. The emphasis on being young and staying young can be seen everywhere, and this has completely permeated our society. While this can probably be contributed to the Baby Boomer generation, it is still a massive trend in which people are attempting to forget the fact they are aging. Plato states that this is a time of clarity, a time when people can actually see the world how it exists without the clouded lenses of the appetites of youth. According to him, the elderly should be enjoying this time not pretending as if it did not exist.
I particularly liked Socrates' talk with Cephalus as well. I found it very interesting and i like the line that had to do with the elders already walking down the path that the youth will eventually have to go down. it is helpful in life to listen to one's elders but to keep in mind that their way of thinking could also be outdated in comparison to what is useful now. Some aspects most likely will alway be useful in life, but others can be frowned upon by the younger generations and be outdated biases. It is an interesting means to look at old age as a freedom from things that one would have been expected to engage in in their youth. If more older people could feel this way i feel depression in older people could be reduced. Unfortunately nowadays the younger generation dominates and there are constant reminders of what is lost to the elderly and what they can no longer do.
Even if the ideal city that Socrates talks about were possible, would people want to live in it? After reading about all of the requirements of this "perfect city" I questioned whether or not I would want to live in it. Socrates says that the city would be ideal because the best men and women would have children, everything would be shared, there would be classes of Guardians, Producers, and Auxillaries and the rulers of the city would be philosopher-kings. Personally, I don't think I would want to live in this perfect city. In order for the city to stay intact the people have to follow specific rules. These rules are so specific that people in the city can't even have children when they want or raise them themselves. The idea of everything being shared seems well intentioned, but I don't think that it could ever work. People have natural feelings to have things for themselves. Being part of the collective in a city such as the one Socrates describes takes away people's individuality. It seems to me that the sole purpose of living in that type of city would be to make the city run efficiently and to benefit the city as a whole, not to worry about the well being of the individual people in it.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyses? Glaucon wants Socrates to further discuss justice. He says that there are three different classes of goods; goods that are desired for their consequences, goods that are desired for their own sake, and goods that are desired for their consequences and for their own sake. Glaucon says that most people agree with the first class of goods in regards to justice. People allow themselves to suffer the burden of justice because they know that things would be bad without it. He uses the ring of Gyges to say that if people could put on a ring and be invisible they would get away with doing unjust things. In other words, if people could get away with being unjust all of the time, they would. The only reason they don't is the fear of the punishment that comes along with being unjust.
Why does Socrates say education in music and poetry are so important? Socrates says that education in music and poetry are so important because the Guardians need to be well rounded. Not only do they need to be strong and physically fit, they also need to be gentle. There has to be a balance between being big and strong and being knowledgeable. Socrates thinks that the Guardians need to be philosophical.
Socrates believes that education in music and poetry is so important because music and poetry provide a well rounded education; not just physical. I agree that they not only need to be physically strong, but mentally strong as well. I found it interesting how the guardians are supposed to learn music and poetry in hope of becoming more graceful and gentle; for example, they should be able to tell if something is missing from a whole. Socrates believes music can help them do this. Socrates believes that music has the ability to penetrate to the inner soul and if you aren't using music and poetry to become more gentle, than you are doing the opposite and essentially becoming corrupt, in a sense.
I do agree with your conclusion that Plato’s ideal city, his Kallipolis, would be a very regimented and bleak life for anyone not in the class of Guardians. Even for the Guardians I do not feel that it would be an enjoyable life as they hold so much responsibility compared to everyone else. However I believe that these notions can be explained by looking at Plato and his background, and then considering how he conveys his personal beliefs through Socrates. Plato comes from a militaristic background and, as with most men of his profession at the time, he is primarily concerned with efficiency. Plato does not share the mindset people have today of maximizing quality of life for the individuals in a society. For us, efficiency holds less priority than attempting to make the society a place people are happy to reside in. Also, Plato comes from an Aristocratic family. It is safe to say that Plato considers himself a Guardian, and he would not be caught dead as part of the Producing class. Given that, Plato is not particularly concerned with the welfare of the Producers. As long as they are there to put food on his table he is more or less satisfied. While he feels they are a necessity, at times it is almost as if he views them as more of a problem than an essential part of his ideal city.
Plato’s Republic and the Nature of Debate The central debate of The Republic is the nature and definition of justice. Plato posits Justice as one of the four core ideals in a perfect republic. Debating the truth of justice and the republican way is certainly interesting and has fueled academic and philosophical debates, as well planned many humanities classes for over a millennia, even before this seminal work. What fascinates me is the pragmatics of a society built on debate, as Plato seems to be showing us. In the narrative a highly educated man of influence debates the topics of justice with others of his kind, or at least close to his kind. Plato will of course not provide his protagonist with an equal in debates. My question when reading this are: Does this manner of debate even make sense? And, can a society really function with such a culture of active debate, and did Plato’s society really exist as such? First, on the manner of the debate: principally the idea is not to prove you are right, but someone else is wrong. By proving what things are not you will eventually come to a definition of what a thing actually is that cannot be debated as all other possibilities have proven false. In the case of this work Justice is defined by all the things that it is not i.e. it is not vengeful, it is not following the law, it is not done in self-interest… By refuting in no uncertain terms why these definition are incorrect a correct answer is generally arrived at only because no one can find another way to refute it. The logic becomes very circular and convoluted and not especially clear. Were this the ideal method of divising an answer then in a text with no real counter-arguments to Plato’s definition of Judgement there should be no further debate. Clearly Plato seemed to think this would end the debate. For the republic to want to END debate is ironic in itself as it seems he says very often society is built on healthy debate, or at least debate among intellectually trained individuals. Debate in Plato’s time is not as universal as he would like us to believe. The text begins with Socrates being stopped by his eventual debate combatants. They lead him to the home of one of their troop, which leads to the famous debate. The entire context of the story is a narrative debate among the upper echelon of society, the leaders and thinkers. As they debate Justice in terms of the common man, the poor or producers as Plato would call them, are never asked what their definition of Justice is. In Plato’s Academy only the exclusive were allowed education. To us now withholding education from so many, and making decisions without their consent seems very dictatorial and archaic. Democracy is the cornerstone of free, educated society. Right? I do not think our society could function were we engaged in the level of debate we associate with the Greek philosophers, or even the thinkers of the Renaissance. I think we have a debate that is more widely spread among the people, and open to others though it is not of equal education levels, beliefs or cultures. Plato seems to think in the end people will naturally side with what is best, but that cannot be separated from what is best in our own self-interest. As a society today we seem very tired of debates and bipartisan politics. We have superficial debates across social media, but generally take little action to see our views enacted. We have much more debate, but mush less activism in my opinion. Can a society function with a high level of debate inbred? Considering this debate got Plato killed it is hard to think that it could have been realistic then and worked. As a world democratic culture we may not have the same group of highly trained guardians doing the debating for us as Plato envisioned, but we tend to avoid killing many nonviolent dissidents. Who knows though, our country is still very young and we may get there yet.
This is a very interesting point about something that's absolutely integral to the Republic, which is how Plato constructs his arguments. I think your comment that 'the logic becomes very circular and convoluted...' is just a little bit of an understatement; Socrates rarely makes a non-hypothetical postulation about something, and when he isn't doing that, he's answering somebodies question with another question. It's an amazingly annoying technique to only employ questions in an argument, and Socrates uses it masterfully. Unfortunately, I would also have to agree with your point about the low probability of some kind of similar structure working in today's world. To use Plato's terminology, the appetitive part of people's souls seems far too prominent for any kind of intense debate, or anything like what we see in the Republic, to happen today. I'm not saying I think this is a bad thing; maybe it's a bad thing, but I'm not entirely sure.
You raise an important point about the privilege of the author and the characters of The Republic. Plato disapproves of democracy because it does not value his opinion as much as a society ruled by philosophers would. Plato couldn't imagine a society where the majority of people are reasonably well educated and have enough leisure time to learn about things outside of professions. Furthermore, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the poor quality of the arguments.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? In book II, Glaucon describes his own perspective of what justice is. He claims that there are three types of goods: those that we cherish for its own sake (joy); those that we cherish for the rewards (such as making money): and goods that we cherish both for its own sake and for its rewards. The legend of the ring of Gyges is about a man who discovers a ring that makes him invisible. According to the legend, this man used this power to seduce the king’s wife and take over the kingdom. Glaucon is telling this story in order to show that both an unjust person and a just person would follow the same path if given this power. That is, they would act in an unjust manner, stealing from whomever, having sex with whomever, etc. Glaucon’s reasoning for this comes from his theory that people will act unjustly when they know they can get away with it. Glaucon argues that society comes to an agreement to do no injustice with one another for fear of suffering injustice. “The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge. Justice is a mean between these two extremes.” (p. 35, section 359d). Justice arises as a sort of social contract where people agree not to do injustice for fear of the suffering and penalties of injustices. Thus, Glaucon says that justice lies in the category of goods that are valued solely because of its reward. The story of the ring of Gyges is meant to show that it is highly probable that no one would choose to be just if they knew they could suffer no consequences. He furthers this point by saying that if someone were to act justly with the ring of invisibility, that people would think he is mad privately, but they would praise him publicly. This is Glaucon’s perspective of justice in a society.
What is the principle structure of Socrates’ just city? Why does he think that this is the best structure? The principle structure of Socrates’ just city is composed of three classes of people: the producers, the auxiliaries and the guardians. Each person is to specialize in one specific field in which they are best at. A farmer’s only job is to farm, a sailor’s only job is to sail. The vast majority of professions are made up of the producers. The auxiliaries are the warrior class, educated and trained in order to defend the city. The guardians are the rulers of the city. They are the most just and educated people of the city and they are the holders of wisdom. Socrates’ views this as the best structure for his ideal city because it exemplifies the four main virtues of a city, wisdom (guardians), courage (auxiliaries), moderation and justice. Moderation is the social agreement between the rulers and the ruled as to who is to rule. In other words, the producers and the auxiliaries agree with the guardians that the guardians are to rule. Socrates tentatively defines justice as the specialization in the city, i.e., everybody plays his/her own role. “One who is just does not allow any part of himself to do the work of another part or allow the various classes within himself to meddle with each other.” (Pg. 119, section 443d.) Justice is also putting oneself in order and ruling oneself.
I think Glaucon and Socrates' arguments are arguing separate points on the same topic. Glaucon is arguing the point in the context of their current society, a Greek man of the time of course would not be naturally just with a magic ring. Socrates is saying that in his ideal society, where everyone is raised in the 4 virtues, the men there would make the right (just) choice. They may both be arguing how the ring would be use, but they are arguing separate owners of the ring.
1. Why does Plato settle on certain ideals for his Republic? - Plato has, as an exceptionally educated individual surrounded by those not his intellectual equal, clearly developed a cynical view of the current Athenian democracy, and it’s investment of power in the “majority”. This majority is represented by the under-formed and poorly rationalized arguments put forth by characters like Thrasymachus and Polemarchus, and Plato’s disdain is clear. His categorical refutation of every point put forward by his characters illustrates just how thoroughly unpleased Plato was with the environment around him, and his increasingly strong desire to change what he views as inherently flawed. His desire for order and inbred harmony takes him onto a path that trends dangerously towards (and careens well past) a sort of benevolent authoritarianism run by an oligarchy of Philosopher-Kings. 2. (FROM THE HANDOUT) What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? - Glaucon is trying to illustrate what he believes is the inevitability of mischief if a human is given a “get off scot free” option. His invokation of the legend is supposed to illustrate that these legendary, and thus admirable, figures often act unjustly, and are all the better for it. Plato uses him as an example of how the old ways were less than conducive to his ideal state, and why they were sometimes unjust. This is probably why later in the work, he expresses a desire to remove these sort of legends from the common tradition. 3. Is any of this “utopia” even possible? - Human nature, despite the wishes of those smarter than most of humanity, trends towards self-expression and independence. As the saying goes, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. There are limits to what people will do for people aside from themselves and their loved ones. It’s folly to think, in this day and age or otherwise, that you could keep the entirety of a populace pigeon-holed into neat little categories determined by a person who holds no personal sway over them. The only real way to do this, as has been shown in authoritarian dictatorships throughout history, is through fear and intimidation. Rather ironically, these are the things that Plato seeks to stay away from, as they are the arguments of the intellectually vexing Sophists. Furthermore, even those states require extraordinarily charismatic leaders to maintain that dystopian nightmare - Hitler, Mussolini, and Oliver Cromwell, all of their legacies crumbled when they died. To think that we could simply educate a new set of Guardians grants way too much credit to the nurture side of Nature vs. Nurture, and not any credit at all to human nature. In short, no, no is not possible and you’re a bad person for thinking as much.
In response to the first question: I wouldn't necessarily say that Plato's views are tarnished with cynicism. I believe that he's reached a completely different level of thinking; one devoid of bias and personal opinion. I believe that he's reached a level of personal fulfillment that one can only reach through the ability of taking out what you believe to be true and realizing what really is true. He see's everything for exactly what it is. This way of thinking provides Plato with a new level of self-satisfaction that is also devoid of emotion and ego. He's trying to use his wisdom to bring others into the light, but without force. It is all based on everyone's individual choice to reach this level of thinking. I believe all those he sees as not guardians are the people who are part of his cave. It is his job and those like him to bring those to light. It is also true that for some this cannot be so, for they have been too influenced. The only way to not be influenced is to teach without the influence. Although it is viewed as radical, his ideas are his only solutions to teaching people how to reach the true potential that they have.
The connection between the Ring of Gyges and Plato's desire for censorship is an interesting one. Glaucon's point about the myth is that it seems to reflect human nature, but is Socrates suggesting that if people aren't exposed to stories like this, then maybe that part of their nature won't really be actuated, or maybe suppressed? It seems to me that Plato is putting a little too much power in the ability for poetry/music to really awaken people to their nature; if people have a capacity to feel one way, then chances are they will at least feel something similar regardless of poetry or whatever.
I agree with the first point you make about Plato's disdain for democracy and how his views imply authoritarianism. The supporting characters in the Republic only serve to make Plato's argument seem more credible. Plato uses these characters to bounce his ideas off of them with no real intention of any of their arguments being correct. Plato is showing his appreciation for the Socratic method through his use of arguments and counter arguments. In regards to your third question, the idea of his ideal city is used as an allegory in order to define what justice is on an individual level. By understanding the virtues of the ideal city, eventually, Plato wishes to apply this analogy to what justice is on an individual level and why it is good to value justice in it of itself
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
Glaucon is trying to explain by using this story that people who have the opportunity to get away with injustice perform unjust behaviors. Everyone given the right opportunity will fall to injustice to get further in life, it is an easier life and a more exciting life as long as one does not get caught in their unjust acts. This legend explains that an ordinary man finds an ordinary ring, however this ring is not ordinary at all, it’s magical and can make one disappear. By finding this ring and figuring out its true power of invisibility, he uses it to gain power by ways of killing the king. First, he seduces the king’s wife, and then she helps him murder her husband. By showing this example, Glaucon is explaining that people with the power to get away with injustice perform unjust acts because they have no punishment to fear or conscience of doing something wrong because they got away with it. No matter how “good” someone is said to be, having the power to be indistinguishable can change their ways and have them perform unjust acts. Everyone wants to have power, whether it is from money and wealth or by other means like this ring, once someone has power over other ordinary individuals they will use it for their advantage until the status quo changes in the others favor.
The legend of Gyges is a very tricky situation - who wouldn't fool around a little bit if they had the power of invisibility? The part where most diverge is the degree to which that mischief will be carried out. Personally, it's another facet of why Plato's republic is doomed to fail - people just are not predictable as a group of individuals. A million men with a million rings will do somewhere between 2 and a million dumb things. Nobody can be counted on to do the same thing as their neighbor, at which point the entire thought exercise falls apart.
I agree with you. I think this is why Socrates was trying to sat that no matter what giving any type of power to main can result in something bad whether the man be just or unjust. Giving something such as this power to human can change them whether they are good or not. I think having some powers is good but too much can change a person and too much can change a society. A just person may never do wrong but given an opportunity or special powers they now have the tools necessary to make a quick change. It is also the same for a person on unjust but humans might expect something of this from them and not the just people talk about all the time.
This story of the ring is a way to show the problem with justice, if people cannot be observed and punished many would not obey any laws. So it seems that just acts are done because people fear being punished, so justice is not intrinsically good. Justice in this view is really just a way to regulate people behaviors in order to ensure productivity and order.
Plato’s Republic How is education important in Plato’s Republic? The education of the different groups of people seems to be one of the most important aspects regarding Plato’s ideal city. First of all there are three groups of people that fill different roles in society. The first group is the producers. They are called the producers because they produce things that everyone uses. The producers are basically taught how to create whatever it is that they create. The group that comes after the producers is the auxiliaries. This is a group full of the wealthier people such as merchants and poets. The next group is the warriors of the city. The warriors defend the city and are taught in such ways that keep them physically fit but also mentally fit. Plato believes that the warriors must be trained in music and poetry. Plato wants his warriors to be tough against enemies yet gentle with the people they protect. The warriors must be knowledge-loving people. The education of the warriors, also known as the “guardians” was very important to Plato. The warriors needed to be educated at a high level because Plato believed that people who were educated tended to act with more rationality. Education made all the difference between the different classes in his ideal city.
Could Plato’s ideal city realistically be utilized? No, I do not believe that Plato’s ideal city could ever be utilized. One of the most unrealistic things in his plan for his city is that the warriors and the leaders of the city must all be educated to a high degree. This would be almost impossible to fulfill. I highly doubt that many of the soldiers back in Plato’s era would agree get an education in music and poetry. Soldiers need to be trained in combat and they need to be physically fit. I do not believe that a soldier needs to be knowledge-loving in order to be an effective soldier. This city is also unrealistic because no class structure works in the way the class structure in his city does. It seems like the lowest class of people in his ideal city are the producers, while realistically people that produce things may be middle class types of people. Also, Plato believed that guardians should receive no wages and should have no access to any personal wealth. He thinks that they should all live together in public housing as well. This is unrealistic because it is a desire for almost everyone to own some personal privacy and acquire some wealth. Plato’s idea of a perfect city is a nice idea, but it is not realistic in the slightest. There would be no way to change a society as a whole to meet Plato’s ideas.
What does Plato think the soul is and how is it important? Plato believes that the soul has three different parts, much like his ideal city. The first part of the soul is the appetitive part. This is the part that has desire such as eating, drink, and having sex. The second part of the soul is the spiritual part. This part of the soul desires things like honor and courage. The last and most important part of the soul is the rational part. This is the part that desires things like knowledge. Different people utilize different parts of their souls. Philosophers utilize the rational part of their souls and honor-bound soldiers utilize the spiritual part. The soul is important because it explains what drives people to do what they do. The desires that people have correlate with the different parts of the soul. Plato believed that the people should utilize the third and highest part of their soul, the rational part. If people would use the rational part then they would live a better, fuller life. The soul guides the human through their life.
Education is a vital topic in Plato’s Kallipolis society. Having three different types of people, the Producers, Auxiliaries, and Guardians, Plato breaks down the roles of the society. The producers like you said “produce” things they can be farmers, doctors, shoemakers etc. The auxiliaries are the warriors or the military for the city, while the final group the guardians are the highly educated leaders. Plato has devised a complete schedule of education for each specific group letting the guardians have the highest education and the producers the lowest.
This city cannot be realistically utilized at all. There are way too many flaws like you have stated to make it unstable. This may seem to be a Utopian society in Plato’s mind but in reality it is extremely flawed.
I completely agree about what you wrote on the different parts of a person’s soul and what each part mean.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? Glaucon’s point is that humans have a tendency to act unjust if they had the choice. He says that even the most just man would become unjust if he had the chance. He would leave his just morals behind and give in to his materialistic and erotically lustful urges. Basically, without the fear of punishment, men would not care to be just, because justice isn’t desirable in itself. It also shows that men are more worried of the punishments that come with being unjust, rather how it is good for them. This is the reasoning behind the story of the ring of Gyges.
For what reason did Plato make his characters the way he did? He did this so he could display every major school of thought. He has each character embody a different walk of life, and consequently each differing opinion that comes with these examples. These are the ideas of the aristocrats (appetite), the warrior (spirit) and the intellect (rational). He did this so he could show that they were all wrong in their ideas of justice. He tears down all their ideals, and reduces them, with an elenchus style discussion. He finds the holes in each to show them that they are all wrong.
What does the character of Socrates think of these opinions on justice? He doesn’t seem to like them at all. He shoots down every proposed definition and explanation, and counters their ideas with a question refuting it. He continues to do this until there’s nothing else they can say in defense of their original opinion. He thinks they’re all wrong in the basic interpretation of justice. Even though he never offers a straight explanation of his ideas, and completely ignores major questions that are thrown at him.
I agree with your understanding of the legend of the ring of Gynges completely. If there are no foreseeable consequences, even a just man is likely to commit injustice. Glaucon uses this parable to assert his opinion that justice for its own sake is not desireable. I agree that Plato carefully chose the characters of Republic. He chooses an individuals with varying viewpoints to allow the character of Socrates to repeatedly disprove their arguments through Elenchus. I agree completely with your statement on Socrates opinions on the other character’s ideas of justice. Although he never specifically offers his own definition of justice, Socrates essentially spends the entirety of Republic arguing against and disproving the other characters ideas of justice.
It's interesting that Socrates rails against made up stories and imitation in the Republic, yet he's sort of guilty of both in his writing. If we're to assume that the people presenting arguments in the Republic are fictional and created by Plato to be representative of larger archetypes, is Plato not engaging in making up stories and thereby defying his own philosophy? I guess it could perhaps be explained, like the many allegories used in The Republic, that these characters are hypothetical in nature and are intended to convey a larger truth. But what about Socrates then? Socrates is (presumably) a real person, and if we're to assume that Plato is writing a fictionalized version of him, saying things the real Socrates never said, interacting with people he never interacted with, then we have to assume that Plato is creating here an imitation of Socrates. Plato leaves no room in the Republic for doubt on the issue of imitation in the Republic: it's always bad. No grey areas, always bad. So in this way Plato is violating his own hard and fast rules that he thinks should dictate society.
The ring of Gyges was an interesting analogy and it also makes a lot of sense. I agree that if someone had a ring with that kind of power then they would not act in a just manner. I agree that people are worried with the punishments that come along with their crimes. I don't believe that most people are necessarily afraid of committing the crime itself, they are only afraid of the punishments they may receive, Plato's characters are interesting in the fact that they are representative of the different schools of thought at the time. It seems like Plato's main goal is to prove how everyone else has been wrong so far in their thinking. This goes right along with their ideas of justice. Plato thinks that everyone has the wrong idea of justice. Socrates always shoots down their ideas yet never puts out an idea of his own. It almost looks like justice is an undefinable term.
What is Glaucon's point with the lengend of the ring of Gyges?
Book II of "The Republic" opens with Glaucon refusing to abandon the arguments involving justice and injustice. Glaucon asks Socrates, "do you want to seem to have persuaded us that it is better in every way to be just than unjust, or do you want to truly convince us of this?" To which Socrates responds, "I truly want to convince you, if I can." Glaucon's point is that people see justice as the lesser of two evils. He asserts that people prefer to inflict wrongdoings onto others. However these same people become the subject of a wrongdoing themselves and quickly realize that the pains of being a victim far outweigh the benefits of being the victimizer. Glaucon makes it clear justice isn't something people take part in willingly. According to him, justice is a compromise between what is most desirable to an individual and what is most undesirable to an individual. In other words, people come together in forged agreements known as "justice."
What is the principle structure of Socrates' just city? Why does he think that is the best structure?
Socrates' principle structure of society is "specialization." Specialization involves each person performing the role for which they are best suited and that one must not meddle in any other business. Behind this principle is the idea that humans have natural inclinations that need to be fulfilled. This structure provides the most apt division of labor. The just city is populated by craftsmen, farmers, and doctors, who each do their own job and refrain from that of the others; this is known as the "healthy city." Next, Socrates introduces merchants, for once they are present, a city can become luxurious. This luxury, though, will inevitably lead to war, which is why Socrates then proposes the guardians: warriors trained to protect the city from invaders. Producers must not be warriors, though, for that would violate the principle of specialization. Socrates believes this is the best structure, because, everything can be done at the highest level possible.
I agree with the first part of your blog. Glaucon defiantly says the story to drive the point home that people have the tendency to be unjust if they have no fear of reprisal. And if there is no chance that they’ll get in trouble, they will act unjustly. But, when you apply the cultural constraints to this individual, you see the struggle that you mention at the end of your first question. I also agree with what is in your second paragraph. He sets it up as Guardians being the highest, Auxiliaries being the second highest, and producers at the bottom. These are ridged structures because and flux will destroy the specialization that you mention earlier. Definitely hit the nail on the head with your explaniations!
Discuss Socrates' Thoughts on the Notion of the Traditional Family:
In response to Polemarchus, Socrates makes the claim that both males and females possess the qualities required to rule and that there should and will be both male and female guardians. They will each receive the same education and be given the same responsibilities - including defense of the city. He claimed that traditional marriages and families encouraged emotional ties between men and women and at the guardian level this would be done away with. Men and women would be matched throuhg a rigged lottery at festivals and the best would be matched with the best to create the "best" kids. Furthermore, the best of the best would be given more opportunities to have babies to perpetuate a better race. These matches would be solely with the purpose of having children to maintain the population with. If an inferior child is born, they will be left to die, while good children are given to nurses to raise. All of the city will be considered family and guardian children will come to know all other children as brothers and sisters. This decreases animosity and breeds content.
Based on the 7th letter, explain Platos' rationale for withdrawing from politics and writing the republic:
When he was young Plato dreamed of going into politics and fully believed it was his civic duty to do so. He had many friends and family already involved in politics, so it felt like a natural fit. He stood back awhile though at first and watched his friends and family and what he saw changed his mind. He saw self-serving policies being passes, rampant greed, absolute power corrupting officials, and a governing body that served itself over the needs of the people. Seeing this he was disgusted with politics and decided against pursuing this career.
Why are poets banished from the education of the guardians? He believed that poetry was full of falsehoods and too emotionally driven. Emotions in this sense would surely lead to corruption
Plato's banishment of poets from the education of the guardians is an interesting one. As much as I'd like to say it's too extreme, I can't help but to agree, wholeheartedly. At first, I asked myself how "heroes" would distinguish themselves, but then I decided that if every man is courageous and immune to things like a fear of death, then there is no need for any single person to distinguish them self as a hero, for everyone would act as so. In a sense, instead of being men first and soldiers second, they are soldiers first and man second. It is that way that soldiers can function at the highest efficiency. Instead of allowing emotions to influence decisions in a selfish way, a soldier can simply act in a way that is most beneficial for everyone involved.
Your first point addresses a section of the Republic that I found quite disturbing. Although Plato has not outlined a clear cut definition of justice, I hardly believe that selective breeding can be considered just. Of course, this ideal city is unrealistic but Plato seems to make some harsh points in forming a city that is "ideal." Those with the best genes can still make the most offspring but to let other inferior children idly die isn't right. In the kallipolis, children live a very structured childhood where they learn their specialization inside and out. I feel that a major flaw in Plato's argument is that he ignores that a lack of social mobility easily leads to animosity and revolution. If the vast majority of people in the city are stuck as producers, if they choose to change their life paths then they can revolt quite easily. I do not believe that breaking down the traditional family should be a part of an ideal city. Love is a very strong emotion and a important part of life; taking that feeling away takes away the human element and it would lead to a city where everyone feels the same about everyone. It resembles a city of robots.
According to Plato, only philosophers should rule because they are the only ones who can -handle- the stress of rule without being a tyrant - which Plato warns against.
Only one, according to Plato, who loves wisdom for its own sake can forsake the pains that create tyrants. Only philosophers know true pleasure, and can avoid corruption. A less charitable person might point out that Plato might've had a vested interest in venerating philosophers as the only possible beacon of a just city. I don't disagree that philosophers could make a good ruler. I just don't believe they're the only option for a good ruler. Plato was classist! He probably had very little idea of how farming worked but goodness, I'm sure he had ideas about the ethics of producers.
Socrates argues for specialization in his 'just city'. Each person would do what task suits them best, regardless of class born into. People who show natural inclinations towards certain labor (ie: people who might display talent at weaving become weavers) become those as -producers-. Then, to make the city flourish, merchants happen. Then, because of jealousy and greed and war are bound to happen (and this is written after the Athenian defeat by the Spartans so loss and war is on the mind of Plato), warriors also must play a role - but as educated warriors. And then philosophers are the most exalted as the ideal 'philosopher-kings'
I agree with you. Plato didn't have a clue what a good ruler was. a good ruler is one who can identify with his people and underdtand thwir plight. A good ruler rules with the best intentions for his people and hopes to better the lies of his people through his rule. He is fair and just and good. He would read poetry!
Although, I don't necessarily disagree with specialization. Our education system has falled way behind a lot of the countries. If yu look at countries that are pushing past us they use a form of specialization. They understand not everyone will be a doctor or a lawyer. They track their students and put them on the track for their best fit.
I can't help but agree! Plato's ideas for his grand city are no more worthy of enactment than a person spitballing their utopia over a cup of coffee. Plato never had to work a day in the fields, and anything he says about their "ideal" life is privileged conjecture. Condemning these simple folk to always do the things that their forefathers did, with very few exceptions, smacks of poor understanding of what drives the members of the lower class. The importance of having the ability to better oneself is oftentimes the only things that keeps the less fortunate from open revolt! Since Plato, history has only reaffirmed these facts, putting the Republic safely into the "will never ever be implemented" pile, right next to global soviet revolution and the reintroduction of New Coke. Thank god.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
The ring of Gyges was a ring that could make a man invisible, once invisible the man is able to act unjustly without fear of being caught. Glaucon says that even the most just man would give succumb to his greedy, materialistic, power hungry side. He brings up this point to show that all people are only just because they are afraid of the punishment, no one is just because it is the right thing. He is making the point that people would rather be unjust than just because it puts them ahead in the world.
I agree with Glaucon and believe this comes from our basal instincts that have helped us in the best to survive. If an individual can find a way to become more desirable or ensure the passing on of his/her genes they will exploit it. This is the mantra of eat or be eaten that has pushed evolution and natural selection for millions of years. An individual, whether human, fish, bird, or reptile, that has a better chance of passing along its genes will take advantage of the opportunity. This opportunity can come in the form of a mutation or ,like the legend, a ring that can aid a man in becoming a desirable mate.
Glaucon's point with the ring of Gyges seems a bit flawed especially in regards to evolution. After all, we're a communal people who live in units rather than by ourselves. Enlightened self-interest rather than "kill or be killed".
While people do often act in their own self-interest, not all our of base needs or appetites are inherently unjust.
Glaucon believes that morality is only a social construction. Socrates in response then changes the definition of justice.
Glaucon defiantly says the story to drive the point home that people have the tendency to be unjust if they have no fear of reprisal. And if there is no chance that they’ll get in trouble, they will act unjustly. But, when you apply the cultural constraints to this individual, you see the struggle between a person being both just and unjust. Forced by his better nature to be fair, but compelled by his appetite to be unjust. He may try to be just to the faces of his peers, but on his own, I fear that he will act unjustly. He will try his hardest to get ahead in the world, for many of the reasons in your second paragraph. I think that humans will naturally try to find ways around being just so they can gain the upper hand on an opponent, or simply someone who is competing with them.
Another point I found interesting about Glaucon’s Legend of the Ring of Gyges is the role of society in this story. While the over-arching theme in this legend is that people will act unjustly when no one else is watching, the true explanation for this is seemingly ignored until the last few lines. It is in fact society that keeps us in line, and we act justly so as not to be looked down upon by society. And Plato goes as far to say that other members of the society would look at someone who did not act unjustly in this situation as stupid, that they missed their golden opportunity. But, the asterisk associated with this point is that no one will voice this sentiment in public, as they fear being judged as unjust by the rest of society. Along with your point that we act unjustly to further our own pursuits, we also try to conceal these actions from the people around us due to our fear of injustice. Therefore to be successful, to survive as you put it, one must act unjustly while hiding his actions from society around him.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the Ring of Gyges? Glaucon’s argues with Socrates in that justice is when people only do good things in expectation of the consequences or something bad happening to them if they don’t do the right thing. He argues that, as a society, we should behave justly in order to avoid harm because we can all suffer from each other’s injustice. Glaucon brings up the Ring of Gyges because, according to mythology, the ring had special powers to make its carrier invisible. He makes the point that even the most just man behaves as he does because he is afraid of the repercussions. Glaucon says that if such a man were able to behave unjustly without consequences (like being invisible) then he would do so.
What are Plato’s views on intercourse? Plato argues that, although intercourse is necessary for procreation, intercourse should only enter relationships for that reason only. Plato believes that the goal in a relationship is to lead the loved one to knowledge of truth and goodness. Intercourse will only mess things up for you. Plato believes that heterosexual intercourse must be tolerated because it is necessary for procreation, but homosexual intercourse serves no end to the fulfillment of physical pleasure. Plato believes that since homosexual intercourse is useless, it cannot be good or beautiful, and this should be avoided completely. He feels that these people are essentially unjust because a just soul is determined by the desires he aims to fulfill and pursues the right desires-a desire for physical pleasure is not worth fulfilling. Plato believes that homosexuals must find truth and goodness together with the person they love, not long for physical pleasure.
Why should only philosophers rule, according to Plato? Ultimately, the belief is that only philosophers should rule because they know the truth. They have stepped out of this world and into the world to knowledge of truth and goodness. A government of people who do not know the truth is basing their ruling off of opinions and self-interest. A great analogy I came across while doing further reading was that of a child’s belief in Santa Clause. Children go through many years of believing there is a Santa Clause due to the media, family and friend’s reassurance, a reply letter from the man, and it becomes validated when the child receives gifts on Christmas morning. As the child gets older and acquires knowledge, they start to disbelieve. The child now ventures into adulthood and parenthood. This parent must now create the belief of Santa Clause for their child. This parent knows the truth. Plato believes that only philosophers can rule because they know the whole truth that ordinary people don’t.
All the answers hit on the main hemes of each question. The only thing I would add is why a just man would become unjust if he had the ring of Gyges. Society puts pressure on people to be just or suffer the consequences but it is also a matter of gaining the upper hand on others and leading to a more prominent successful role. This new role helps the man better pass on his genes and ensure his lineage continues.
That's a pretty apt summary of Plato's views on intercourse. I think Plato has pretty unreasonable expectations regarding intercourse, though, and in human nature in general. He expects people to accept that they must bow down to the total superiority of knowledge and logic over emotion, but people are inherently emotional, and emotions are pretty difficult to control. That's the biggest flaw with his ideal society: everyone in it seems absurdly capable of controlling their emotions precisely, when that's simply not a realistic portrayal of how humans are.
1. Discuss the idea of aporia in Plato’s Republic: Aporia: to be at a loss; impassable; perplexity. It is also known as a state of nothing. However, is it possible to be in a complete state of nothing? Or even if one cannot be in a state of nothing, can their minds do so? “...it is impossible to say that something is not, for if it really is not, how can it be there to think or talk about?” asks Parmenides in his doctrines. His question brings to focus the idea of nothing and if it really can exist. What this means for me is that it is impossible for us to reach a state of aporia. It is impossible to say that something is not there if we can still think that something is. Another example would be the fact that we cannot think about nothing when we are still thinking about that nothing.
2. Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person or what justice is? I believe that Socrates began to discuss the qualities of justice through the use of the city and how an idealistic just city would behave first because it was simply easier than trying to elaborate on the qualities of a just person or what justice is. To elaborate on the idea of justice and by using a just city is much less complicated to explain than a human being who has their own opinions, viewpoints in life, and standards that they chose to follow. It would be extremely difficult to explain each and every possibility of interpretations that all the different people had. That creates a lot of fallacies and makes for a very difficult time trying to elaborate a definition heavily open to interpretation to those who may not be philosophers, sophists, or educated people. The qualities of a just city are easily elaborated because they do not touch upon or look at the society that lives within the just city. It's easy to just give qualities away, but how many people actually adhere to the just city's qualities?
3. What is your definition of justice? Justice is defined as “the quality of being fair and reasonable.” My own definition of the word justice is one in which I try and view people, how they act, what they do, and what they say and to understand that it is theirs. To be a just person for me means that I can see past the positive and negative qualities of people, ideas, places, etc. and understand that they are just to these people, just as my thoughts and beliefs are just to me. This is a way in which to be able to open your eyes to understanding and accepting people more and to allow yourself to extend opportunities to the people, therefore you are successfully fair without being positively or negatively swayed by another person’s views on life. This allows you to also be an extremely reasonable person. This ability to understand behavior and to treat people with fairness and reason at all times rather than when you just agree because you share an opinion is my definition of justice.
I enjoyed your definition of justice and your relationship with other people. I agree that sometimes, you need to put your ideals, morals and beliefs aside when reading someone else because your ideals and beliefs might be different than theirs are. I also believe it is important to be unbiased in those situations. I think that your definition of justice is quite similar to the one given. Being a fair and reasonable person means that you must judge someone without your beliefs affecting the end result. I also agreed with your statement that it is impossible to reach a state of aporia. We can be doing nothing and thinking about nothing, but that nothing is still something.
What is Glaucon trying to communicate when he tells the story of the ring of Gyges? What does this mean for the concept of justice? Glaucon disputes Socrates and his idea that justice is intrinsically good by telling the tale of the ring of Gyges. In this tale a simple man found a ring after a natural disaster, this man life is changed because when this ring is turned inwards he is completely invisible. The tale ends with the man committing adultery with the king’s wife, killing the king and becoming rich with this ability. The moral of this tale is that when this man had the opportunity to commit unjust acts with no punishment he immediately acted in a way that harmed others to benefit himself. The message is simple, people do not act in a just manner because it is good, people act in a just manner because they are afraid of the consequences. Men who choose just acts or unjust acts do so either because they are seeking the approval and respect that comes from being known as a just man, or simply because they are afraid of the repercussions of committing unjust acts. In fact, the unjust life is much more desirable and easy compared to the just life, as seen by the fact that those who can get away with unjust acts enjoy the benefits of these things. This raises important issue of justice, what is more important actually being just or appearing just? In the tale the man enjoys the advantages of being extremely unjust, but appearing just, in contrast imagine as Glaucon did a man who is known as being unjust and acts in a just manner, this man would be punished for being unjust and still not turn away from the just path. It seems that appearing just and reaping the benefits is the true necessity for men, so just actions are actually a means to an end for social acceptance and respect. Socrates response is by defining a just city composed of different actors that each serve a purpose and then comparing these parts to the different parts of the soul. Socrates redefines what it means to be just, instead of people acting in a certain way it is rather an organizing of the soul in an effective way. Socrates believes that just actions produce a just soul and unjust actions produce an unjust soul, so the true advantage of acting just is that it is actually benefitting the self.
Glaucon's moral to the story of the ring of Gyges really does lead to many questions to be asked. Do we act just solely because we are scared of the consequences of being unjust and if we could get away with being unjust would we? I think Glaucon makes a good point with this argument, and does lead the reader to think about what he is saying. If you were guaranteed a smooth getaway with no consequences would you rob a bank? Socrates disputes Glaucon's argument with just saying that being just is good for the soul, but I believe it is more than that. Doing bad things, even with getting away with them, just leads to you being a bad person. I feel that being a bad person gets you rejected by society or not truly liked by society. People should act just because it is the right thing to do. If you act just, you feel no guilt (because you have done nothing wrong), people will like and accept you, and it will just lead to a good life all around.
After reading the Intro and Books 1-4 of Republic, I found the first book to be the most interesting. Although reading the Intro got me quite confused because of the various names and who and what all these people did, I really liked how in depth it went in Book I describing everyone’s views on justice and people. It really made me favor certain characters over others, such as Polemarchus over Thrasymachus. Although he is considered a true sophist, I don’t agree with Thrasymachus’s view that justice is the advantage of the stronger. I feel that justice can be the reached by anyone, whether they are strong or weak, rich or poor. I appreciated Socrates’s honest about not being able to give his ideas about justice because he really doesn’t know about it. This makes him a good philosophist, in my opinion. I did like the interaction between Socrates and Cephalus. I thought it was quite humorous how Socrates was so blunt about Cephalus’s age and also how he got so personal as to question the old man’s sex life. This seemed like such an awkward conversation between to adults. Nowadays, this would probably never be something two grown adults would be discussing. I really liked how intrigued Socrates was when talking to Cephalus about his life. I also liked what Cephalus was saying about life, love and happiness. He seems very wise and knowledgeable. I feel that Socrates learns a lot about life from just talking to Cephalus for a short time. Overall, I did not find this reading to be interesting. It was quite complex and very all over the place. There seemed to be so many characters that it was hard to remember all of them and what they did. I realize Socrates was just incorporating all of his friends and the people he knew but with the long difficult names, it made it hard to recall who each of them were. It was really confusing for me and hard to follow.
I also favored certain characters over others because of their views on justice. For this reason, I enjoyed the first book the best, too. I found it very interesting reading the different opinions of each character, and seeing how those opinions represented the types of people and different classes of his Republic. I also agree with you that anyone can be just, if they choose to be. I think the issue you have with remembering names and characters is because names of that type are so rarely heard by us, and so long (as you said). They are strange in our minds. I had a hard time reading Republic, too, and partially for that reason. I also had a hard time reading it because the dialogue was hardly broken up. I had a difficult time figuring out when one character's dialogue would end, and another's response would begin.
The first book was extremely dense with material and concepts, when the idea of justice and its value and purpose are debated between multiple opposing viewpoints there is going to be some confusion and differing ideas. It seems that the first book was a way to present Socrates and his ideas by comparing it to opposing viewpoints. It seems that Socrates has a very idealistic view of just acts and the people who do these acts, while the opposition has a much more realistic view in relation to the world and how people choose to act. injustice often brings benefits, while justice is difficult and offers no rewards.
Discuss Socrates' thoughts on the notion of a traditional family. Socrates doesn't agree with the notion of a traditional family. This is plainly seen in his want for rigged lotteries in their marriage festivals. Inferior beings mate with inferior, while the best beings mate with the best. Generally only the best humans were allowed to procreate and continue their line, and if an inferior child was produced they would leave the child exposed to the elements to die. These children would all become brothers and sisters with no named parents. This was to create a loyal and unified populous. Socrates seems to believe that a traditional family weakens the city, and that loyalty to the city and its wellbeing is important. This lack of emotional ties to family disturbs me and only seems to work if it is traditional in the area.
Describe the education of kings in Socrates' ideal city. How is it different from our current university education? Socrates writes that a boy's education should contain platonic love between student and teacher, physical war training, appropriate stories that don't have mindlessly violent characters. The best and brightest and most morally right children have the possibility of becoming Kings and this is determined by testing their loyalty to their city and judging their soul to be pure. Today, universities have set guidelines for how they expect college students to act (proper conduct) and guidelines for how to complete their major, but these students have the ability to chose their own major. They are not forced to take their parent's job and it isn't assumed they have the same “soul” of their parents. Universities treat students as individuals while still forcing these students to take the necessary general education classes and required courses for their major. This is interesting to compare to how some families treat their children and how Socrates says children should be treated. I know that my cousins are assumed to become part of the medical field and if they don't do this then their parents are disappointed. This is similar to how Socrates feels about where most children are assumed to end up.
In regard to Socretes' notion of a traditional family, I tend to agree with his theory. Clearly there is no evidence to support Socretes' claims, however, to just analyze his claims in a logical sense, it seems true enough. In order to create a perfect and just city, one must prioritize the city above all else. For instance, if a person's sibling were to commit some sort of crime that was destructive to the city and its society, one should do the just thing and not harbor said sibling. However, if it were a person's sibling of blood, how likely is it that they would act as so? Is it unreasonable to assume that a child would do what is best for their blood relative rather than their city? Now, let's assume the same scenario presents itself in Socretes' ideal city, in which bonds between "siblings" wouldn't be the same. The loyalty to the city is no longer competing with the loyalty to someone with which you have an unbreakable bond. Decisions and actions would no longer be driven by relationships with others; as what would have been love between blood, is now more of a respect among peers. Biological ties must be broken if a city is to experience true loyalty. In theory, of course.
I agreed with both of your views about Socrates. For the first question about traditional families, I don't agree at all with his view that a traditional family weakens the city. I feel that it's very wrong to be so prejudice and only have the best humans mate with the best and so on. It's also really messed up how if the people have a baby with someone they shouldn't, that child is forced to be thrown and and die. I realize this is back in the ancient times, but that's ridiculously harsh and seems unethical. I really liked what you said about the lack of emotional ties being disturbing. It is very disturbing. I could not like to see a society without having a traditional family lifestyle. On the second question, I agreed as well. Socrates' education system is immensely different from ours today. Today, it's strange for a student to have a platonic relationship with a teacher. There also is no war training like back then. It's a lot easier today for students than back then. Students get to pick what they want to study, they aren't forced into anything like students were back in this time. I can understand about your cousins and their parents wanting them to go into the medical field. I have family members like that, and it is similar to how Socrates wanted things to happen in his city.
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
Glaucon tries to prove that, given the opportunity, anyone would behave in an unjust nature. It was his belief that if you gave two rings to two people, one just and one unjust, both of them would act in a similar unjust manner. He also wanted to prove how people only act in a just manner because they are unable to act in an unjust manner. While Glaucon’s point is certainly plausible, it is only one possible scenario with a number of contributing factors that could alter the outcome. I think that upbringing is a major factor in this scenario. For instance if an individual is brought up in a society where stealing is common and one does not see how stealing affects the victims, then the person, given the chance, would likely engage in such activities. However another individual brought up in a society where they see what affects stealing has on it victims they may choose not to engage in such activity, even if the opportunity presented itself. At some point in all of our lives we are given the opportunity to act in an unjust manner, yet most of us will choose to ignore such opportunity based on the values that have been instilled in us during our upbringing. It is this factor that, I believe, Glaucon failed to consider.
What kind of society do Socrates and Glaucon design for their city?
In book II, while designing their city, Socrates and Glaucon give references to what kind of work people would do and what kind of education they would receive. While I was reading I couldn’t help but think of the society as an authoritarian society. In this city children are only given access to material the government finds appropriate, while restricting access to the inappropriate. This includes restricting stories that depict the gods in a different manner or rejecting people for telling tales that provide a different view point to the one the government prefers. The Socrates and Glaucon also speak of selecting children and raising them to suit specific jobs, limiting their ability to choose their own career path. In this kind of city the government has the power to tell people what they can say, read or do and to me that is a classic example of an authoritative government.
Could a city such as the one described by Socrates and Glaucon be practical?
I believe the answer to this question is no. The entire structure of the city is dependent on its citizens following the rules and guidelines set down for them, without question or argument. This is unrealistic since there has not once been a society where every single person both agreed with the government and completely followed its rules. There will always be some who choose to ignore the decisions made for them by the government and there will be some who act against those rules. This is a simple fact that is present in every society and the reason behind it is that there will always be people with conflicting desires and it would be impossible for the government to cater to both. In this case the government would choose the most popular desire, which would leave some people out, and would most likely result in these people acting against the government. This scenario obviously does not fit with the model of the city described by Socrates and Glaucon, which is why such a city could not exist.
What is Plato's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? I agree and also believe that that Plato mentions that Glaucon tells this story in order to make the individual reading this to consider what they themselves would do.
What kin of society do Socrates and Glaucon design for their city? They design an impossible city that is based on what already generally occurs. A child during this age is expected to follow what their parent does, if they excel in a subject they are expected to continue to study it until they are sufficient at it and then work in that field until they die. The only difference is that these children could possibly get a better job with the society they create. The education system is similar to our state-run elementary schools today. Our students are expected to learn certain subjects well and many things are ignored like the fact that Benjamin Franklin was a slave holder and wrote papers about the economics of only producing and selling slaves or the actual treatment of native Americans. This information is not broadcasters like Socrates wishes that the negative aspects of the gods are not portrayed.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges? Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges is that morality is a social construction and that temptation might be something that is only resisted because of a persons fear that their actions might effect reputation. He believes that if rules were taken away, morality would go with them. I think this is a true thought. In America, we idolize the wild west but in reality the reason it was so wild was because there was a certain amount of lawlessness between state lines. There was not enough government to maintain rules and so there was a lot of moral-less people. This is an example that without rules and the ability to punish rule breakers there will be a certain loss of justice.
What is the principle structure of Socrates just city? Why does he think that this is the best structure? The principle structure of Socrates just city is social structure. His utopia uses very strict rules to dictate how a persons life should be lived. Each person has their education, and specialization defined for them based on their aptitudes and abilities. Socrates proposed many rules like how immatative liturature is forbiden and the ruler is almost a slave to his job. He is not aloud to touch money or own anything and all of his needs are met by the people. It is a very strict system, a communist system by modern definitions. The thought is that people have many desires. There is a need to demand many things from the world and the more that is given to a person the more they desires. In Socrates Idea City this need annihilated because everything is provided. People have no need for anything and so there is no discord.
Why should philosophers rule according to Plato? Do you agree that philosophers would make great presidents? Philosophers should rule because "until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." (Republic 473c-d) His idea is that Philosophers can bring amount a peace because they understand human nature more than all others from their studies and can implement preventive measures to prevent injustice before it happens. I personally wouldn't allow such extremest views into our presidency because it is not only a rejected practice but because of the negative effects of such all encompassing leadership. Communism is a rejected practice in the United States. I wouldn't want a Philosopher king. That is why I live in a country with a president.
In response to the last question: imagine now that people behaved and thought like Plato. I am not saying that they are just like him, but that they understand the greater scheme of things when it comes to life. There would be a completely different view of the world and how humans acted and what they did to go on through life. The search for knowledge would be one, if not the only, passion in life because that's what life is about. Trying to grasp this concept however is extremely difficult, and people immediately jump to conclusions based on what they have experienced or even on assumptions and therefore immediately discredit just the thought. But one does not understand the true nature of a human being. Partially because of social construction, and largely because of the fact that no one knows how to create happiness for themselves, rather than to obtain it through other means. These other means are not the true definition of happiness, or good. They make us happy, but what should be happening is that we ourselves should make ourselves happy. When people are capable of doing so, in a just way (which can only be met when one realizes the clouded judgement that they have on EVERYTHING, and learn to release it) then can they move on in life. At which point, many "things" wouldn't be necessary. Insecurities would not exist because the only person who can provide security is yourself, and at this point in order to live in a society as idealistic as this, one should already have reached the point where no insecurities exist. And therefore no man should have to rule. The title president would not exist. We would be united in the fact that we are all our own people. But this is a perfect world that almost all people miss out on. A true happiness that they cannot obtain. And that is why it would be impossible, but it makes you wonder how you would look at the idea of a president or philosopher king again after realizing that they don't mean much besides a title that glorifies them and would be unnecessary in a world of true self-fulfillment.
The legend of the Ring of Gyges is a work of fiction, as is the notion that everyone would become moral-less savages if the government isn't around to stop us from ourselves. There is a considerable amount of debate as to whether or not the Wild West had a particularly high murder rate, and what effect any gun control measures had on the violence. Regarding Communism, it is not so much a rejected practice as it is a rejected word. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all arguably Communist in nature. While a Philosopher King would go against everything this Democratic country stands for, a philosopher, a "lover of wisdom," would make for a better than average president.
With regards to you view on the legend of the rings I must respectfully disagree. Even though there would be some people who would act in an immoral manner, I do not believe that this is the case for all. I think that even without rules the morality of a large number of people will remain intact. I would also like to point out that those who followed the lawlessness of the west were a minority of the people living their. So even though some acted unjustly without rules, a good number still acted in a just manner.
I agree with your view on the structure of Socrates city. It is defidently based on social structure. I also agree that the type of city Socrates is describing does seem to mirror that of a communist society. However unlike a communist society the city Socrates described does not allow for movement between classes. In Socrates city, what you are going to be as you get older is decided for you shortly after birth.
I also agree with you that I would not want a philosopher in charge of the country. I also agree that the freedoms and benefits of living in a society like Socrates described would be less than ideal. I think it is important to a society to allow us the opportunity to make our own choices.
Is Socrates vision of justice natural? The idea of justice is challenged on multiple levels in this book. There is a point where Glaucon states that “people value it not as a good but because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity”. I thought about this idea and some truth seemed to be evident in it. Those who can get away with a crime are more likely to commit it than ones who think there is a chance of getting caught. If there was no fear of reprisal for actions than what would stop people from doing them? Morals certainly come into play but every ones are different which would make our world very confusing. If I did not have to pay for something and could just take it, it would take further thought to determine why it might not be a good idea. That is why punishment is absolutely necessary in our world and that the term getting off scott free should not exist. One of the first conversations had in Plato’s republic is about wealth. Life is made easier by having wealth because one has no need to do injustice. This too is a true idea, if you have money you would never need to steal food or “commit injustice”, because you could simply pay for it. It surprised me that Plato did not write an argument about whether it was just or not just to do certain things because of your financial status. If a man was to steal food it would surely be deemed unjust. But if a man was to steal food to support his family when he could do nothing else would that also be deemed unjust? I feel that this extra dimension has a very important role in defining justice. Cephalus brought up Hades and having to be afraid of the unjust things one has done in life before their death, which is why I see a further point for Plato to make a point about conditional justice in this regard.
I agree with that without punishment people would be free to do whatever they wanted. It’s similar to the ring of Gyges. By becoming invisible you’re taking away the punishment for the crime that they committed so they see no reason not to do it. Their society sees the unjust as a wrong and they would be looked down upon if they did it so most people don’t. The punishments try to stop the few who do crimes regardless of the shame they might receive. By doing unjust things you can increase your wealth. So if you’re wealthy you have less need to do unjust things unless you’re still unsatisfied with what you have and want even more. I agree that it’s hard to determine what is just and unjust exactly. Is stealing food if you need it to survive bad and unjust? When you look at it that way it blurs the line between just and unjust.
Punishment is not a strange thing for a philosopher to be curious of, especially one who feels dissatisfied with his government and how he is treated. He feels that he is unfairly treated and that is why Plato has this fascination about how justice should be played out in society. At the same times I do not agree that the wealthy have no need for stealing or else it wouldn't happen. When wealthy people steal they are fulfilling some sort of emotional or physical need just as the child who is starving steals bread. Neither action is condonable just as it is an injustice of society to allow a child go hungry. Should a child be punished for being hungry. No, the society should. Should a rich man be punished for stealing, when he has so much. I don't know if that is for the best interest of society or the thief. Punishment is an old concept, society is beginning to evolve beyond it to the idea of rehabilitation. I do not believe that Plato's idea of punishment is something that is still something to argue over when his idea allowed us to evolve beyond them.
You are absolutely right that people who will get away with injustice without punishment would do so if given the opportunity. Even if someone thinks it is morally wrong, sometimes there are circumstances that you must commit injustice to survive like you have stated. Wealth is not an excuse to commit injustice, just because you could pay someone off to not get in trouble by the law does not give you the right to commit unjust acts. You made a good point that Plato does not take conditional justice in to discussion. Some people may be highly religious bound, or morally bound and not ever want to break the law however sometimes one has to do such things to get by. Overall what you said was to the point and accurate.
I completely agree with what you said about morals and how they effect us and cause us to change our decisions. I feel that if people know there won't be punishment for a crime, even if it's bad and unjust, they will still go through with it. I feel that his view is natural. I also liked what you said about wealth and if you have money, you have no reason to steal or do something unjust. I was surprised as well that he didn't have an argument on this topic. This seems like something he would get very argumentative about. It's a very tough thing to argue because yes, there be times when it's necessary for a man to steal, like you said a poor man stealing for him family.
How is the study of philosophy (dialectic) a risk/danger? How can that danger be avoided? The study of philosophy (dialectic) can be considered a risk or dangerous because it is teaching people to ask questions. Any time someone questions something, like authority, they can be stirring up trouble. There is also a risk in studying dialectic because if the person learning it is not educated they could be asking the wrong questions or questions that are irrelevant and could be causing useless arguments. Plato says that people should be older when they learn dialectic. This is a solution to the problem because by the time people start to learn how to ask questions they will be older and more mature and educated.
What is the connection between the allegory of the cave and politics? In politics people are forced to see what is shown to them. There are a lot of hidden agendas in politics that people either choose to look past or are not educated enough to notice. In the allegory of the cave, the people in the cave cannot look behind them to see what is making the shadows on the wall, they can only see what they are being shown. Finally when one of the people in the cave is able to be free of what is preventing him from seeing what is behind him, his eyes hurt because he is not used to the light from the fire. This is directly related to politics because if people could really see the corruption they would not like what they see. Knowledge is symbolized in the allegory of the cave when the person is finally able to turn around and see what is behind him. Knowledge is important in politics as well.
Plato’s Republic
ReplyDeleteFor what reason did Plato make his characters the way he did?
Plato created completely different characters for Republic, each representing a different role within the society he lived in. For example, Thrasymachus represents people of intellect, while Polemarchus represents spirit as a warrior, and Cephalus represents appetite, as he has money and age. Each type of character has different points of view than the others, especially when it comes to the word “justice.” Cephalus follows Greek tradition, with the feeling that justice means being honest and holding to legal obligations. Polemarchus feels that friends are owed help, while enemies are owed harm. Thrasymachus simply feels that those who are strongest are just, and that injustice is a virtue.
What does the character of Socrates think of these opinions on justice?
Socrates seems to shoot down every single response the men propose. With each opinion, he finds a way to repute it. Cephalus is stunned into silence when Socrates brings up a hypothetical example about a madman being returned a weapon that belongs to him. Socrates also brings up, this time to Polemarchus, that everyone’s opinion of a friend and an enemy is different. He says to Thrasymachus that injustice cannot be a virtue while wisdom is also a virtue.
I agree that Plato made all his characters the way he did to have each one represent a different role in society. Having three completely different characters who each offer a different role in society really helps to understand how points of views vary drastically between the different members of society. It also helps to follow the Socratic method of elenchus. Each character has a different views of how things should be done, and each character is able to refute the other's ideas in a certain way. Getting many different opinions that vary help to come up with the true idea they are looking for.
DeleteAs for Socrates, he is different than the other characters. He is obviously smarter than them with how he can refute each of their definitions of justice. The only problem with him is he can't come up with an actual definition. He is able to refute them all, but never give a real answer. Maybe that is because there is no true definition to justice.
I believe the characters are really just there to further Plato's own arguments. They are not fleshed out characters with solid arguments. Socrates dispels each of the easily enough. They are only there to forestall any arguments or debates that might arise were Plato to not frame this in a form of argument, with it's own inherent defense.
DeleteResponse 1
DeleteI agree that you are right on all of these characters and what they represent. I believe that it is very important that we see every different aspect so we can truly understand the point that Plato is making. Each of these characters arguments go along with their spirit such as the warriors justice is to do harm to his enemies. All of their initial arguments are refuted with relative ease by Socrates. They were very simple hypotheticals to mention and drew us further into what is justice.
I think the reasoning behind Plato's characters was to represent different view points. By doing this Plato was able to take the arguments that people of different classes might make and refute them instead of just arguing against one agrument.
DeleteSocrates character constantly shoots down the arguments of the other characters. While he has not given his own definition on what justice is he continues to give examples that refute the other characters definition.
Is justice desirable for its own sake?
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to agree with Glaucon and Adeimantus’ argument that it is not beneficial for one to seek justice or live justly for justice’s sake. One only acts justly for the rewards that they may receive in life or the afterlife. They even argue that the just man is disadvantaged compared to the unjust man. Despite the fact that living a just life may give one a moral high ground, it is pragmatic to be unjust, if you can get away with it. Before Socrates can offer a conclusive response however, he launches into a large scale allegorical example of justice in the form of a city. At the end of book four, there is still no complete refutation to Glaucon’s argument, although the layout of the city offers an example of justice on a large scale.
What is meant by the passage regarding love between men and boys?
In book three, Socrates discusses the importance of the love between men and boys. He states that, due to the perfection of their education, the boys should end up having traits that make them desirable to all. Socrates believes that, despite their desirability, the love between these boys and men should go no further than the love between father and son. The love between the two should not be tarnished by things of a sexual nature.
Did Plato actually think the ideal city would work in practice?
When described by Socrates, the ideal city sounds perfect. However, one must question whether or not Plato’s system would actually work in practice, or if, like communism, it would generally fail. It is easy to argue that, if there was any problem at all in the raising of the guardians, the city could become a tyrannical dictatorship.
It is definitely good that Socrates clarifies that the love between boys and men should not go beyond father and son. I agree with Socrates that the love between father and son is very important, for multiple reasons. In the way Socrates was speaking of, having desirable traits to all, men and women, I find it interesting that Socrates feels this comes from their education. Traits that are desirable could come from a multitude of things, from the way one is raised, to traits directly from parents, to the culture surrounding one. I can agree that a good education could help to bring about desirable traits as well, but I am not sure I agree that it is the ONLY reason the boys end up with very desirable traits.
DeleteIt is interesting that Socrates seems to dodge responding to Glaucon's argument. It seems to me that it is beneficial to be unjust if you can get away with it, but most do not. Those who are unjust and get away with it can get leaps and bounds ahead of those who are just because there is nothing holding him/her back. The other answers where sufficient enough.
DeleteI think that the portion of the book that speaks of love between older men and boys is very important because feelings could have been taken advantage of in that time period. Many boys needed mentors and people they could be apprentices to and they relied on these men for guidance. This could be taken advantage of by the wrong person and I think it was vrey important to state that it should be a teacher-student or father-son relationship between the men and boys instead of making it a complicated love affair. Valuable lessons can be learned from a mentor but it is important not to get too close.
DeleteI don't believe that Plato's ideal city would have any chance of actually working in the real world. People do not act in the ways that Plato believes they would act. His ideas on how humans behave are unrealistic. People are always going to want to want personal property and things like that. At this point I would also agree that justice has not been proven to be beneficial within itself. So far justice is just some undefinable term that hasn't fit into any of Socrates' ideas.
DeleteA Utopia is a beautiful idea. A world without pain and suffering where everyone had a place and they never needed to worry over anything. But at the same time it is a nightmare. A world where you are a slave to the system that you are born into. Forced to be what ever society demands of you, and no way to change your class or profession if you change as you get older and mature. Human's are a species where we have natural cycles of rebellion during the terrible twos, adolescence, and middle age. The repercussions for acting out would have to be extreme to keep a society like this going and there are many times when biologically humans will act poorly. How would our modern understanding of human's and our biological imperatives work in this ancient idea of utopia work? How would it survive with our modern technology like the internet? Would these distractions be taken away for the integrity of this Utopian society?
DeleteWhat is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteAs Glaucon tells the legend of the ring I find it fascinating. He states that the people go down in this crater created by the story. For me I think his point that no matter what is going people are always curious and want to know what is going on or in this case what is this crater and what is it doing here. When the ruler takes the ring, he may think I found something and this is mine and no one can have. Throughout human history people have always wanted things and do whatever it takes to have the best. For this ruler he may think I have a gold ring and he soon finds out it has special powers. As the ring’s setting is facing him he became invisible to the ones around him. I think this shows that even though humans in a way wish that same could not see us but in reality no one can go unseen. As the ring’s setting is facing outward he becomes visible again. Glaucon’s point might be that some views of some people may be overlooked or invisible while others are not but in reality no matter your view everyone can see it. This does not mean they have to agree with it. Another point might be that there is no real difference between a just person and an unjust one. If one becomes invisible one can really not show who is who. Deep down everyone is equal and by putting a label on someone can change a person’s view of that person.
Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person?
I believe he does this because to him a city is nothing without the people. Elaborating on the city can have an impact and better understanding of how the people inside work. The people are who create the city and in order to fully understand them one must first understand the city as a whole. He says there are three main classes of people within a city, the producers, guardians and axillaries. Each play an important role and help shape the city. Without any of these there might not be a city or the city would not be like it is. Each person also plays a role in the class they belong to. Without this all working together the city might not be as it is or with different people might be a different city. Also the way Socrates sees the city for himself might be different than someone else so I believe he is trying to make a broad overview of what he believes a perfect city is in his mind.
What are Socrates’ concepts of education?
I believe Socrates believed that education involved music, poetry and physical training. Music and poetry can be seen throughout ancient Greek history. Physical training plays a bigger role in Sparta or in the time of war. Ancient Greeks always felt accomplishments I believe in winning so the more training the better. They try to live up to what the gods set for them. Music and poetry play a role in the arts. Ancient Greek is also known for its art and culture. I believe for Socrates, these play a role in developing a person how can fully understand what it mean to Greeks.
Re: Socrates discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person.
DeleteI felt he discussed the qualities of a just city before the concepts of a just person because he was rather -communal- in his approach to justice, rather than taking an individualistic approach to what justice was.
To Socrates, specialization and classification defined justice. A perfect city could only function if people were given. It wasn't about self-determination, but about the good of the city and the "greater good" (whatever that means). I agree with you that in order to understand the role of a person, you had to understand the role of the class one belonged to.
Emma Jean Liberman
I believe that Glaucon’s point regarding the ring of Gyges was that people tend to behave unjustly when no one else is looking. When they think they can get away with it, people will do whatever they please, regardless of whether or not it is “just”.
DeleteI assumed that Socrates discussed the qualities of a just city before the qualities of a just person because it was easier for him to describe a just person after having described a just city. He compares the two to looking at large print and small print from a distance. It will be easier to understand the small print (the individual) once we understand the large print (the city).
I believe that music and art were included in the guardian’s training to keep them from becoming hardened people that they may have become if they were just subjected to physical training. This also allows them to understand their culture. That being said, particularly for the auxiliaries, physical training is equally important to education in music and art.
I think that the purpose of including the ring is, to tell that people will act unjustly or do what ever they want when no one is there to see them. Since no one can see them they can get away with their unjust actions and not have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
DeleteSocrates discussed the qualities of a city, in order to help him describe what justice is to other people. So they would understand him more clearly.
Socrates thought that music was an important concept to teach because it was the best way to teach harmony. Harmony would help see people differently. It would bring their soul grace. So teaching harmony to the guardians would make them more rounded and able to understand their people better.
Jessica Bourdage
ReplyDeleteSocrates’ Justice
Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person or what justice is? Why does Socrates apply such an analogy?
In order to understand justice in the terms of an individual Socrates decides to look at the justice of a city first. He compares it to trying to read small letters in the distance and said that if you found larger letters that were the same as the smaller ones, it would be much easier for you to examine the smaller letter after seeing the larger ones. (line 368d)He hopes that by creating a city they will see where the justice of it comes from and from that be able to relate it to the individual and find the justice in the individual. A city is made up of individuals so by looking at the bigger you can understand the smaller.
What point does the ring of Gyges represent about injustice?
The ring allowed the person who wore it to turn invisible. So the guy who found the ring “seduced the king’s wife, attacked the king with her help, killed him, and took over the kingdom.” (line 360a-b) The basic idea is that anyone would take advantage of the opportunity to do injustice if no one would know about it. If you could have whatever you wanted and act like a God, you would. “We’ll catch the just person red-handed travelling the same road as the unjust.” (line359c) The only thing that keeps people just is their reputation. If a person can be unjust but seem just in the eyes of his fellow people, he’s the one that is profiting the most. A person wouldn’t want to be just but seem unjust to his fellow people. If you’re going to be just you want the honor that goes with that. The only reason that anyone would be just when they didn’t have to is because they believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s what they conclude at the end of Book IV that to be just is like being healthy it’s good for your soul and injustice is bad for your soul.
How does Socrates’ plan to educate people in his city?
He believes that everyone should do the work that he is naturally best suited to do. There should be specialization. One of the key people in the city will be the guardians. They must be educated first in music and poetry and then in physical training. Socrates believes that children are most malleable when they are younger so that is when it’s important to teach them. They have to be careful of the stories that the children are told. He says that no stories about the “gods warring, fighting or plotting against one another” should be told because they aren’t true. (line 378c)By being educated in music and poetry a person becomes more graceful. After learning that they must learn physical training. “They must be like sleepless hounds, able to see and hear as keenly as possible and to endure frequent changes of water and food…without faltering in health.” (line 404a-b)There has to be a balance between the music and the physical training. Too much music leads to softness and overcultivation and too much physical training leaves people hard and savage. Socrates wants his guardians to be a mix of these two.
I agree is a just person wants honor then they need to do whatever to receive it but they are also what happens if the just person turns unjust. He mentions that it would be just as bad for the unjust person to receive these powers as it was for the jus person. Humans can have two sides and I think he does a good job at trying to see both sides and realize what would be better if anything. I also agree with Socrates talking about the children. He believes that the center of the society is based on what the children become and where they go in life. The specialization does play a key role in what is going on in Socrates just city. Without it he believes there would be no city and humans would have nothing.
Delete
DeleteSince the ring allowed people to turn invisible, I believe that people would act unjustly. They would use the ring to do things that are not acceptable in society and since they are invisible they would not get caught. I agree that it is important to teach the children the important things in society, since they will be the future rulers one day.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteWhen Glaucon speaks of the ring of Gyges he is speaking of the unjustness of human nature. He says, that if/when a person has the chance, they will seize it to do things that are in their interest and fulfill their appetitive desires. He says that a man only acts justly in the face of recognition when he says, "...one is never just willingly but only when compelled to be" (36). He talks about how whenever someone can do something unjust and get away with it, then he will. I think it's very symbolic that the man from Gyges was a shepherd before he found the ring. This makes him from a very humble background and one would probably come to the conclusion that he was probably a just man. However, having the power to do as he pleased without anyone stopping him made his virtues disappear and he became unjust and only concerned with fulfilling appetitive desires. Glaucon says that "..every man believes that injustice is far more profitable to himself than justice" which would make man more likely to do the unjust thing to economically better themselves (36). The majoriry of men are driven by appetitive desire because they haven't had the education to have a rationally driven mind like a philosopher.
A quote that I found very interesting from Book I that doesn't really have to do with justice but was an interesting thought was "...those who have made it for themselves are twice as fond of it as those who haven't. Just as poets love their poems and fathers love their children, so those who have made their own money don't just care about it because it's useful, as other people do, but because it's something they've made themselves" (5). I think it's an interesting comment on human nature. I feel that people that have made the money they have are definitely more stingy with it and less likely to put it toward excess causes.
I also read that quote and thought a bit on it. It is similar to how people have blinders for their children, their kids are adorable and can do no wrong in their eyes, but that is because theyr ar theirs and they created them. Others might very well believe that child is a brat.
DeleteMoney is also a good tie in with that quote and I can relate to it personally. When I saved for my first car and prepared to use my own hard earned money I almost didn't go through with it. Spending all that money - MY money - was hard. It was much easier to spend my parents money freely because it wasn't mine and I din't earn it.
The Ring of Gyges is a good story to bring up about appetites in this book because it does reflect on justice, and human nature. It does seem that in most cases when man is capable of committing unjust acts with impunity that he will do so if he stands to gain from them. I also like the quote and can completely understand why. If you work for something you are going to value it far more than if it was simply handed to you. I also believe that it is better to work for what you have because you learn a great deal from the work you do instead of obtaining “old money” which eventually creates problems in society.
DeleteI completely agree with Danelle's perspective in that when one earns what they are in possession of one tends to hold that thing with greater value than if it was just given to them. Perhaps if Plato designed a system where all classes had to earn their keep then his system would be impenetrable. I do not really see a way that that would work though given the structure of his "perfect city". Also, I do not agree with Glaucon and his perspective that every man would become corrupt because unlike Glaucon I do not believe all people are the same and tempted by the same provincial items. Some children develop according to the pattern of events that happen throughout their life not according to what one would say about them at birth. Where I admire what Plato and Glaucon are trying to do I do not think people can be grouped together so easily.
DeleteI believe that a person would do an injustice if they wouldn’t be caught and they had something to gain from it. Being just doesn’t get you anywhere. It’s simply what most societies deem as the right thing. By being unjust someone could become wealthy. Such as the man in the story who used the invisibility to take over the kingdom. The problem is whether someone wants honor or money. If they want money they would be more willing to be unjust while if they want honor they would act more justly. The ring takes the decision away and someone can have both honor and money.
DeleteAustin Stone
ReplyDeleteDr. Akman
Humanities 1
2/26/13
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
The legend of the ring of Gyges refers to a mythical ring that allows the person wearing it to be completely invisible to the rest of the world. This individual can then do any action he pleases and not face the consequences because no one can catch him in the act. In Plato’s Republic Glaucon mentions stealing from other’s homes, raping women, killing people, releasing people from prison, and basically any other action that would “make him like a God among humans” as possibilities while wearing the ring. Glaucon’s point then is that when the eyes of society are averted, when the rest of humanity is looking away, every individual will take advantage of this opportunity. Glaucon states that it does not matter if an individual is just or unjust, he will still act “unjustly” if no one is watching. Glaucon goes on to discuss the idea that humans are not naturally just but just only because they are “compelled to be,” and that once in private every human will act with injustice if they are given the opportunity; that injustice is profitable where as justice is not. He concludes his point by stating that, given the ring, if an individual did not commit any of the above crimes he would be publically praised. However, in private, his peers would actually think that he wasted the opportunity but do not voice this opinion because they do not want to appear unjust. I found this passage to be very meaningful and insightful, and as I read past this it still lingered in the back of my mind. This is the classic situation in which we can truly see an individual’s morals, and similar social experiments have gone on for centuries around this idea of what we do when no one else is looking.
Discuss the lines “…for old age brings peace and freedom from all such things. When the appetites relax and cease to importune us…. we escape from many mad masters.” (329d) and any significance they have in modern times.
I found these lines to be the most interesting I encountered in the first four books, and I very much liked this perspective on old age. In relation to justice, the central theme of The Republic, Plato is essentially saying that we should respect our elders and that the older individuals in a community have a unique viewpoint. The character that speaks these lines, Cephalus, is intended to represent the appetitive part of Plato’s tripartite soul. Therefore, Plato is getting at the idea that one cannot truly be just until all these other needs and desires are stripped away. This idea has interesting consequences in the modern world we live in today. Take, for example, the fascination the culture of the United States today has with youth. The emphasis on being young and staying young can be seen everywhere, and this has completely permeated our society. While this can probably be contributed to the Baby Boomer generation, it is still a massive trend in which people are attempting to forget the fact they are aging. Plato states that this is a time of clarity, a time when people can actually see the world how it exists without the clouded lenses of the appetites of youth. According to him, the elderly should be enjoying this time not pretending as if it did not exist.
I particularly liked Socrates' talk with Cephalus as well. I found it very interesting and i like the line that had to do with the elders already walking down the path that the youth will eventually have to go down. it is helpful in life to listen to one's elders but to keep in mind that their way of thinking could also be outdated in comparison to what is useful now. Some aspects most likely will alway be useful in life, but others can be frowned upon by the younger generations and be outdated biases. It is an interesting means to look at old age as a freedom from things that one would have been expected to engage in in their youth. If more older people could feel this way i feel depression in older people could be reduced. Unfortunately nowadays the younger generation dominates and there are constant reminders of what is lost to the elderly and what they can no longer do.
DeleteEven if the ideal city that Socrates talks about were possible, would people want to live in it?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about all of the requirements of this "perfect city" I questioned whether or not I would want to live in it. Socrates says that the city would be ideal because the best men and women would have children, everything would be shared, there would be classes of Guardians, Producers, and Auxillaries and the rulers of the city would be philosopher-kings. Personally, I don't think I would want to live in this perfect city. In order for the city to stay intact the people have to follow specific rules. These rules are so specific that people in the city can't even have children when they want or raise them themselves. The idea of everything being shared seems well intentioned, but I don't think that it could ever work. People have natural feelings to have things for themselves. Being part of the collective in a city such as the one Socrates describes takes away people's individuality. It seems to me that the sole purpose of living in that type of city would be to make the city run efficiently and to benefit the city as a whole, not to worry about the well being of the individual people in it.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyses?
Glaucon wants Socrates to further discuss justice. He says that there are three different classes of goods; goods that are desired for their consequences, goods that are desired for their own sake, and goods that are desired for their consequences and for their own sake. Glaucon says that most people agree with the first class of goods in regards to justice. People allow themselves to suffer the burden of justice because they know that things would be bad without it. He uses the ring of Gyges to say that if people could put on a ring and be invisible they would get away with doing unjust things. In other words, if people could get away with being unjust all of the time, they would. The only reason they don't is the fear of the punishment that comes along with being unjust.
Why does Socrates say education in music and poetry are so important?
Socrates says that education in music and poetry are so important because the Guardians need to be well rounded. Not only do they need to be strong and physically fit, they also need to be gentle. There has to be a balance between being big and strong and being knowledgeable. Socrates thinks that the Guardians need to be philosophical.
Socrates believes that education in music and poetry is so important because music and poetry provide a well rounded education; not just physical. I agree that they not only need to be physically strong, but mentally strong as well. I found it interesting how the guardians are supposed to learn music and poetry in hope of becoming more graceful and gentle; for example, they should be able to tell if something is missing from a whole. Socrates believes music can help them do this. Socrates believes that music has the ability to penetrate to the inner soul and if you aren't using music and poetry to become more gentle, than you are doing the opposite and essentially becoming corrupt, in a sense.
DeleteI do agree with your conclusion that Plato’s ideal city, his Kallipolis, would be a very regimented and bleak life for anyone not in the class of Guardians. Even for the Guardians I do not feel that it would be an enjoyable life as they hold so much responsibility compared to everyone else. However I believe that these notions can be explained by looking at Plato and his background, and then considering how he conveys his personal beliefs through Socrates. Plato comes from a militaristic background and, as with most men of his profession at the time, he is primarily concerned with efficiency. Plato does not share the mindset people have today of maximizing quality of life for the individuals in a society. For us, efficiency holds less priority than attempting to make the society a place people are happy to reside in. Also, Plato comes from an Aristocratic family. It is safe to say that Plato considers himself a Guardian, and he would not be caught dead as part of the Producing class. Given that, Plato is not particularly concerned with the welfare of the Producers. As long as they are there to put food on his table he is more or less satisfied. While he feels they are a necessity, at times it is almost as if he views them as more of a problem than an essential part of his ideal city.
DeletePlato’s Republic and the Nature of Debate
ReplyDeleteThe central debate of The Republic is the nature and definition of justice. Plato posits Justice as one of the four core ideals in a perfect republic. Debating the truth of justice and the republican way is certainly interesting and has fueled academic and philosophical debates, as well planned many humanities classes for over a millennia, even before this seminal work. What fascinates me is the pragmatics of a society built on debate, as Plato seems to be showing us. In the narrative a highly educated man of influence debates the topics of justice with others of his kind, or at least close to his kind. Plato will of course not provide his protagonist with an equal in debates. My question when reading this are: Does this manner of debate even make sense? And, can a society really function with such a culture of active debate, and did Plato’s society really exist as such?
First, on the manner of the debate: principally the idea is not to prove you are right, but someone else is wrong. By proving what things are not you will eventually come to a definition of what a thing actually is that cannot be debated as all other possibilities have proven false. In the case of this work Justice is defined by all the things that it is not i.e. it is not vengeful, it is not following the law, it is not done in self-interest… By refuting in no uncertain terms why these definition are incorrect a correct answer is generally arrived at only because no one can find another way to refute it. The logic becomes very circular and convoluted and not especially clear. Were this the ideal method of divising an answer then in a text with no real counter-arguments to Plato’s definition of Judgement there should be no further debate. Clearly Plato seemed to think this would end the debate. For the republic to want to END debate is ironic in itself as it seems he says very often society is built on healthy debate, or at least debate among intellectually trained individuals. Debate in Plato’s time is not as universal as he would like us to believe.
The text begins with Socrates being stopped by his eventual debate combatants. They lead him to the home of one of their troop, which leads to the famous debate. The entire context of the story is a narrative debate among the upper echelon of society, the leaders and thinkers. As they debate Justice in terms of the common man, the poor or producers as Plato would call them, are never asked what their definition of Justice is. In Plato’s Academy only the exclusive were allowed education. To us now withholding education from so many, and making decisions without their consent seems very dictatorial and archaic. Democracy is the cornerstone of free, educated society. Right? I do not think our society could function were we engaged in the level of debate we associate with the Greek philosophers, or even the thinkers of the Renaissance. I think we have a debate that is more widely spread among the people, and open to others though it is not of equal education levels, beliefs or cultures. Plato seems to think in the end people will naturally side with what is best, but that cannot be separated from what is best in our own self-interest. As a society today we seem very tired of debates and bipartisan politics. We have superficial debates across social media, but generally take little action to see our views enacted. We have much more debate, but mush less activism in my opinion. Can a society function with a high level of debate inbred? Considering this debate got Plato killed it is hard to think that it could have been realistic then and worked. As a world democratic culture we may not have the same group of highly trained guardians doing the debating for us as Plato envisioned, but we tend to avoid killing many nonviolent dissidents. Who knows though, our country is still very young and we may get there yet.
This is a very interesting point about something that's absolutely integral to the Republic, which is how Plato constructs his arguments. I think your comment that 'the logic becomes very circular and convoluted...' is just a little bit of an understatement; Socrates rarely makes a non-hypothetical postulation about something, and when he isn't doing that, he's answering somebodies question with another question. It's an amazingly annoying technique to only employ questions in an argument, and Socrates uses it masterfully. Unfortunately, I would also have to agree with your point about the low probability of some kind of similar structure working in today's world. To use Plato's terminology, the appetitive part of people's souls seems far too prominent for any kind of intense debate, or anything like what we see in the Republic, to happen today. I'm not saying I think this is a bad thing; maybe it's a bad thing, but I'm not entirely sure.
DeleteYou raise an important point about the privilege of the author and the characters of The Republic. Plato disapproves of democracy because it does not value his opinion as much as a society ruled by philosophers would. Plato couldn't imagine a society where the majority of people are reasonably well educated and have enough leisure time to learn about things outside of professions. Furthermore, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the poor quality of the arguments.
DeleteWhat is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteIn book II, Glaucon describes his own perspective of what justice is. He claims that there are three types of goods: those that we cherish for its own sake (joy); those that we cherish for the rewards (such as making money): and goods that we cherish both for its own sake and for its rewards. The legend of the ring of Gyges is about a man who discovers a ring that makes him invisible. According to the legend, this man used this power to seduce the king’s wife and take over the kingdom. Glaucon is telling this story in order to show that both an unjust person and a just person would follow the same path if given this power. That is, they would act in an unjust manner, stealing from whomever, having sex with whomever, etc. Glaucon’s reasoning for this comes from his theory that people will act unjustly when they know they can get away with it. Glaucon argues that society comes to an agreement to do no injustice with one another for fear of suffering injustice. “The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge. Justice is a mean between these two extremes.” (p. 35, section 359d). Justice arises as a sort of social contract where people agree not to do injustice for fear of the suffering and penalties of injustices. Thus, Glaucon says that justice lies in the category of goods that are valued solely because of its reward. The story of the ring of Gyges is meant to show that it is highly probable that no one would choose to be just if they knew they could suffer no consequences. He furthers this point by saying that if someone were to act justly with the ring of invisibility, that people would think he is mad privately, but they would praise him publicly. This is Glaucon’s perspective of justice in a society.
What is the principle structure of Socrates’ just city? Why does he think that this is the best structure?
The principle structure of Socrates’ just city is composed of three classes of people: the producers, the auxiliaries and the guardians. Each person is to specialize in one specific field in which they are best at. A farmer’s only job is to farm, a sailor’s only job is to sail. The vast majority of professions are made up of the producers. The auxiliaries are the warrior class, educated and trained in order to defend the city. The guardians are the rulers of the city. They are the most just and educated people of the city and they are the holders of wisdom. Socrates’ views this as the best structure for his ideal city because it exemplifies the four main virtues of a city, wisdom (guardians), courage (auxiliaries), moderation and justice. Moderation is the social agreement between the rulers and the ruled as to who is to rule. In other words, the producers and the auxiliaries agree with the guardians that the guardians are to rule. Socrates tentatively defines justice as the specialization in the city, i.e., everybody plays his/her own role. “One who is just does not allow any part of himself to do the work of another part or allow the various classes within himself to meddle with each other.” (Pg. 119, section 443d.) Justice is also putting oneself in order and ruling oneself.
I think Glaucon and Socrates' arguments are arguing separate points on the same topic. Glaucon is arguing the point in the context of their current society, a Greek man of the time of course would not be naturally just with a magic ring. Socrates is saying that in his ideal society, where everyone is raised in the 4 virtues, the men there would make the right (just) choice. They may both be arguing how the ring would be use, but they are arguing separate owners of the ring.
Delete1. Why does Plato settle on certain ideals for his Republic?
ReplyDelete- Plato has, as an exceptionally educated individual surrounded by those not his intellectual equal, clearly developed a cynical view of the current Athenian democracy, and it’s investment of power in the “majority”. This majority is represented by the under-formed and poorly rationalized arguments put forth by characters like Thrasymachus and Polemarchus, and Plato’s disdain is clear. His categorical refutation of every point put forward by his characters illustrates just how thoroughly unpleased Plato was with the environment around him, and his increasingly strong desire to change what he views as inherently flawed. His desire for order and inbred harmony takes him onto a path that trends dangerously towards (and careens well past) a sort of benevolent authoritarianism run by an oligarchy of Philosopher-Kings.
2. (FROM THE HANDOUT) What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
- Glaucon is trying to illustrate what he believes is the inevitability of mischief if a human is given a “get off scot free” option. His invokation of the legend is supposed to illustrate that these legendary, and thus admirable, figures often act unjustly, and are all the better for it. Plato uses him as an example of how the old ways were less than conducive to his ideal state, and why they were sometimes unjust. This is probably why later in the work, he expresses a desire to remove these sort of legends from the common tradition.
3. Is any of this “utopia” even possible?
- Human nature, despite the wishes of those smarter than most of humanity, trends towards self-expression and independence. As the saying goes, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. There are limits to what people will do for people aside from themselves and their loved ones. It’s folly to think, in this day and age or otherwise, that you could keep the entirety of a populace pigeon-holed into neat little categories determined by a person who holds no personal sway over them. The only real way to do this, as has been shown in authoritarian dictatorships throughout history, is through fear and intimidation. Rather ironically, these are the things that Plato seeks to stay away from, as they are the arguments of the intellectually vexing Sophists. Furthermore, even those states require extraordinarily charismatic leaders to maintain that dystopian nightmare - Hitler, Mussolini, and Oliver Cromwell, all of their legacies crumbled when they died. To think that we could simply educate a new set of Guardians grants way too much credit to the nurture side of Nature vs. Nurture, and not any credit at all to human nature. In short, no, no is not possible and you’re a bad person for thinking as much.
Denis Jekic
DeleteIn response to the first question: I wouldn't necessarily say that Plato's views are tarnished with cynicism. I believe that he's reached a completely different level of thinking; one devoid of bias and personal opinion. I believe that he's reached a level of personal fulfillment that one can only reach through the ability of taking out what you believe to be true and realizing what really is true. He see's everything for exactly what it is. This way of thinking provides Plato with a new level of self-satisfaction that is also devoid of emotion and ego. He's trying to use his wisdom to bring others into the light, but without force. It is all based on everyone's individual choice to reach this level of thinking. I believe all those he sees as not guardians are the people who are part of his cave. It is his job and those like him to bring those to light. It is also true that for some this cannot be so, for they have been too influenced. The only way to not be influenced is to teach without the influence. Although it is viewed as radical, his ideas are his only solutions to teaching people how to reach the true potential that they have.
The connection between the Ring of Gyges and Plato's desire for censorship is an interesting one. Glaucon's point about the myth is that it seems to reflect human nature, but is Socrates suggesting that if people aren't exposed to stories like this, then maybe that part of their nature won't really be actuated, or maybe suppressed? It seems to me that Plato is putting a little too much power in the ability for poetry/music to really awaken people to their nature; if people have a capacity to feel one way, then chances are they will at least feel something similar regardless of poetry or whatever.
DeleteI agree with the first point you make about Plato's disdain for democracy and how his views imply authoritarianism. The supporting characters in the Republic only serve to make Plato's argument seem more credible. Plato uses these characters to bounce his ideas off of them with no real intention of any of their arguments being correct. Plato is showing his appreciation for the Socratic method through his use of arguments and counter arguments. In regards to your third question, the idea of his ideal city is used as an allegory in order to define what justice is on an individual level. By understanding the virtues of the ideal city, eventually, Plato wishes to apply this analogy to what justice is on an individual level and why it is good to value justice in it of itself
DeleteWhat is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteGlaucon is trying to explain by using this story that people who have the opportunity to get away with injustice perform unjust behaviors. Everyone given the right opportunity will fall to injustice to get further in life, it is an easier life and a more exciting life as long as one does not get caught in their unjust acts. This legend explains that an ordinary man finds an ordinary ring, however this ring is not ordinary at all, it’s magical and can make one disappear. By finding this ring and figuring out its true power of invisibility, he uses it to gain power by ways of killing the king. First, he seduces the king’s wife, and then she helps him murder her husband. By showing this example, Glaucon is explaining that people with the power to get away with injustice perform unjust acts because they have no punishment to fear or conscience of doing something wrong because they got away with it. No matter how “good” someone is said to be, having the power to be indistinguishable can change their ways and have them perform unjust acts. Everyone wants to have power, whether it is from money and wealth or by other means like this ring, once someone has power over other ordinary individuals they will use it for their advantage until the status quo changes in the others favor.
The legend of Gyges is a very tricky situation - who wouldn't fool around a little bit if they had the power of invisibility? The part where most diverge is the degree to which that mischief will be carried out. Personally, it's another facet of why Plato's republic is doomed to fail - people just are not predictable as a group of individuals. A million men with a million rings will do somewhere between 2 and a million dumb things. Nobody can be counted on to do the same thing as their neighbor, at which point the entire thought exercise falls apart.
DeleteI agree with you. I think this is why Socrates was trying to sat that no matter what giving any type of power to main can result in something bad whether the man be just or unjust. Giving something such as this power to human can change them whether they are good or not. I think having some powers is good but too much can change a person and too much can change a society. A just person may never do wrong but given an opportunity or special powers they now have the tools necessary to make a quick change. It is also the same for a person on unjust but humans might expect something of this from them and not the just people talk about all the time.
DeleteThis story of the ring is a way to show the problem with justice, if people cannot be observed and punished many would not obey any laws. So it seems that just acts are done because people fear being punished, so justice is not intrinsically good. Justice in this view is really just a way to regulate people behaviors in order to ensure productivity and order.
DeleteColin Moore
ReplyDeletePlato’s Republic
How is education important in Plato’s Republic?
The education of the different groups of people seems to be one of the most important aspects regarding Plato’s ideal city. First of all there are three groups of people that fill different roles in society. The first group is the producers. They are called the producers because they produce things that everyone uses. The producers are basically taught how to create whatever it is that they create. The group that comes after the producers is the auxiliaries. This is a group full of the wealthier people such as merchants and poets. The next group is the warriors of the city. The warriors defend the city and are taught in such ways that keep them physically fit but also mentally fit. Plato believes that the warriors must be trained in music and poetry. Plato wants his warriors to be tough against enemies yet gentle with the people they protect. The warriors must be knowledge-loving people. The education of the warriors, also known as the “guardians” was very important to Plato. The warriors needed to be educated at a high level because Plato believed that people who were educated tended to act with more rationality. Education made all the difference between the different classes in his ideal city.
Could Plato’s ideal city realistically be utilized?
No, I do not believe that Plato’s ideal city could ever be utilized. One of the most unrealistic things in his plan for his city is that the warriors and the leaders of the city must all be educated to a high degree. This would be almost impossible to fulfill. I highly doubt that many of the soldiers back in Plato’s era would agree get an education in music and poetry. Soldiers need to be trained in combat and they need to be physically fit. I do not believe that a soldier needs to be knowledge-loving in order to be an effective soldier. This city is also unrealistic because no class structure works in the way the class structure in his city does. It seems like the lowest class of people in his ideal city are the producers, while realistically people that produce things may be middle class types of people. Also, Plato believed that guardians should receive no wages and should have no access to any personal wealth. He thinks that they should all live together in public housing as well. This is unrealistic because it is a desire for almost everyone to own some personal privacy and acquire some wealth. Plato’s idea of a perfect city is a nice idea, but it is not realistic in the slightest. There would be no way to change a society as a whole to meet Plato’s ideas.
What does Plato think the soul is and how is it important?
Plato believes that the soul has three different parts, much like his ideal city. The first part of the soul is the appetitive part. This is the part that has desire such as eating, drink, and having sex. The second part of the soul is the spiritual part. This part of the soul desires things like honor and courage. The last and most important part of the soul is the rational part. This is the part that desires things like knowledge. Different people utilize different parts of their souls. Philosophers utilize the rational part of their souls and honor-bound soldiers utilize the spiritual part. The soul is important because it explains what drives people to do what they do. The desires that people have correlate with the different parts of the soul. Plato believed that the people should utilize the third and highest part of their soul, the rational part. If people would use the rational part then they would live a better, fuller life. The soul guides the human through their life.
Education is a vital topic in Plato’s Kallipolis society. Having three different types of people, the Producers, Auxiliaries, and Guardians, Plato breaks down the roles of the society. The producers like you said “produce” things they can be farmers, doctors, shoemakers etc. The auxiliaries are the warriors or the military for the city, while the final group the guardians are the highly educated leaders. Plato has devised a complete schedule of education for each specific group letting the guardians have the highest education and the producers the lowest.
DeleteThis city cannot be realistically utilized at all. There are way too many flaws like you have stated to make it unstable. This may seem to be a Utopian society in Plato’s mind but in reality it is extremely flawed.
I completely agree about what you wrote on the different parts of a person’s soul and what each part mean.
Mark Sledziewski
ReplyDeleteWhat is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
Glaucon’s point is that humans have a tendency to act unjust if they had the choice. He says that even the most just man would become unjust if he had the chance. He would leave his just morals behind and give in to his materialistic and erotically lustful urges. Basically, without the fear of punishment, men would not care to be just, because justice isn’t desirable in itself. It also shows that men are more worried of the punishments that come with being unjust, rather how it is good for them. This is the reasoning behind the story of the ring of Gyges.
For what reason did Plato make his characters the way he did?
He did this so he could display every major school of thought. He has each character embody a different walk of life, and consequently each differing opinion that comes with these examples. These are the ideas of the aristocrats (appetite), the warrior (spirit) and the intellect (rational). He did this so he could show that they were all wrong in their ideas of justice. He tears down all their ideals, and reduces them, with an elenchus style discussion. He finds the holes in each to show them that they are all wrong.
What does the character of Socrates think of these opinions on justice?
He doesn’t seem to like them at all. He shoots down every proposed definition and explanation, and counters their ideas with a question refuting it. He continues to do this until there’s nothing else they can say in defense of their original opinion. He thinks they’re all wrong in the basic interpretation of justice. Even though he never offers a straight explanation of his ideas, and completely ignores major questions that are thrown at him.
I agree with your understanding of the legend of the ring of Gynges completely. If there are no foreseeable consequences, even a just man is likely to commit injustice. Glaucon uses this parable to assert his opinion that justice for its own sake is not desireable.
DeleteI agree that Plato carefully chose the characters of Republic. He chooses an individuals with varying viewpoints to allow the character of Socrates to repeatedly disprove their arguments through Elenchus.
I agree completely with your statement on Socrates opinions on the other character’s ideas of justice. Although he never specifically offers his own definition of justice, Socrates essentially spends the entirety of Republic arguing against and disproving the other characters ideas of justice.
It's interesting that Socrates rails against made up stories and imitation in the Republic, yet he's sort of guilty of both in his writing. If we're to assume that the people presenting arguments in the Republic are fictional and created by Plato to be representative of larger archetypes, is Plato not engaging in making up stories and thereby defying his own philosophy? I guess it could perhaps be explained, like the many allegories used in The Republic, that these characters are hypothetical in nature and are intended to convey a larger truth. But what about Socrates then? Socrates is (presumably) a real person, and if we're to assume that Plato is writing a fictionalized version of him, saying things the real Socrates never said, interacting with people he never interacted with, then we have to assume that Plato is creating here an imitation of Socrates. Plato leaves no room in the Republic for doubt on the issue of imitation in the Republic: it's always bad. No grey areas, always bad. So in this way Plato is violating his own hard and fast rules that he thinks should dictate society.
DeleteThe ring of Gyges was an interesting analogy and it also makes a lot of sense. I agree that if someone had a ring with that kind of power then they would not act in a just manner. I agree that people are worried with the punishments that come along with their crimes. I don't believe that most people are necessarily afraid of committing the crime itself, they are only afraid of the punishments they may receive, Plato's characters are interesting in the fact that they are representative of the different schools of thought at the time. It seems like Plato's main goal is to prove how everyone else has been wrong so far in their thinking. This goes right along with their ideas of justice. Plato thinks that everyone has the wrong idea of justice. Socrates always shoots down their ideas yet never puts out an idea of his own. It almost looks like justice is an undefinable term.
DeleteWhat is Glaucon's point with the lengend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteBook II of "The Republic" opens with Glaucon refusing to abandon the arguments involving justice and injustice. Glaucon asks Socrates, "do you want to seem to have persuaded us that it is better in every way to be just than unjust, or do you want to truly convince us of this?" To which Socrates responds, "I truly want to convince you, if I can." Glaucon's point is that people see justice as the lesser of two evils. He asserts that people prefer to inflict wrongdoings onto others. However these same people become the subject of a wrongdoing themselves and quickly realize that the pains of being a victim far outweigh the benefits of being the victimizer. Glaucon makes it clear justice isn't something people take part in willingly. According to him, justice is a compromise between what is most desirable to an individual and what is most undesirable to an individual. In other words, people come together in forged agreements known as "justice."
What is the principle structure of Socrates' just city? Why does he think that is the best structure?
Socrates' principle structure of society is "specialization." Specialization involves each person performing the role for which they are best suited and that one must not meddle in any other business. Behind this principle is the idea that humans have natural inclinations that need to be fulfilled. This structure provides the most apt division of labor. The just city is populated by craftsmen, farmers, and doctors, who each do their own job and refrain from that of the others; this is known as the "healthy city." Next, Socrates introduces merchants, for once they are present, a city can become luxurious. This luxury, though, will inevitably lead to war, which is why Socrates then proposes the guardians: warriors trained to protect the city from invaders. Producers must not be warriors, though, for that would violate the principle of specialization. Socrates believes this is the best structure, because, everything can be done at the highest level possible.
I agree with the first part of your blog. Glaucon defiantly says the story to drive the point home that people have the tendency to be unjust if they have no fear of reprisal. And if there is no chance that they’ll get in trouble, they will act unjustly. But, when you apply the cultural constraints to this individual, you see the struggle that you mention at the end of your first question.
DeleteI also agree with what is in your second paragraph. He sets it up as Guardians being the highest, Auxiliaries being the second highest, and producers at the bottom. These are ridged structures because and flux will destroy the specialization that you mention earlier. Definitely hit the nail on the head with your explaniations!
Discuss Socrates' Thoughts on the Notion of the Traditional Family:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Polemarchus, Socrates makes the claim that both males and females possess the qualities required to rule and that there should and will be both male and female guardians. They will each receive the same education and be given the same responsibilities - including defense of the city. He claimed that traditional marriages and families encouraged emotional ties between men and women and at the guardian level this would be done away with. Men and women would be matched throuhg a rigged lottery at festivals and the best would be matched with the best to create the "best" kids. Furthermore, the best of the best would be given more opportunities to have babies to perpetuate a better race. These matches would be solely with the purpose of having children to maintain the population with. If an inferior child is born, they will be left to die, while good children are given to nurses to raise. All of the city will be considered family and guardian children will come to know all other children as brothers and sisters. This decreases animosity and breeds content.
Based on the 7th letter, explain Platos' rationale for withdrawing from politics and writing the republic:
When he was young Plato dreamed of going into politics and fully believed it was his civic duty to do so. He had many friends and family already involved in politics, so it felt like a natural fit. He stood back awhile though at first and watched his friends and family and what he saw changed his mind. He saw self-serving policies being passes, rampant greed, absolute power corrupting officials, and a governing body that served itself over the needs of the people. Seeing this he was disgusted with politics and decided against pursuing this career.
Why are poets banished from the education of the guardians?
He believed that poetry was full of falsehoods and too emotionally driven. Emotions in this sense would surely lead to corruption
Plato's banishment of poets from the education of the guardians is an interesting one. As much as I'd like to say it's too extreme, I can't help but to agree, wholeheartedly. At first, I asked myself how "heroes" would distinguish themselves, but then I decided that if every man is courageous and immune to things like a fear of death, then there is no need for any single person to distinguish them self as a hero, for everyone would act as so. In a sense, instead of being men first and soldiers second, they are soldiers first and man second. It is that way that soldiers can function at the highest efficiency. Instead of allowing emotions to influence decisions in a selfish way, a soldier can simply act in a way that is most beneficial for everyone involved.
DeleteYour first point addresses a section of the Republic that I found quite disturbing. Although Plato has not outlined a clear cut definition of justice, I hardly believe that selective breeding can be considered just. Of course, this ideal city is unrealistic but Plato seems to make some harsh points in forming a city that is "ideal." Those with the best genes can still make the most offspring but to let other inferior children idly die isn't right. In the kallipolis, children live a very structured childhood where they learn their specialization inside and out. I feel that a major flaw in Plato's argument is that he ignores that a lack of social mobility easily leads to animosity and revolution. If the vast majority of people in the city are stuck as producers, if they choose to change their life paths then they can revolt quite easily. I do not believe that breaking down the traditional family should be a part of an ideal city. Love is a very strong emotion and a important part of life; taking that feeling away takes away the human element and it would lead to a city where everyone feels the same about everyone. It resembles a city of robots.
DeleteAccording to Plato, only philosophers should rule because they are the only ones who can -handle- the stress of rule without being a tyrant - which Plato warns against.
ReplyDeleteOnly one, according to Plato, who loves wisdom for its own sake can forsake the pains that create tyrants. Only philosophers know true pleasure, and can avoid corruption. A less charitable person might point out that Plato might've had a vested interest in venerating philosophers as the only possible beacon of a just city. I don't disagree that philosophers could make a good ruler. I just don't believe they're the only option for a good ruler. Plato was classist! He probably had very little idea of how farming worked but goodness, I'm sure he had ideas about the ethics of producers.
Socrates argues for specialization in his 'just city'. Each person would do what task suits them best, regardless of class born into. People who show natural inclinations towards certain labor (ie: people who might display talent at weaving become weavers) become those as -producers-. Then, to make the city flourish, merchants happen. Then, because of jealousy and greed and war are bound to happen (and this is written after the Athenian defeat by the Spartans so loss and war is on the mind of Plato), warriors also must play a role - but as educated warriors. And then philosophers are the most exalted as the ideal 'philosopher-kings'
Emma Jean Liberman
I agree with you. Plato didn't have a clue what a good ruler was. a good ruler is one who can identify with his people and underdtand thwir plight. A good ruler rules with the best intentions for his people and hopes to better the lies of his people through his rule. He is fair and just and good. He would read poetry!
DeleteAlthough, I don't necessarily disagree with specialization. Our education system has falled way behind a lot of the countries. If yu look at countries that are pushing past us they use a form of specialization. They understand not everyone will be a doctor or a lawyer. They track their students and put them on the track for their best fit.
I can't help but agree! Plato's ideas for his grand city are no more worthy of enactment than a person spitballing their utopia over a cup of coffee. Plato never had to work a day in the fields, and anything he says about their "ideal" life is privileged conjecture. Condemning these simple folk to always do the things that their forefathers did, with very few exceptions, smacks of poor understanding of what drives the members of the lower class. The importance of having the ability to better oneself is oftentimes the only things that keeps the less fortunate from open revolt! Since Plato, history has only reaffirmed these facts, putting the Republic safely into the "will never ever be implemented" pile, right next to global soviet revolution and the reintroduction of New Coke. Thank god.
DeleteAlec Wolsiefer
ReplyDeleteBlog #6
2/26/2012
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
The ring of Gyges was a ring that could make a man invisible, once invisible the man is able to act unjustly without fear of being caught. Glaucon says that even the most just man would give succumb to his greedy, materialistic, power hungry side. He brings up this point to show that all people are only just because they are afraid of the punishment, no one is just because it is the right thing. He is making the point that people would rather be unjust than just because it puts them ahead in the world.
I agree with Glaucon and believe this comes from our basal instincts that have helped us in the best to survive. If an individual can find a way to become more desirable or ensure the passing on of his/her genes they will exploit it. This is the mantra of eat or be eaten that has pushed evolution and natural selection for millions of years. An individual, whether human, fish, bird, or reptile, that has a better chance of passing along its genes will take advantage of the opportunity. This opportunity can come in the form of a mutation or ,like the legend, a ring that can aid a man in becoming a desirable mate.
Glaucon's point with the ring of Gyges seems a bit flawed especially in regards to evolution. After all, we're a communal people who live in units rather than by ourselves. Enlightened self-interest rather than "kill or be killed".
DeleteWhile people do often act in their own self-interest, not all our of base needs or appetites are inherently unjust.
Glaucon believes that morality is only a social construction. Socrates in response then changes the definition of justice.
Emma Jean Liberman
Glaucon defiantly says the story to drive the point home that people have the tendency to be unjust if they have no fear of reprisal. And if there is no chance that they’ll get in trouble, they will act unjustly. But, when you apply the cultural constraints to this individual, you see the struggle between a person being both just and unjust. Forced by his better nature to be fair, but compelled by his appetite to be unjust. He may try to be just to the faces of his peers, but on his own, I fear that he will act unjustly. He will try his hardest to get ahead in the world, for many of the reasons in your second paragraph. I think that humans will naturally try to find ways around being just so they can gain the upper hand on an opponent, or simply someone who is competing with them.
DeleteAnother point I found interesting about Glaucon’s Legend of the Ring of Gyges is the role of society in this story. While the over-arching theme in this legend is that people will act unjustly when no one else is watching, the true explanation for this is seemingly ignored until the last few lines. It is in fact society that keeps us in line, and we act justly so as not to be looked down upon by society. And Plato goes as far to say that other members of the society would look at someone who did not act unjustly in this situation as stupid, that they missed their golden opportunity. But, the asterisk associated with this point is that no one will voice this sentiment in public, as they fear being judged as unjust by the rest of society. Along with your point that we act unjustly to further our own pursuits, we also try to conceal these actions from the people around us due to our fear of injustice. Therefore to be successful, to survive as you put it, one must act unjustly while hiding his actions from society around him.
DeleteKelsey Davidson
ReplyDeleteBlog- Plato I
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the Ring of Gyges?
Glaucon’s argues with Socrates in that justice is when people only do good things in expectation of the consequences or something bad happening to them if they don’t do the right thing. He argues that, as a society, we should behave justly in order to avoid harm because we can all suffer from each other’s injustice. Glaucon brings up the Ring of Gyges because, according to mythology, the ring had special powers to make its carrier invisible. He makes the point that even the most just man behaves as he does because he is afraid of the repercussions. Glaucon says that if such a man were able to behave unjustly without consequences (like being invisible) then he would do so.
What are Plato’s views on intercourse?
Plato argues that, although intercourse is necessary for procreation, intercourse should only enter relationships for that reason only. Plato believes that the goal in a relationship is to lead the loved one to knowledge of truth and goodness. Intercourse will only mess things up for you. Plato believes that heterosexual intercourse must be tolerated because it is necessary for procreation, but homosexual intercourse serves no end to the fulfillment of physical pleasure. Plato believes that since homosexual intercourse is useless, it cannot be good or beautiful, and this should be avoided completely. He feels that these people are essentially unjust because a just soul is determined by the desires he aims to fulfill and pursues the right desires-a desire for physical pleasure is not worth fulfilling. Plato believes that homosexuals must find truth and goodness together with the person they love, not long for physical pleasure.
Why should only philosophers rule, according to Plato?
Ultimately, the belief is that only philosophers should rule because they know the truth. They have stepped out of this world and into the world to knowledge of truth and goodness. A government of people who do not know the truth is basing their ruling off of opinions and self-interest. A great analogy I came across while doing further reading was that of a child’s belief in Santa Clause. Children go through many years of believing there is a Santa Clause due to the media, family and friend’s reassurance, a reply letter from the man, and it becomes validated when the child receives gifts on Christmas morning. As the child gets older and acquires knowledge, they start to disbelieve. The child now ventures into adulthood and parenthood. This parent must now create the belief of Santa Clause for their child. This parent knows the truth. Plato believes that only philosophers can rule because they know the whole truth that ordinary people don’t.
All the answers hit on the main hemes of each question. The only thing I would add is why a just man would become unjust if he had the ring of Gyges. Society puts pressure on people to be just or suffer the consequences but it is also a matter of gaining the upper hand on others and leading to a more prominent successful role. This new role helps the man better pass on his genes and ensure his lineage continues.
DeleteThat's a pretty apt summary of Plato's views on intercourse. I think Plato has pretty unreasonable expectations regarding intercourse, though, and in human nature in general. He expects people to accept that they must bow down to the total superiority of knowledge and logic over emotion, but people are inherently emotional, and emotions are pretty difficult to control. That's the biggest flaw with his ideal society: everyone in it seems absurdly capable of controlling their emotions precisely, when that's simply not a realistic portrayal of how humans are.
DeletePlato I
ReplyDeleteDenis Jekić
Dr. Akman
1. Discuss the idea of aporia in Plato’s Republic:
Aporia: to be at a loss; impassable; perplexity. It is also known as a state of nothing. However, is it possible to be in a complete state of nothing? Or even if one cannot be in a state of nothing, can their minds do so? “...it is impossible to say that something is not, for if it really is not, how can it be there to think or talk about?” asks Parmenides in his doctrines. His question brings to focus the idea of nothing and if it really can exist. What this means for me is that it is impossible for us to reach a state of aporia. It is impossible to say that something is not there if we can still think that something is. Another example would be the fact that we cannot think about nothing when we are still thinking about that nothing.
2. Why does Socrates start discussing the qualities of a just city before elaborating on the qualities of a just person or what justice is?
I believe that Socrates began to discuss the qualities of justice through the use of the city and how an idealistic just city would behave first because it was simply easier than trying to elaborate on the qualities of a just person or what justice is. To elaborate on the idea of justice and by using a just city is much less complicated to explain than a human being who has their own opinions, viewpoints in life, and standards that they chose to follow. It would be extremely difficult to explain each and every possibility of interpretations that all the different people had. That creates a lot of fallacies and makes for a very difficult time trying to elaborate a definition heavily open to interpretation to those who may not be philosophers, sophists, or educated people. The qualities of a just city are easily elaborated because they do not touch upon or look at the society that lives within the just city. It's easy to just give qualities away, but how many people actually adhere to the just city's qualities?
3. What is your definition of justice?
Justice is defined as “the quality of being fair and reasonable.” My own definition of the word justice is one in which I try and view people, how they act, what they do, and what they say and to understand that it is theirs. To be a just person for me means that I can see past the positive and negative qualities of people, ideas, places, etc. and understand that they are just to these people, just as my thoughts and beliefs are just to me. This is a way in which to be able to open your eyes to understanding and accepting people more and to allow yourself to extend opportunities to the people, therefore you are successfully fair without being positively or negatively swayed by another person’s views on life. This allows you to also be an extremely reasonable person. This ability to understand behavior and to treat people with fairness and reason at all times rather than when you just agree because you share an opinion is my definition of justice.
I enjoyed your definition of justice and your relationship with other people. I agree that sometimes, you need to put your ideals, morals and beliefs aside when reading someone else because your ideals and beliefs might be different than theirs are. I also believe it is important to be unbiased in those situations. I think that your definition of justice is quite similar to the one given. Being a fair and reasonable person means that you must judge someone without your beliefs affecting the end result.
DeleteI also agreed with your statement that it is impossible to reach a state of aporia. We can be doing nothing and thinking about nothing, but that nothing is still something.
What is Glaucon trying to communicate when he tells the story of the ring of Gyges? What does this mean for the concept of justice?
ReplyDeleteGlaucon disputes Socrates and his idea that justice is intrinsically good by telling the tale of the ring of Gyges. In this tale a simple man found a ring after a natural disaster, this man life is changed because when this ring is turned inwards he is completely invisible. The tale ends with the man committing adultery with the king’s wife, killing the king and becoming rich with this ability. The moral of this tale is that when this man had the opportunity to commit unjust acts with no punishment he immediately acted in a way that harmed others to benefit himself. The message is simple, people do not act in a just manner because it is good, people act in a just manner because they are afraid of the consequences. Men who choose just acts or unjust acts do so either because they are seeking the approval and respect that comes from being known as a just man, or simply because they are afraid of the repercussions of committing unjust acts. In fact, the unjust life is much more desirable and easy compared to the just life, as seen by the fact that those who can get away with unjust acts enjoy the benefits of these things. This raises important issue of justice, what is more important actually being just or appearing just? In the tale the man enjoys the advantages of being extremely unjust, but appearing just, in contrast imagine as Glaucon did a man who is known as being unjust and acts in a just manner, this man would be punished for being unjust and still not turn away from the just path. It seems that appearing just and reaping the benefits is the true necessity for men, so just actions are actually a means to an end for social acceptance and respect. Socrates response is by defining a just city composed of different actors that each serve a purpose and then comparing these parts to the different parts of the soul. Socrates redefines what it means to be just, instead of people acting in a certain way it is rather an organizing of the soul in an effective way. Socrates believes that just actions produce a just soul and unjust actions produce an unjust soul, so the true advantage of acting just is that it is actually benefitting the self.
Glaucon's moral to the story of the ring of Gyges really does lead to many questions to be asked. Do we act just solely because we are scared of the consequences of being unjust and if we could get away with being unjust would we? I think Glaucon makes a good point with this argument, and does lead the reader to think about what he is saying. If you were guaranteed a smooth getaway with no consequences would you rob a bank? Socrates disputes Glaucon's argument with just saying that being just is good for the soul, but I believe it is more than that. Doing bad things, even with getting away with them, just leads to you being a bad person. I feel that being a bad person gets you rejected by society or not truly liked by society. People should act just because it is the right thing to do. If you act just, you feel no guilt (because you have done nothing wrong), people will like and accept you, and it will just lead to a good life all around.
DeleteKelly Gilbert
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Professor B. Akmen
2/26/13
Plato’s Republic
After reading the Intro and Books 1-4 of Republic, I found the first book to be the most interesting. Although reading the Intro got me quite confused because of the various names and who and what all these people did, I really liked how in depth it went in Book I describing everyone’s views on justice and people. It really made me favor certain characters over others, such as Polemarchus over Thrasymachus. Although he is considered a true sophist, I don’t agree with Thrasymachus’s view that justice is the advantage of the stronger. I feel that justice can be the reached by anyone, whether they are strong or weak, rich or poor. I appreciated Socrates’s honest about not being able to give his ideas about justice because he really doesn’t know about it. This makes him a good philosophist, in my opinion.
I did like the interaction between Socrates and Cephalus. I thought it was quite humorous how Socrates was so blunt about Cephalus’s age and also how he got so personal as to question the old man’s sex life. This seemed like such an awkward conversation between to adults. Nowadays, this would probably never be something two grown adults would be discussing. I really liked how intrigued Socrates was when talking to Cephalus about his life. I also liked what Cephalus was saying about life, love and happiness. He seems very wise and knowledgeable. I feel that Socrates learns a lot about life from just talking to Cephalus for a short time.
Overall, I did not find this reading to be interesting. It was quite complex and very all over the place. There seemed to be so many characters that it was hard to remember all of them and what they did. I realize Socrates was just incorporating all of his friends and the people he knew but with the long difficult names, it made it hard to recall who each of them were. It was really confusing for me and hard to follow.
I also favored certain characters over others because of their views on justice. For this reason, I enjoyed the first book the best, too. I found it very interesting reading the different opinions of each character, and seeing how those opinions represented the types of people and different classes of his Republic.
DeleteI also agree with you that anyone can be just, if they choose to be. I think the issue you have with remembering names and characters is because names of that type are so rarely heard by us, and so long (as you said). They are strange in our minds. I had a hard time reading Republic, too, and partially for that reason. I also had a hard time reading it because the dialogue was hardly broken up. I had a difficult time figuring out when one character's dialogue would end, and another's response would begin.
The first book was extremely dense with material and concepts, when the idea of justice and its value and purpose are debated between multiple opposing viewpoints there is going to be some confusion and differing ideas. It seems that the first book was a way to present Socrates and his ideas by comparing it to opposing viewpoints. It seems that Socrates has a very idealistic view of just acts and the people who do these acts, while the opposition has a much more realistic view in relation to the world and how people choose to act. injustice often brings benefits, while justice is difficult and offers no rewards.
DeleteDiscuss Socrates' thoughts on the notion of a traditional family.
ReplyDeleteSocrates doesn't agree with the notion of a traditional family. This is plainly seen in his want for rigged lotteries in their marriage festivals. Inferior beings mate with inferior, while the best beings mate with the best. Generally only the best humans were allowed to procreate and continue their line, and if an inferior child was produced they would leave the child exposed to the elements to die. These children would all become brothers and sisters with no named parents. This was to create a loyal and unified populous. Socrates seems to believe that a traditional family weakens the city, and that loyalty to the city and its wellbeing is important. This lack of emotional ties to family disturbs me and only seems to work if it is traditional in the area.
Describe the education of kings in Socrates' ideal city. How is it different from our current university education?
Socrates writes that a boy's education should contain platonic love between student and teacher, physical war training, appropriate stories that don't have mindlessly violent characters. The best and brightest and most morally right children have the possibility of becoming Kings and this is determined by testing their loyalty to their city and judging their soul to be pure. Today, universities have set guidelines for how they expect college students to act (proper conduct) and guidelines for how to complete their major, but these students have the ability to chose their own major. They are not forced to take their parent's job and it isn't assumed they have the same “soul” of their parents. Universities treat students as individuals while still forcing these students to take the necessary general education classes and required courses for their major. This is interesting to compare to how some families treat their children and how Socrates says children should be treated. I know that my cousins are assumed to become part of the medical field and if they don't do this then their parents are disappointed. This is similar to how Socrates feels about where most children are assumed to end up.
In regard to Socretes' notion of a traditional family, I tend to agree with his theory. Clearly there is no evidence to support Socretes' claims, however, to just analyze his claims in a logical sense, it seems true enough. In order to create a perfect and just city, one must prioritize the city above all else. For instance, if a person's sibling were to commit some sort of crime that was destructive to the city and its society, one should do the just thing and not harbor said sibling. However, if it were a person's sibling of blood, how likely is it that they would act as so? Is it unreasonable to assume that a child would do what is best for their blood relative rather than their city? Now, let's assume the same scenario presents itself in Socretes' ideal city, in which bonds between "siblings" wouldn't be the same. The loyalty to the city is no longer competing with the loyalty to someone with which you have an unbreakable bond. Decisions and actions would no longer be driven by relationships with others; as what would have been love between blood, is now more of a respect among peers. Biological ties must be broken if a city is to experience true loyalty. In theory, of course.
DeleteI agreed with both of your views about Socrates. For the first question about traditional families, I don't agree at all with his view that a traditional family weakens the city. I feel that it's very wrong to be so prejudice and only have the best humans mate with the best and so on. It's also really messed up how if the people have a baby with someone they shouldn't, that child is forced to be thrown and and die. I realize this is back in the ancient times, but that's ridiculously harsh and seems unethical. I really liked what you said about the lack of emotional ties being disturbing. It is very disturbing. I could not like to see a society without having a traditional family lifestyle. On the second question, I agreed as well. Socrates' education system is immensely different from ours today. Today, it's strange for a student to have a platonic relationship with a teacher. There also is no war training like back then. It's a lot easier today for students than back then. Students get to pick what they want to study, they aren't forced into anything like students were back in this time. I can understand about your cousins and their parents wanting them to go into the medical field. I have family members like that, and it is similar to how Socrates wanted things to happen in his city.
DeleteHUMN 220
ReplyDeletePlato’s Republic
What is Glaucon’s point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
Glaucon tries to prove that, given the opportunity, anyone would behave in an unjust nature. It was his belief that if you gave two rings to two people, one just and one unjust, both of them would act in a similar unjust manner. He also wanted to prove how people only act in a just manner because they are unable to act in an unjust manner. While Glaucon’s point is certainly plausible, it is only one possible scenario with a number of contributing factors that could alter the outcome. I think that upbringing is a major factor in this scenario. For instance if an individual is brought up in a society where stealing is common and one does not see how stealing affects the victims, then the person, given the chance, would likely engage in such activities. However another individual brought up in a society where they see what affects stealing has on it victims they may choose not to engage in such activity, even if the opportunity presented itself. At some point in all of our lives we are given the opportunity to act in an unjust manner, yet most of us will choose to ignore such opportunity based on the values that have been instilled in us during our upbringing. It is this factor that, I believe, Glaucon failed to consider.
What kind of society do Socrates and Glaucon design for their city?
In book II, while designing their city, Socrates and Glaucon give references to what kind of work people would do and what kind of education they would receive. While I was reading I couldn’t help but think of the society as an authoritarian society. In this city children are only given access to material the government finds appropriate, while restricting access to the inappropriate. This includes restricting stories that depict the gods in a different manner or rejecting people for telling tales that provide a different view point to the one the government prefers. The Socrates and Glaucon also speak of selecting children and raising them to suit specific jobs, limiting their ability to choose their own career path. In this kind of city the government has the power to tell people what they can say, read or do and to me that is a classic example of an authoritative government.
Could a city such as the one described by Socrates and Glaucon be practical?
I believe the answer to this question is no. The entire structure of the city is dependent on its citizens following the rules and guidelines set down for them, without question or argument. This is unrealistic since there has not once been a society where every single person both agreed with the government and completely followed its rules. There will always be some who choose to ignore the decisions made for them by the government and there will be some who act against those rules. This is a simple fact that is present in every society and the reason behind it is that there will always be people with conflicting desires and it would be impossible for the government to cater to both. In this case the government would choose the most popular desire, which would leave some people out, and would most likely result in these people acting against the government. This scenario obviously does not fit with the model of the city described by Socrates and Glaucon, which is why such a city could not exist.
What is Plato's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
DeleteI agree and also believe that that Plato mentions that Glaucon tells this story in order to make the individual reading this to consider what they themselves would do.
What kin of society do Socrates and Glaucon design for their city?
They design an impossible city that is based on what already generally occurs. A child during this age is expected to follow what their parent does, if they excel in a subject they are expected to continue to study it until they are sufficient at it and then work in that field until they die. The only difference is that these children could possibly get a better job with the society they create. The education system is similar to our state-run elementary schools today. Our students are expected to learn certain subjects well and many things are ignored like the fact that Benjamin Franklin was a slave holder and wrote papers about the economics of only producing and selling slaves or the actual treatment of native Americans. This information is not broadcasters like Socrates wishes that the negative aspects of the gods are not portrayed.
What is Glaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges?
ReplyDeleteGlaucon's point with the legend of the ring of Gyges is that morality is a social construction and that temptation might be something that is only resisted because of a persons fear that their actions might effect reputation. He believes that if rules were taken away, morality would go with them. I think this is a true thought. In America, we idolize the wild west but in reality the reason it was so wild was because there was a certain amount of lawlessness between state lines. There was not enough government to maintain rules and so there was a lot of moral-less people. This is an example that without rules and the ability to punish rule breakers there will be a certain loss of justice.
What is the principle structure of Socrates just city? Why does he think that this is the best structure?
The principle structure of Socrates just city is social structure. His utopia uses very strict rules to dictate how a persons life should be lived. Each person has their education, and specialization defined for them based on their aptitudes and abilities. Socrates proposed many rules like how immatative liturature is forbiden and the ruler is almost a slave to his job. He is not aloud to touch money or own anything and all of his needs are met by the people. It is a very strict system, a communist system by modern definitions. The thought is that people have many desires. There is a need to demand many things from the world and the more that is given to a person the more they desires. In Socrates Idea City this need annihilated because everything is provided. People have no need for anything and so there is no discord.
Why should philosophers rule according to Plato? Do you agree that philosophers would make great presidents?
Philosophers should rule because "until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." (Republic 473c-d) His idea is that Philosophers can bring amount a peace because they understand human nature more than all others from their studies and can implement preventive measures to prevent injustice before it happens. I personally wouldn't allow such extremest views into our presidency because it is not only a rejected practice but because of the negative effects of such all encompassing leadership. Communism is a rejected practice in the United States. I wouldn't want a Philosopher king. That is why I live in a country with a president.
Denis Jekic
DeleteIn response to the last question: imagine now that people behaved and thought like Plato. I am not saying that they are just like him, but that they understand the greater scheme of things when it comes to life. There would be a completely different view of the world and how humans acted and what they did to go on through life. The search for knowledge would be one, if not the only, passion in life because that's what life is about. Trying to grasp this concept however is extremely difficult, and people immediately jump to conclusions based on what they have experienced or even on assumptions and therefore immediately discredit just the thought. But one does not understand the true nature of a human being. Partially because of social construction, and largely because of the fact that no one knows how to create happiness for themselves, rather than to obtain it through other means. These other means are not the true definition of happiness, or good. They make us happy, but what should be happening is that we ourselves should make ourselves happy. When people are capable of doing so, in a just way (which can only be met when one realizes the clouded judgement that they have on EVERYTHING, and learn to release it) then can they move on in life. At which point, many "things" wouldn't be necessary. Insecurities would not exist because the only person who can provide security is yourself, and at this point in order to live in a society as idealistic as this, one should already have reached the point where no insecurities exist. And therefore no man should have to rule. The title president would not exist. We would be united in the fact that we are all our own people. But this is a perfect world that almost all people miss out on. A true happiness that they cannot obtain. And that is why it would be impossible, but it makes you wonder how you would look at the idea of a president or philosopher king again after realizing that they don't mean much besides a title that glorifies them and would be unnecessary in a world of true self-fulfillment.
The legend of the Ring of Gyges is a work of fiction, as is the notion that everyone would become moral-less savages if the government isn't around to stop us from ourselves. There is a considerable amount of debate as to whether or not the Wild West had a particularly high murder rate, and what effect any gun control measures had on the violence.
DeleteRegarding Communism, it is not so much a rejected practice as it is a rejected word. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all arguably Communist in nature. While a Philosopher King would go against everything this Democratic country stands for, a philosopher, a "lover of wisdom," would make for a better than average president.
With regards to you view on the legend of the rings I must respectfully disagree. Even though there would be some people who would act in an immoral manner, I do not believe that this is the case for all. I think that even without rules the morality of a large number of people will remain intact. I would also like to point out that those who followed the lawlessness of the west were a minority of the people living their. So even though some acted unjustly without rules, a good number still acted in a just manner.
DeleteI agree with your view on the structure of Socrates city. It is defidently based on social structure. I also agree that the type of city Socrates is describing does seem to mirror that of a communist society. However unlike a communist society the city Socrates described does not allow for movement between classes. In Socrates city, what you are going to be as you get older is decided for you shortly after birth.
I also agree with you that I would not want a philosopher in charge of the country. I also agree that the freedoms and benefits of living in a society like Socrates described would be less than ideal. I think it is important to a society to allow us the opportunity to make our own choices.
Is Socrates vision of justice natural?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of justice is challenged on multiple levels in this book. There is a point where Glaucon states that “people value it not as a good but because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity”. I thought about this idea and some truth seemed to be evident in it. Those who can get away with a crime are more likely to commit it than ones who think there is a chance of getting caught. If there was no fear of reprisal for actions than what would stop people from doing them? Morals certainly come into play but every ones are different which would make our world very confusing. If I did not have to pay for something and could just take it, it would take further thought to determine why it might not be a good idea. That is why punishment is absolutely necessary in our world and that the term getting off scott free should not exist.
One of the first conversations had in Plato’s republic is about wealth.
Life is made easier by having wealth because one has no need to do injustice. This too is a true idea, if you have money you would never need to steal food or “commit injustice”, because you could simply pay for it. It surprised me that Plato did not write an argument about whether it was just or not just to do certain things because of your financial status. If a man was to steal food it would surely be deemed unjust. But if a man was to steal food to support his family when he could do nothing else would that also be deemed unjust? I feel that this extra dimension has a very important role in defining justice. Cephalus brought up Hades and having to be afraid of the unjust things one has done in life before their death, which is why I see a further point for Plato to make a point about conditional justice in this regard.
I agree with that without punishment people would be free to do whatever they wanted. It’s similar to the ring of Gyges. By becoming invisible you’re taking away the punishment for the crime that they committed so they see no reason not to do it. Their society sees the unjust as a wrong and they would be looked down upon if they did it so most people don’t. The punishments try to stop the few who do crimes regardless of the shame they might receive.
DeleteBy doing unjust things you can increase your wealth. So if you’re wealthy you have less need to do unjust things unless you’re still unsatisfied with what you have and want even more. I agree that it’s hard to determine what is just and unjust exactly. Is stealing food if you need it to survive bad and unjust? When you look at it that way it blurs the line between just and unjust.
Punishment is not a strange thing for a philosopher to be curious of, especially one who feels dissatisfied with his government and how he is treated. He feels that he is unfairly treated and that is why Plato has this fascination about how justice should be played out in society. At the same times I do not agree that the wealthy have no need for stealing or else it wouldn't happen. When wealthy people steal they are fulfilling some sort of emotional or physical need just as the child who is starving steals bread. Neither action is condonable just as it is an injustice of society to allow a child go hungry. Should a child be punished for being hungry. No, the society should. Should a rich man be punished for stealing, when he has so much. I don't know if that is for the best interest of society or the thief. Punishment is an old concept, society is beginning to evolve beyond it to the idea of rehabilitation. I do not believe that Plato's idea of punishment is something that is still something to argue over when his idea allowed us to evolve beyond them.
DeleteYou are absolutely right that people who will get away with injustice without punishment would do so if given the opportunity. Even if someone thinks it is morally wrong, sometimes there are circumstances that you must commit injustice to survive like you have stated. Wealth is not an excuse to commit injustice, just because you could pay someone off to not get in trouble by the law does not give you the right to commit unjust acts. You made a good point that Plato does not take conditional justice in to discussion. Some people may be highly religious bound, or morally bound and not ever want to break the law however sometimes one has to do such things to get by. Overall what you said was to the point and accurate.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about morals and how they effect us and cause us to change our decisions. I feel that if people know there won't be punishment for a crime, even if it's bad and unjust, they will still go through with it. I feel that his view is natural. I also liked what you said about wealth and if you have money, you have no reason to steal or do something unjust. I was surprised as well that he didn't have an argument on this topic. This seems like something he would get very argumentative about. It's a very tough thing to argue because yes, there be times when it's necessary for a man to steal, like you said a poor man stealing for him family.
ReplyDeleteHow is the study of philosophy (dialectic) a risk/danger? How can that danger be avoided?
ReplyDeleteThe study of philosophy (dialectic) can be considered a risk or dangerous because it is teaching people to ask questions. Any time someone questions something, like authority, they can be stirring up trouble. There is also a risk in studying dialectic because if the person learning it is not educated they could be asking the wrong questions or questions that are irrelevant and could be causing useless arguments. Plato says that people should be older when they learn dialectic. This is a solution to the problem because by the time people start to learn how to ask questions they will be older and more mature and educated.
What is the connection between the allegory of the cave and politics?
In politics people are forced to see what is shown to them. There are a lot of hidden agendas in politics that people either choose to look past or are not educated enough to notice. In the allegory of the cave, the people in the cave cannot look behind them to see what is making the shadows on the wall, they can only see what they are being shown. Finally when one of the people in the cave is able to be free of what is preventing him from seeing what is behind him, his eyes hurt because he is not used to the light from the fire. This is directly related to politics because if people could really see the corruption they would not like what they see. Knowledge is symbolized in the allegory of the cave when the person is finally able to turn around and see what is behind him. Knowledge is important in politics as well.