Could Socrates' "Perfectly Just City" work in today's day and age? Socrates' just city has many flaws to it from reading The Republic. It can even sound to work on paper, but in reality that city could never work. Socrates' takes a very inhumane approach with his idea of how people are educated and their basic standard of living. His idea of no one having families and everyone just co existing is actually kind of scary. It may sound to work on paper, but in reality, if a human had to live in that environment it would be a very sad life. Couldn't justice also be defined as seeking the best interest of yourself and others and being happy? If Plato thinks that this city is the most just, than isn't it sort of contradicting? He is clearly not looking out for the best interest of everyone, because I believe that most people would not be happy with that life. Life is about expression and creation, and if everyone had to be practically the same people than it wouldn't be a life worth living, a happy one. In today's day and age, everyone is so different, with different lifestyles, family, forms of socializing. No one would ever want to give up this individualization, people enjoy their uniqueness. Also, isn't Plato being a bit biased himself? He claims that the only real ruler could be a philosopher, which he just happens to be. He can defend himself all he wants but him being a philosopher had to be some what relevant to him making his decision. Basically, the "just city" that Plato came up with could never work. No matter how good it may sound on writing, it is an impossible task to complete and could never happen.
Are “Middle Eastern” countries that we criticize for not respecting freedom of speech more Platonic and closer to Greek intellectual thought than “European” civilizations? The belief that modern democratic values originated from the philosophies of the “Greek Giants” poses some serious problems. Plato places democracy as one step away from tyranny. The United States, among other nations, criticizes nations such as Iran and Syria for their restrictions of individual rights. I would argue that this not does necessarily mean that such countries are more Platonic. In the context of The Republic, Socrates began his discussion about different political systems when speaking of the natural degeneration of politics from the ideal state. That is, he was analyzing what would inevitably happen to the kallipolis over time. Countries such as Syria and Iran did not start as ideal civilizations ruled by Philosopher-Kings. Therefore, it is difficult to assess which contemporary nations most resemble Greek philosophical thought. However, I don’t think it makes sense to claim that nations such as Syria and Iran would be seen as better in Plato’s point of view. Their governments did not degenerate from a civilization similar to his kallipolis. I think Plato would have a lot of problems with societies all over the world today. I don’t think he would approve of U.S journalists condemning our leader for being professorial nor do I think he would approve of oppressive and violent actions of regimes such as Syria.
Is democracy really one step away from tyranny? Socrates describes the many dangers of democracy. One of the main problems with a democracy is the loss of specialization as a result of everyone being able to do what they want. Plato also describes how the drones will pit two classes of society against one another (the wealthy/politically active vs. those who do not actively participate in politics) and this will result in tyranny. The question is whether this can be applied to a democracy such as the contemporary United States. To some extent, our country already exhibits some aspects of a tyranny such as our president and limited sphere of people who are actually in charge. However, democracy in the contemporary United States is much different than the scenario that Socrates describes in The Republic. As opposed to the absolute democracy in The Republic, where everyone does what they want, we have a structured representative democracy and legal system in place. It is not a pure democracy in the sense that only the select few that are elected truly control the policies of the town, state, and nation. I do not think democracy in this form is one step away from tyranny. The system of checks and balances is a good system for preventing such demise. The answer to my original question, therefore, depends on how we define democracy. In my mind, the absolute democracy described in The Republic is one step away from tyranny but most contemporary democracies are much more complex. In other words, democracy today blends the other forms of government that Plato outlined, in the sense that a representative government prevents some of the “tyranny of the masses.”
How is the study of dialectic a risk? How can that risk be avoided?
He is arguing that teaching dialectic to people who are not highly knowledgeable is dangerous. Since they do not have a higher education they will make arguments that are not important or are false. This will just cause more problems, especially when they argue with people who are more knowledgeable. He tries to avoid this risk by not teaching people dialectic until they are older. This way they will have a higher education and more knowledge. I understand where he is coming from. There is nothing more frustrating than when you have more knowledge about a subject and someone with less knowledge is trying to prove you wrong. So if the person researches and gains knowledge about the subject before making an argument, it would help stop a lot of frustration.
What is Plato trying to demonstrate with the allegory of the cave? He is trying to demonstrate that not everyone is meant to understand the highest knowledge. Some people will not understand what is actually going on and will ridicule the person who is telling them the realty. These people are not ready to understand this higher knowledge. This is shown in the allegory of the cave when, someone explored and said that there is a world outside the cave and the statues inside the cave are not reality. The people responded by calling him crazy and not believing that there was a reality outside the cave. This concept can also be applied to people in society today. There are certain people who are stuck in their ways. If someone tries to tell them to change their way of life, they would freak out. Call the other people crazy and feel as if their view is the only correct one.
What is the connection between the allegory of the cave and politics? The allegory of the cave is basically saying that there is more to reality than what most people think. This relates to our society and politics because the government doesn’t inform its citizens of everything that is actually going on. If everyone knew what was actually happening in our government there would be chaos. People’s beliefs or way of life would change, which is too much for people to handle. So then they would rebel against the government. Therefore the politicians and government are hiding the reality of our society, so they don’t have to deal with the chaos it would bring.
What are Plato’s beliefs on women and how are they important? Plato was an interesting person because he was one of the first known people to say that men and women should be educated in the same ways. This is different because women at these times were often not respected and I doubt many women were educated to the extent that some men were educated. Plato thought that the soul was the most important part in determining what kind of education each person will receive. Equal education was a new idea at this time. Women were usually never allowed an equal education. However, just because Plato believed that men and women could get equal educations, he did not necessarily believe that men and women are equal. Plato has said that attributes like fear and cowardice are woman-like. Also, I highly doubt that Plato would support a woman as a philosopher-queen leader. Overall it seems like Plato’s ideas were more progressive regarding women’s rights. His ideas were a step in the right direction.
How is the allegory of the cave significant? The allegory of the cave is one of the most famous passages in the history of literature. The allegory of the cave is Plato’s attempt at explaining the way people evolve intellectually and gain knowledge. People start out in the cave staring at shadows of statues. Eventually a person leaves and sees the statues themselves. When this person is educated more they are taken out of the cave. Outside of the cave their eyes must adjust to the sunlight. This person will now be able to see actual objects such as trees and houses. Eventually a person will be able to look at the sun itself. This person will then go back into the cave to educate people. The cave is the way Plato shows how education and knowledge are important for humans. Humans need knowledge so they can see the form of the good. Knowledge allows people to understand the truth of what goes on in the world. Plato used the cave analogy to convince people that education and a love for knowledge were two necessary things to have so people could understand the truths in the world. Plato wants people to use the rational part of their souls so they will seek knowledge.
What are Plato’s beliefs on democracy? Plato believes that democracy is one step away from tyranny. Democracy, to Plato, leads to the wrong people leading the city or the country. A democracy is made and ruled by people who succumb to their appetitive desires. Plato believes that the wrong people are put in charge in a democracy. Usually many positions will be given out and many people who have power will try to take advantage of the people who are not in power. Over time, the poor will get poorer, and the rich will get richer. In Plato’s eyes, a democracy is a poor system of government. A democracy will eventually lead to tyranny.
How does the Allegory of the Caves may relate to today? When I was reading the part of the Republic that talks about the allegory of the caves it made me think how it relates to today. The story that Socrates tells of it made is very interesting to read. He talks about how imagination can be created and then how different aspects of imagination can lead to knowledge and education. I look at the shadows on the wall of imagination and how these prisoners are dreaming and trying to see what they believe is true and not knowing anything different because according to Socrates imagination is at the bottom of the education. People everyday use imagination but the amount used can be based on the amount of education one has received. As the prisoner leaves his imagination and leaves the cave he is brought about into the world and how education and knowledge plays a key role in that. Learning to look in the fire and learning that the shadows were really puppets played by people exposes people to what really goes on in life. If someone thinks everything just happens then this can be imagination. Learning the important and key facts behind something such as how something works or why something does what it does helps humans minds expand and create any room for more knowledge. Moving from imagination to full blow knowledge takes time and as these people learned and Socrates talked about. The prisoner and had to adjust his eyes to be able to see. This can relate to today in the gaining knowledge takes time and it does not happen overnight. People today have to adjust and get use to something before moving on to the next step in life or in their education. As the prisoner learned he went back to show others what he went through in hopes of helping others experience what he went through. Today, as people learn, they also to share what they learn but in many different forms such as jobs or teaching. Even though this analogy to place during ancient Greek times, it still has ties to today and most luckily into the far future. People are always want to gain more knowledge but ones needs to learn in order to do that they first must leave the imagination behind and open the door for new and exciting experiences.
What is Plato’s view on political systems? Democracy? Aristocracy is the best form of government especially when the ruler is a philosopher-king. Aristocracy is the most just form of government and tyranny is the most unjust. As you move down from aristocracy you have timocracy. When the people of the city become more spiritually driven and money driven, war will break out. The rulers that are selected will be more in the warrior classes than the philosopher. The son of a man will be influenced by others to follow his spirit and appetitive desires instead of the rational one which leads to timocracy. When the honor-loving men of a timocracy become more like money-lovers where the wealthy rule over the poor the constitution turns into an oligarchy. The oligarchy then turns into a democracy when the poor overthrow the rich and the masses take control. Socrates believes that a democracy is the most mixed and diverse constitution. People see it as beautiful and the best because of the variety but anyone can rule as long as he pleases the majority, that may not know anything. When the power is given to one individual in a democracy it turns into a tyranny, which is the least just of all the constitutions. Democracy in the Republic is seen kind of like communism, it’s good in theory. With democracy the majority has a say in the government and in communism everything is spread equally among people which are both good things. But they are only one step away from becoming tyrannies when one person gains the power and is in control of everything.
According to Plato are women equal to men or not? Plato says that women have different natures to men but that they should be educated in the same way. Women can have the same natures as men when it comes to what they will excel at. Therefore there should be women guardians, warriors, and producers. The women who are guardians are considered the best of the women. Yet even though women would be trained the same as men, women are still seen to be weaker than men. “Do you know of anything practiced by human beings in which the male sex isn’t superior to the female in all these ways?” (line 455c) Plato has the stereotypical view of women. That the only things they may excel at better than men would be “weaving, baking cakes, and cooking vegetables.” He believes that it’s possible for women to be the same as men in nature and be a doctor, musical, or athletic but that women are always inferior to men. “Women share by nature in every way of life just as men do, but in all of them women are weaker than men.” (line 455e)
Are philosophers good? Plato believes that cities should be ruled by philosopher-kings. He believes that the best rulers are ones that are educated in philosophy. The others make the argument that philosophers are useless and Socrates agrees. He says “the best among the philosophers are useless to the majority. Tell him not to blame those decent people for this but the ones who don’t make use of them.” (line 489b) The philosopher shouldn’t have to go to the people to help them, the people should come to the philosopher begging to be ruled by him. If the philosophers aren’t useless then they are vicious. Socrates argues that the very things that make a philosopher great can also corrupt him. “The best natures become outstandingly bad when they receive a bad upbringing.” (line 491e) Sophists corrupt the youth by shouting in public places. Relative and fellow citizens also corrupt philosophers by inflating their egos to a point where they can’t understand the truth.
Kelly Gilbert HUMN 220 Professor B. Akmen 3/5/13 Plato II I found this reading to be very all of the place. There was so much going on. Socrates seems to have really strange ideas for the city, kallipolis. Some of them just seemed so unethical and wrong to me, especially the idea with sex and that people were only allowed to have sex with certain people and that when babies were born, they weren’t given to their actual birth parents, they were given to someone else. I just don’t understand his reasoning for any of these ideas. Also, why does it take so long and so much effort to become a philosopher king? Having to take music, poetry, physical training, 10 years of math, 5 years of dialects, and another 15 years of politics seems like way too much to become a philosopher king. The person wouldn’t be a king till they were at least 50. Nowadays, a person can become what they want to be hopefully by the age of 30 depending on what it is. It just seems crazy spending half your life trying to become this king. I suppose to many people back then, it was worth it. Being a philosopher king must have meant feeling powerful and intelligent. I was actually pretty confused when reading about the allegory of the cave. I didn’t understand the allegory and why these people were forced to live in a cave since birth but after discussing it in class and seeing clips from The Matrix, I got a better understand of what Socrates was explaining with the allegory of the cave. I feel as though Plato is trying to demonstrate evolution of education with this allegory. There is a connection between the allegory of the cave and politics in that the producers are the people in the cave, or the puppets. The puppeteers are the philosophical kings. Plato is trying to explain that even with obstacles, a man can still pull through and make it. I found this to be a very complex, yet creative way to get his point, or opinion, across.
1. Why is Plato so set on making Kaliopolis an actual implementable republic, rather than a utopian thought exercise? - Plato’s insistence on making his republic real seems to stem from his total distaste for the government that, for his entire life, has stood in the way of philosophical progress in one form or another. Plato believes that, as a philosopher, he has reached the highest level of worldly understanding, and that by not embracing these principles of articulated abstract thought they are condemning themselves to an unstoppable slide towards tyranny. By placing democracy just a rung above the end-game tyranny, he is showing how much faith he has in the “masses” being entrusted with choosing representatives - that is, it’s not much. I hesitate to say that Plato has “faith” in the minds and decision making of his class of would be philosopher-kings. This solely because of his aversion to the concept, but the blind assurance that his cadre of highly educated aristocrats will be inherently better (and less self serving) than a group of Athenian citizens just doesn’t go very far with me, or anyone else with a passing knowledge of modern aristocratic societies. The smaller group of rich and educated individuals will just perpetuate their existence in any way they can, while making sure that their base of privilege and power remains uneroded.
2. What can be said about the producer class’s role in Kaliopolis’s society? - This brings me to the situation that befalls the vast majority of people within Kaliopolis: the faceless, and apparently ambitionless producer class that is tasked with simply standing idly by as the city is run by those deemed more intelligent. It’s a non-participatory, totally subservient existence that would - unless these people were generously compensated to remain as such - fall apart as they would become anxious for social mobility that is self-determinant instead of predetermined by those aformentioned upper classes. Plato really seems to rely on the complacency of those who don’t do a lot of thinking, and not in that any person can be (and usually is) extremely emotional and strong-willed. Having the producer class be at the same time disenfranchised and complacent seems unlikely at best, and totally contradictory at its absolute worst. Does this mean that it’s impossible? Certainly not, but I just don’t see a society from antiquity being particularly equitable towards those considered unfit to participate in government and citizenship.
3. How do Plato’s feelings on Aristocracy and Democracy run counter to the democratic ideals espoused by many nations today?
Aristocracy, as a matter of definition, is control centered around a few elite citizens. In an age where nearly every country is attempting to increase it’s electoral franchise with the intent of improving the standard of living, it seems totally counter productive that entrusting only the most privileged and educated with fulfilling the needs of those who aren’t those two socio-economic traits. Detachment from the lower classes, as is recommended by Plato, would lead to a loss of knowledge about what makes them angry, happy, and mutinous. The cultures would become insular, divergent, and eventually totally incompatible as their value systems polarized. This would lead to social unrest, and a complete undoing of the nation-state. Plato’s insistence that this is the one true way to a perfect city belies his desire to be not just the most intelligent man in the room, but the most powerful and influential as well. Using history as the great vindicator, democratic countries and institutions have proven to be the most equitable and gratifiying spread of political responsibility.
It's hard for me to take Plato seriously when he speaks of the philosophers being the best kings. He is a philosopher, so obiviously he is going to think that the philosophers are the most worthy of the position. There was a part in the book where it says that it doesn't matter if the philosopher-king has the good of the city in mind. He just has to be working toward the most rationalized soul he can possibly have. It also said that this should be good for the city anyway, but it seems that a philosopher king that really doesn't have the city's best interest at heart is no better than any other king that doesn't have the city's best interest. I only see some difference between a king that is trying to be as wealthy as possible and a king that is trying to be as intelligent as possible.
Plato says that women can be intelligent and be guardians but I feel this really isn't his opinion. He still in reality doesn't regard women with much respect. In fact, I think that Socrates and the men were saying that the women should be treated alongside the men just because it was such a novel idea and that they thought it was controversial. I don't think they really feel that way. Soon after they go on about women being taught alongside men and that some women may be intelligent Socrates goes ahead and says about stripping corpses, "Isn't it small-minded and womanish to regard the body as your enemy, when the enemy himself has flitted away, leaving behind only the instrument with which he fought"(144)? He doesn't regard women any higher than any other man of ancient Greece.
When we were talking about the two-headed beast and the lion in class regarding to the appetitive, spiritual and rational desires, it made me think of Freudian's id, ego, and superego. The id would be related to the appetitive due to both being the desires that cause negative results. The spiritual and the superego are related due to the superego trying to do the most good while the spiritual desires are in honor. The ego and the rational are related in the sense that they are both what keeps the three in balance. It is the reason that one uses to keep things under control. I also thought of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs when thinking about the different levels of getting to the form of good. Basic needs like shelter, food, water are what are at the bottom of the hierarchy and are the simplest while at the bottom or the intellectual scale, imagination would be the basic intellectual thought process. When jumping to the top when the Good of the Form is realized, it is similar to self-actualization in the hierarchy of needs.
According to Socrates, women in the city would be treated no differently than men. The only difference in status that the people of Kallipolis have with each other comes from different classes. So women of the Guardian class would have a higher status than someone of a lower class. Under Socrates system women would be allowed the same education and be available for the same political roles as women. Even though the society decides various aspects of your life, such as class, their decision is not based on gender. However, even though women are granted the same opportunities as men they are still supposed to be considered the weaker sex.
For what reason would Socrates’ city fail?
I believe Socrates’ city, Kallipolis, would undoubtedly fail. It is my belief that this failure would be the result of frequent violation of the rules set down by Socrates. The rules of the city restrict the rights and privileges of all its citizens to extreme levels. For instance, in Socrates city you are married randomly to someone for a specific amount of time for the purpose of procreating. Then once you have given birth you are not even allowed to raise your child. It is my opinion that many mothers would be resistant to giving up their child and would attempt to conceal their child so that they are not separated. Another reason I think Kallipolis would fail is through lack of incentive for people to work. In modern society people put effort into their work so that they can earn money and buy nice stuff. If you take that away then people have little reason to do their best, especially if they do not receive any more or less for their effort. It is this kind of factor that helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and I see no reason why it would not happen in Kallipolis as well.
Describe the education of kings in Socrates’ ideal city. How is it different from our current university education?
Kings in Socrates’ ideal city go through an extensive process of education to become kings and most don’t make it all the way and become auxiliaries. Their initial education is in music and poetry, physical training, and elementary mathematics. This is followed by two or three years of compulsory physical training, rather like the military service that some countries still require. Those who are most successful in these studies next receive ten years of education in mathematical science. Those who are again most successful receive five years of training in dialectic. Those who are still most successful receive fifteen years of practical political training. Finally, those who are also successful in practical politics are “compelled to lift up the radiant light of their souls” to the good itself and are equipped to be philosopher-kings. This is a time consuming process that takes at least the first 50 years of their life. In modern times students go through elementary, middle and high school. Then, they go through undergraduate college and graduate school. Sometimes further schooling is involved as well for specifications. Most people specialize in one thing called a major, and excel in that but it does not take half their life time to accomplish their entire education like in Socrates’ city.
What does Plato say about the status of women and children in Kallipolis?
Women should have equal opportunities and the same education as men. However, they still have a disadvantage and get worse positions. Also, only superior men and women are allowed to reproduce which they do at specific times of the year at sex festivals. If inferior personal reproduce their children will be killed. Children live in communal societies and have many brothers and sisters. They don’t know who their specific parents are because when reproduction season comes around all the children born at that specific period are considered in the same family. How is the study of philosophy (dialectic) a risk/danger? How can that danger be avoided?
In the wrong hands this knowledge can be used for no good. People who don’t understand logic and reasoning would waste time asking unrealistic and unnecessary things. Only the wisest guardians should learn philosophy. Being able to question things in a society like this holds a lot of power in politics and judgment and they don’t want ignorant people to possess this power. By having only the wisest and stronger individuals learn dialect this danger can best be avoided and cause less problems to occur.
1) “In general, Plato’s allegories are often taken out of the context of Republic when considered by people today.” Respond to this statement, indicating whether it is true or false. How does this change the meaning of the allegories? Why do you think this is the case with this particular text? This is absolutely a true statement. Most people have at least a vague knowledge of Plato’s famous allegories, such as the allegory of the Sun, the Line, or the Cave, but I would venture to say that few could explain the meaning of these allegories in the context of the Republic. This was exactly my situation going into today as I had encountered the Allegory of the Cave before, but had never studied what Socrates’ is attempting to say about his Kallipolis with this parable. Also, with modern media interpretations of these allegories that are not always accurate, many people may feel they know more than they actually do (myself included). Looking at the allegories in the context of Republic, then, changes the meanings of these stories. Focusing on the Allegory of the Cave the popular culture version would, without a doubt, be the Matrix Trilogy. However, in Republic Plato is referring to the state of ignorance and disbelief demonstrated by the producing class, and an elitist idea that a lower class will never be able to understand the acquired knowledge of the ruling class. This is not the exciting robot vs. human war that the Matrix movies portray and, while entertaining, some of the root philosophy is lost in this modern translation. Plato refers to this analogy to explain a specific ideology for his Kallipolis while the Matrix movies take this allegory out of its original context to create a plotline. I believe this is the case with Plato’s Republic because the allegories Plato uses to explain his ideas are fascinating to us, even still to this day twenty-five hundred years later. However, with these allegories come some of Plato’s “nastier” ideas, philosophies that do not particularly mesh with our modern society and ideals. Therefore, in order to still expose people to these parables without the more radical ideas, the focus changes from the story in context to the allegory standing by itself. Popular culture puts its own spin on Plato’s philosophies and simultaneously censors out the extreme parts, an idea promoted by Plato himself. 2) Compare and contrast modern politicians with Plato’s Philosopher-Kings. Are they comparable? If so, in what ways? While the Philosopher-Kings appear very different from politicians in a modern democracy there are quite a few interesting similarities that people may overlook while reading Republic. Take for example a Philosopher-King’s education. This is an extremely regimented sequence starting from an early age and going until the individual is in their 50’s. While the education of a politician is not as planned out, many actually follow this path i.e. Elementary and high school (music/poetry/physical training), college and graduate school (Mathematics), holding a full-time job (dialectics), and continuing on to politics (political training). By the time many reach a political office they are over 50 years old. But, one thing politicians have that Philosopher-Kings do not is the ability to relate to the people they serve. Plato’s Kallipolis requires little interaction between the rulers and their people, where as politicians need to interact with the people they represent in order to get elected to office.
Plato creates and presents the ideas behind what he thinks is the ideal city. His city would be ruled by what he calls a Philosopher King. The Philosopher King would have to be educated to a much higher extent in mathematics, dialectics, and politics. This would mean that the most educated man would be making the important decision for the ideal city. A single individual having all the power in a heavily class based society sounds a lot like many of the autocratic regimes in the developing world. Many of us grew up and were raised here in a mixed market system where the ideas of democracy are naturally preferred. When we read about Plato's ideal city, Kallipolis, we usually shake our heads and wonder how any society could operate in that manner.
Around the globe there are many states, whether they are in Africa, South America or anywhere else, that can be classified as "developing" or "underdeveloped" when being compared to our Western Civilization. In reality, would it be wrong to think that the ideas behind Plato's city wouldn't work in other "developing" parts of the globe. This isn't to say that these ideas would be successful for the long term or that they are what we see as the best solution for that state. For example, in the United States or anywhere else where democratic ideas have taken hold, there is a decent establishment of a higher literacy rate and/or higher education. This being said, the idea that most of population that is willing to vote on what they believe is best for their nation makes a lot of sense since they are educated. A democratic system where all individuals have a right to be heard and vote for what they believe is right may not be the best for some "developing" states that still have lower literacy rates and many that haven't taken part in higher education. The ideas behind Kallipolis may sometimes be what's best for some states for the short term until the people are ready for a new system of government (i.e. The Arab Spring).
I do understand that in many cases Plato's ideas behind Kallipolis would not work and that it's not crazy to think that the population under this kind of rule would not start a revolution or that a military coup d'etat would not take place. Those ideas lead to the process of a Philosopher King type government would lead to a Timocracy, Oligarchy, a Democracy, and even to an Autocracy. I believe that throughout history there are examples of Plato's ideas working for a nation or state even if it is for the short term.
What exactly is a form? Forms are the ideas that allow our mind to know things. Everything that exists physically has a form, and there are forms which you can’t sense, but mentally, you can reach them. The senses give us information about objects in the world, but we would not be able to tell what they are without some unifying concept or idea. That unifying concept or idea is “form.” Because physical things require a unifying concept, or form, Plato distinguishes between the senses, and the mind, which do not need a unifying concept. “[We] set down according to a single form of each, believing that there is but one, and call it ‘the being’ of each… And we say that the many beautiful things and the rest are visible but not intelligible, while the forms are intelligible but not visible…” (507b-c). A form is an idea that describes the being of some object and is known by the mind. Beauty is the form of beautiful things
How are the studies of a philosopher-king different form college today? Well, the philosopher-king would study music, math, philosophy, and politics over the course of forty years. Now days, in less than ten normally, we complete our schooling. Not only is the time commitment considerably less, but we are also receiving a different kind of education. Today, we go through highly specialized training in one or two specific areas. The idea of the philosopher-king just wouldn’t be able to work in a modern society. It is my opinion, that there aren’t really any renaissance men left in the world. Because there are so many specialized jobs, there would be no real place for them. There is such a push for higher education in the work force that even if someone was smart enough to be one, they would probably end up with a terrible job, not nearly touching their potential.
Kelsey Davidson Humn Blog- Week 7 Plato’s The Republic
How are women portrayed in the second half of the book? I found it interesting that Plato believes in ‘equality’ between men and women. I would’ve thought it was the complete opposite. Men and women are educated the same way because it is believed that men and women have the potential to do the same things; they have similar skill sets. I also found it interesting how men and women were considered equal among the different classes you belonged to. What I mean by this is that a woman who is a guardian is thought to be much higher than a man of a warrior status. I see this as a great thing because these people aren’t judged by their gender, but rather their job and the things they do. This is not true however when you compare men and women within the class. Women will always be superior to men. This is not much different than today. There are still cases today in which men and women, doing the same job, get paid different amounts; the men get higher pay. In this respect, I see many parallels to today’s society.
Why is this society a communal society? This society is all about communal and sharing the responsibility. Children, for example, are raised communally and separate from their nuclear families. This relates to the concept of shared responsibility. Children are meant to be “property of the society” and therefore must not be swayed in any which direction. These children are said to have potential and a specific skill set. Children are to be educated in such a way to only give and benefit from society. There is no such thing as private property because it eliminates the conflict and fighting as to what land belongs to whom. The society works as a whole and everything anyone does is to benefit the society; if one piece is missing, the society may not function.
What about the Allegory of the Cave? The reason I found the allegory of the cave so interesting is because I felt it had a very good connection to education and I was able to apply it very loosely to real life. When reading about the cave, I related it to the education that Socrates was trying to convince his audience of. The more education you have, the more knowledge you have; the more knowledge you have, the farther out of the cave you get. It can be argued that this analogy was meant to demonstrate how education could affect the soul. The education and knowledge you have will only help you in life. It is said that you almost have an obligation to return and spread your knowledge to those who don’t know, however, it is important not to share too much.
The concentration on females in 'power' in “The Republic” is easily understood because of the new and extremely controversial view that females can actually do things. People look at what Plato wrote today and see a proto feminist, while still reassuring the males of that period that women would always be inferior to men. They may be able to do the same things as men, but women will always need to do lighter work, and listen to their superiors. This view is amazing for this time period, but the reflection that “The Republic” gets from todays society doesn't seem deserving to me. I understand that what Plato wrote is against contemporary opinion but to say that his ideas could still work is insane. People 'quote' or say they are quoting from Plato, that these Greek giants wrote the beginnings of the great democracies of today, but Plato didn't support democracy and basically said that a democratic government is a stones throw away from complete destruction. People today try to gather newer meaning to classic works, but Plato seemed to just argue about what he wished a perfect society should be while putting forward ideas that would never be accepted by his society.
The Allegory of The Cave If there's any one idea from Plato's republic that has really permeated popular culture it is his allegory of the cave. The allegory serves to function as a way of describing the differences between the way in which people who live 'unexamined lives' are, and what happens when one is exposed to the form of the Good. This allegory raises a few questions in my mind, like, why does the person who escapes the cave return and try to let the others know about how their lives are all lies? Is this some kind of attempt to get all people to live on the same level as the philosopher king? If it is, I don't see why Plato would want to do that, because to me the whole role of philosopher king can only exist as a hierarchal reaction to the people who live the unexamined life; if everyone was on this same level of knowing what the real world was, then The Republic wouldn't have needed to be written. The allegory of the cave also strikes me as being weirdly proto-marxist in the sense that you can read the people who are stuck in the cave as being marred by the false-conciousness implemented by their ideological constraints (the fire, the statues, etc.) and the philosopher king who escapes is the person who figures out how to think outside of their subject position, or whatever. Another interesting thing to consider is how more or less everyone can recognize a name like Plato, or The Republic, or even the allegory of the cave, and can more than likely also connect these things with Classical Greece, but then a large percentage of these people have never really read anything by Plato, or have faulty conceptions of the things that are actually in the texts. One major flaw that arises from this is the weird connection with American democracy and the Greeks. We are taught that the Greeks (Athenians) invented democracy, and we are also taught that the Greeks were a great people, so when we connect the dots, and take into account the fact that America is a democracy then we begin to make all kinds of Barthian implicatures about how America must also be a great society of people, etc. etc. Of course, we know that really many Greeks spoke out against the concept of democracy, like Plato does, for example, and that Athenian democracy was really a very, very unfair society and really not something that a lot of people would associate with 21st century ideals of equality, etc.
The Allegory of the Cave interpreted on an individual standpoint:
Each human being has their own individual "cave." It is our own "happy place" where we are comfortable, at ease, familiar with ourselves and our surroundings. It is our comfort zone. Many of us are prisoners to these realities because of the comfort we get from them. We fear change and challenge and making decisions so we stay complacent and blindly follow the set social norms we have followed since childhood. Think about it, it is usually the person who questions authority, tries to break barriers, attempts social changes, etc that are ridiculed. Those that dress differently, speak differently, think differently than the rest of mainstream society are usually the ones shunned and the ones we try to silence because they make it difficult to stay in our cocoons of "normalcy." It is easy to remain as you are until someone comes along giving you other options, trying to convince you that things could be different. These things are hard to hear, hard to put into perspective. They are scary. It was terrifying for me to realize I didn't have to study what my parents wanted me to study in school. It was scary to make a decision for myself and go against what was "normal" in my family. The "liberated man" here is like those people in society who think beyond what is normal and keeps accumulating new experiences and knowledge.
This peace speaks volumes to me. While change may be terrifying and certainly hard to adjust to, the rewards are far greater than the cost. Opening yourself up to the endless possibilities this world has to offer has got to be better than repeating the same life day in and day out. Why wouldn't a person choose to expand their horizons and realize that an entire reality awaits them?
How does Plato’s Kallipolis differ from an oligarchy or authoritarianism? An oligarchy is defined as a political system with a small ruling class distinct from the rest of the population. The Philosopher Kings seem to be a small group of individuals educated for the sake of ruling the city, fitting that description quite well. Plato says a government run by Philosopher Kings is superior to an oligarchy, but what he describes as an oligarchy is a plutocracy, or rule by the wealthy. In fact, there is no guarantee the Philosopher Kings won’t become a plutocracy anyway, given that they are so separated from their subjects and extolled as the most rational humans, they might consider it just to reward themselves. A history of religious institutions indicates that when a hierarchy is created, even one meant to be led by the most virtuous individuals, those individuals use their power to act against those same virtues. Popes declaring holy wars, the spread of Islam through warfare, and the lavishness of the Vatican and palaces owned by Caliphs all suggest that whatever values a group is meant to have may not be present. Without the proper control over their desires for power or wealth, even one greedy Philosopher King could easily set a precedent which creates a snowball effect in which each generation of Philosopher Kings expects more and more. These are things they would acquire besides women, as The Republic already guarantees the Guardians, or the “best” men, the responsibility to choose the best women for them to have sex with. The ability for a small group of men to decide who women are going to have sex with is just one troubling example of the authoritarian powers granted to the Guardians. The power to banish poets (or anyone speaking subversively, presumably), the institutionalized deception of the people in the rigged lotteries, and the control over what gods may be worshipped are all disturbing examples of government overreach to anyone living in a free, modern society. Despite this, Plato criticizes tyrants, as he considers tyrannies prone to corruption. Given that both tyrannies and the Kallipolis would be very authoritarian, the only distinction would seem to be the number of rulers. Philosopher Kings are presumably an elect few, as they must be skilled with rhetoric, trained in war, and excel in math. They must also identify as philosophers, or lovers of truth, and even then Plato considers many of those to be unfit, as they are lovers of sight and sound, not truth. Ultimately, the number of suitable Guardians in Plato’s lifetime, should his plans be carried out, would be one. Plato seems to be describing himself whenever his character Socrates describes the ideal Philosopher King, and gives this description of himself an incredible amount of power. Plato only makes his self-adulation more apparent when he comes to the allegory of the cave, in which the philosopher is criticized and seen as mad for trying to teach others. He has Socrates speak as though Philosopher Kings should be pitied for undergoing the pain of each realization and bearing the knowledge of the Form of the Good. What Plato doesn’t understand is that all the people in life feel misunderstood and underappreciated. Plato is just the only one with the gall to describe the people who don’t understand him as cave dwellers playing with fire. This double standard in which he considers it unjust to call a philosopher like himself a madman while comparing others to cave dwellers can be found in his feelings toward imitation. Plato condemns imitations and would not stand for them in a Kallipolis, yet reveals this by writing a fictional story with characters named after real people. Plato is casting shadows in his own cave while condemning those who do not seek the sun.
How does Averroes reconcile the truth that philosophers believe to define mankind and the truth that Muslims believe defines mankind? Averroes must reconcile that philosophy will eventually conflict with the teachings of Islam in the Decisive Treatise. The philosophical view which Averroes refers to as “demonstrative truth” and the teachings of Islam which he refers to as “scriptural truth” at times will present two different views of life and how man should act towards his fellow man. This is a problem for every religion, when a follower of any faith begins to profess another style of learning and action that is not based in the teachings of their gods they are labeled as a heretic, an infidel, or simply as a non-believer. These labels can bring harsh social, cultural, and legal sanctions, there have been examples from every religion in which challenging the established faith has caused the death of the individual. So, how does Averroes avoid this and actually use this argument to strengthen his connection with his religion through the examination of truths that are not based in Islam? He states that these teachings must be “interpreted allegorically” or that the teaching from Allah was meant to be examined more closely to understand the meaning that was not implied in the literal text but rather a deeper meaning that requires intellect and close examination. How can this concept of an allegory be applied to religion and philosophy in modern times? This idea of religious texts not being applicable to modern times is a very important concept now that science and technology has allowed us to understand so much about the Earth and the history of mankind. Philosophy is also believed to be either unimportant or even useless now, when Plato references a city in which a ruling class is raised like the guardians and producers that are used as ways to ensure that the city will continue to exist it seems ridiculous. Perhaps the value of both of these texts is not in the literal reading such as, spirits made of fire tempting man or a city that should be ruled by people with gold in their soul. Rather the ideas that inspired them are the important aspect of the reading, here is where Averroes and his concept of allegory is important. Reflecting on this material and applying the deeper meaning to the cultural image of society is where these texts show their true value. Religion and philosophy were both ideas of how to deal with the evils and inequities of mankind, which is an issue that all of humanity has to deal with. Teachings of ancient people on how to deal with temptation or why justice is intrinsically good can be helpful to people in the present and future.
Plato lists democracy being only one step above tyranny, in Plato’s Republic. Is democracy really that close to tyranny? In Plato’s time it is easy to see why Plato could think this, most people were uneducated and were to focused on living to have any other concerns in the world. These people would be easily swayed to follow whatever a charismatic leader would say. Or if they were more assertive they would be closed to reason and there would be tyranny of the majority, which is a theme still talked about today. Another issue Plato has with democracy is the lack of specialization, due to the people’s freedom of doing whatever they wanted. His theory, that you should do whatever you are best at seems very simple and straightforward, but then the idea of happiness comes in. We can easily understand that someone might be best suited to be a janitor, but they may not be happy doing that job. If this is in most cases then you would develop a very unhappy society that would inevitably become less productive than if you left people do what they wished. It is interesting to think of Plato’s ideas on democracy in respect to the United States. Plato believed that through democracy the uneducated would be equal in control to the educated which is obviously a flaw. It seems that America combated this problem by making the electoral system. Each state chooses representatives that solely focus on politics, which leads to the “educated” ruling. An example of this would be when John Kerry won the popular vote which is a vote of the common people, while Bush won the Electoral College. Bush became president. In today’s time I believe that the electoral system should be changed considering that more people are educated now and most have the time to become politically aware which makes the role of representatives less important.
How does the "Dialogue of Civilizations" pertain to the Republic's influence on Medieval Islam and Latin Europe?
Currently history is viewed to be one continuous timeline, and in Plato's republic we see that this cannot be the case because the influences of Plato's politics branches to many continents and effects the development of many civilizations. This is in effect seen in how the founding fathers of America had a great love of Greek philosophy and how Islamic cultures embraced many of the same values as Plato. While both cultures where influenced, the United States tends to emphasize their usage of these influences which drowns out how other cultures used them too. There were many medieval Islamic-European influences (for example Ibn Rushd) so these too can be seen as reason to change our two dimensional thinking about the cultural divide. The history is too interconnected even though these countries developments are taught as being very separate.
Is Greek society so strictly patriarchal that their views are what we are fighting against in an effort to provide equal rights 2393 years later?
I would argue that while the Greeks are laminated as being very fair to women yet it is their values that hold us back in today from evolving as a culture. The Greeks had many strong and valiant women role models in their fables but as a society women where not equally valued. I do not know if this is true before the Greeks or even at the beginning of Greek culture. A story I know of this shift in Greek culture begins with Athena who having won by one vote the right to name the city Athens caused a punishment to befall all women. They lost their right to vote. Strong women figures dominated societies before the Greeks and in many cultures that the Greek societies touched. Early Europe had many strong female religious mythical characters as did their decedents the Vikings. The goddess Hel who was feared even by her father, banshees, and succubi.
The idea of education and how Greek values have been modified over the years...
Plato uses the metaphor of the cave as a way to describe why a philosopher king can be trusted with power. But when after thinking about the cave some more I realized it is not the education that makes the philosopher king better in Plato's eyes but the values he gains from the very specialized and contained information Plato would provide. This is why our modern education system is very different from his. While education is forced on all American children, and it does not change the values that the child has already been exposed to. Since our modern children are not raised separately from their parents they have a vastly different idea of important and education than Plato. It is also important to note that raising a child separately from parental figures has been proven to cause irreparable damage to a child's psyche. <> Society took Plato's idea that education would benefit the whole and expanded that idea to allow everyone the opportunity to be educated. While it is a system that develops slowly, ours has been changed based on hundreds of years of experience, his is based on the ideas of one extremist man and a handful of ancient mathematicians.
In class we were discussing how Plato would react to our current state of politics, and how Plato would defend himself in our current climate of debate. I think there are 2 separate issues here. In regard to our current political ideals and climate Plato would quite obviously not be happy about our democracy. I think also the fact that we are seen by many (mostly Americans) as being the bastion of freedom and success, taking into account Plato’s distaste for the idea of democracy, would not be to his liking. It seems rather transparent that as Plato discusses auxiliaries left to excesses of music or artists who stop working when they grow rich can be quite an analogy for the US in many ways. Perhaps we have become so happy with our success and indulgences that we have lost the drive to succeed. The attitude that has made us great has turned to argument and a dangerous political climate where the uneducated masses are blind to our real state. In regards to Plato defending himself I do not believe he would feel the need. The Republic is an argument against his theories. Everything he says is countered and then rebutted. He addresses every issue he can think of. Obviously there are more, but looking at it honestly our society has changed so much since the time this was written that he cannot be reasonably expected to factor in all the arguments we might now come up with. Health care, international politics, economic reasoning and even the technology of warfare are all relatively new. When Plato says his warriors can take out 2-3 competing soldiers simply because of their training he is talking about battle with swords, not fully automatic rifles or guided missile systems. In the end though there really is no need for him to defend himself. The final say would be, in my opinion, that we have never tried it. We can say that as a country we have shown that democracy works, against his assertion. However, our country is really less than 300 years old. It has been a modern success, and changed the world. History will remember us, but will we last 1,000 years like some nations? That is debatable. With the ideal state of The Republic though no one has officially tried it, there has never been an enactment of the Republic in its whole. We cannot say it does not work in any more than theory. Some of the ideas may seem crazy and even against basic human rights, but these are human rights we have developed within the context of our modern world. If one were raised in Plato’s world then our notions of basic rights would be totally different. Maybe though, since it has never been tried, that is the final argument against. That in all these years and all the interpretations of the plan no one has ever thought “Let’s do this thing.” If you believe that human beings have inimitable, basic compulsions of self-interest and desires than a nation that so clearly work counter to them cannot possibly be anything more than a theory.
Could Socrates' "Perfectly Just City" work in today's day and age?
ReplyDeleteSocrates' just city has many flaws to it from reading The Republic. It can even sound to work on paper, but in reality that city could never work. Socrates' takes a very inhumane approach with his idea of how people are educated and their basic standard of living. His idea of no one having families and everyone just co existing is actually kind of scary. It may sound to work on paper, but in reality, if a human had to live in that environment it would be a very sad life. Couldn't justice also be defined as seeking the best interest of yourself and others and being happy? If Plato thinks that this city is the most just, than isn't it sort of contradicting? He is clearly not looking out for the best interest of everyone, because I believe that most people would not be happy with that life. Life is about expression and creation, and if everyone had to be practically the same people than it wouldn't be a life worth living, a happy one. In today's day and age, everyone is so different, with different lifestyles, family, forms of socializing. No one would ever want to give up this individualization, people enjoy their uniqueness. Also, isn't Plato being a bit biased himself? He claims that the only real ruler could be a philosopher, which he just happens to be. He can defend himself all he wants but him being a philosopher had to be some what relevant to him making his decision. Basically, the "just city" that Plato came up with could never work. No matter how good it may sound on writing, it is an impossible task to complete and could never happen.
Are “Middle Eastern” countries that we criticize for not respecting freedom of speech more Platonic and closer to Greek intellectual thought than “European” civilizations?
ReplyDeleteThe belief that modern democratic values originated from the philosophies of the “Greek Giants” poses some serious problems. Plato places democracy as one step away from tyranny. The United States, among other nations, criticizes nations such as Iran and Syria for their restrictions of individual rights. I would argue that this not does necessarily mean that such countries are more Platonic. In the context of The Republic, Socrates began his discussion about different political systems when speaking of the natural degeneration of politics from the ideal state. That is, he was analyzing what would inevitably happen to the kallipolis over time. Countries such as Syria and Iran did not start as ideal civilizations ruled by Philosopher-Kings. Therefore, it is difficult to assess which contemporary nations most resemble Greek philosophical thought. However, I don’t think it makes sense to claim that nations such as Syria and Iran would be seen as better in Plato’s point of view. Their governments did not degenerate from a civilization similar to his kallipolis. I think Plato would have a lot of problems with societies all over the world today. I don’t think he would approve of U.S journalists condemning our leader for being professorial nor do I think he would approve of oppressive and violent actions of regimes such as Syria.
Is democracy really one step away from tyranny?
Socrates describes the many dangers of democracy. One of the main problems with a democracy is the loss of specialization as a result of everyone being able to do what they want. Plato also describes how the drones will pit two classes of society against one another (the wealthy/politically active vs. those who do not actively participate in politics) and this will result in tyranny. The question is whether this can be applied to a democracy such as the contemporary United States. To some extent, our country already exhibits some aspects of a tyranny such as our president and limited sphere of people who are actually in charge. However, democracy in the contemporary United States is much different than the scenario that Socrates describes in The Republic. As opposed to the absolute democracy in The Republic, where everyone does what they want, we have a structured representative democracy and legal system in place. It is not a pure democracy in the sense that only the select few that are elected truly control the policies of the town, state, and nation. I do not think democracy in this form is one step away from tyranny. The system of checks and balances is a good system for preventing such demise. The answer to my original question, therefore, depends on how we define democracy. In my mind, the absolute democracy described in The Republic is one step away from tyranny but most contemporary democracies are much more complex. In other words, democracy today blends the other forms of government that Plato outlined, in the sense that a representative government prevents some of the “tyranny of the masses.”
Nicole Pfister
ReplyDeleteBlog # 5
How is the study of dialectic a risk? How can that risk be avoided?
He is arguing that teaching dialectic to people who are not highly knowledgeable is dangerous. Since they do not have a higher education they will make arguments that are not important or are false. This will just cause more problems, especially when they argue with people who are more knowledgeable. He tries to avoid this risk by not teaching people dialectic until they are older. This way they will have a higher education and more knowledge. I understand where he is coming from. There is nothing more frustrating than when you have more knowledge about a subject and someone with less knowledge is trying to prove you wrong. So if the person researches and gains knowledge about the subject before making an argument, it would help stop a lot of frustration.
What is Plato trying to demonstrate with the allegory of the cave?
He is trying to demonstrate that not everyone is meant to understand the highest knowledge. Some people will not understand what is actually going on and will ridicule the person who is telling them the realty. These people are not ready to understand this higher knowledge. This is shown in the allegory of the cave when, someone explored and said that there is a world outside the cave and the statues inside the cave are not reality. The people responded by calling him crazy and not believing that there was a reality outside the cave. This concept can also be applied to people in society today. There are certain people who are stuck in their ways. If someone tries to tell them to change their way of life, they would freak out. Call the other people crazy and feel as if their view is the only correct one.
What is the connection between the allegory of the cave and politics?
The allegory of the cave is basically saying that there is more to reality than what most people think. This relates to our society and politics because the government doesn’t inform its citizens of everything that is actually going on. If everyone knew what was actually happening in our government there would be chaos. People’s beliefs or way of life would change, which is too much for people to handle. So then they would rebel against the government. Therefore the politicians and government are hiding the reality of our society, so they don’t have to deal with the chaos it would bring.
Colin Moore
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Plato’s Beliefs
What are Plato’s beliefs on women and how are they important?
Plato was an interesting person because he was one of the first known people to say that men and women should be educated in the same ways. This is different because women at these times were often not respected and I doubt many women were educated to the extent that some men were educated. Plato thought that the soul was the most important part in determining what kind of education each person will receive. Equal education was a new idea at this time. Women were usually never allowed an equal education. However, just because Plato believed that men and women could get equal educations, he did not necessarily believe that men and women are equal. Plato has said that attributes like fear and cowardice are woman-like. Also, I highly doubt that Plato would support a woman as a philosopher-queen leader. Overall it seems like Plato’s ideas were more progressive regarding women’s rights. His ideas were a step in the right direction.
How is the allegory of the cave significant?
The allegory of the cave is one of the most famous passages in the history of literature. The allegory of the cave is Plato’s attempt at explaining the way people evolve intellectually and gain knowledge. People start out in the cave staring at shadows of statues. Eventually a person leaves and sees the statues themselves. When this person is educated more they are taken out of the cave. Outside of the cave their eyes must adjust to the sunlight. This person will now be able to see actual objects such as trees and houses. Eventually a person will be able to look at the sun itself. This person will then go back into the cave to educate people. The cave is the way Plato shows how education and knowledge are important for humans. Humans need knowledge so they can see the form of the good. Knowledge allows people to understand the truth of what goes on in the world. Plato used the cave analogy to convince people that education and a love for knowledge were two necessary things to have so people could understand the truths in the world. Plato wants people to use the rational part of their souls so they will seek knowledge.
What are Plato’s beliefs on democracy?
Plato believes that democracy is one step away from tyranny. Democracy, to Plato, leads to the wrong people leading the city or the country. A democracy is made and ruled by people who succumb to their appetitive desires. Plato believes that the wrong people are put in charge in a democracy. Usually many positions will be given out and many people who have power will try to take advantage of the people who are not in power. Over time, the poor will get poorer, and the rich will get richer. In Plato’s eyes, a democracy is a poor system of government. A democracy will eventually lead to tyranny.
How does the Allegory of the Caves may relate to today?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the part of the Republic that talks about the allegory of the caves it made me think how it relates to today. The story that Socrates tells of it made is very interesting to read. He talks about how imagination can be created and then how different aspects of imagination can lead to knowledge and education. I look at the shadows on the wall of imagination and how these prisoners are dreaming and trying to see what they believe is true and not knowing anything different because according to Socrates imagination is at the bottom of the education. People everyday use imagination but the amount used can be based on the amount of education one has received. As the prisoner leaves his imagination and leaves the cave he is brought about into the world and how education and knowledge plays a key role in that. Learning to look in the fire and learning that the shadows were really puppets played by people exposes people to what really goes on in life. If someone thinks everything just happens then this can be imagination. Learning the important and key facts behind something such as how something works or why something does what it does helps humans minds expand and create any room for more knowledge. Moving from imagination to full blow knowledge takes time and as these people learned and Socrates talked about. The prisoner and had to adjust his eyes to be able to see. This can relate to today in the gaining knowledge takes time and it does not happen overnight. People today have to adjust and get use to something before moving on to the next step in life or in their education. As the prisoner learned he went back to show others what he went through in hopes of helping others experience what he went through. Today, as people learn, they also to share what they learn but in many different forms such as jobs or teaching. Even though this analogy to place during ancient Greek times, it still has ties to today and most luckily into the far future. People are always want to gain more knowledge but ones needs to learn in order to do that they first must leave the imagination behind and open the door for new and exciting experiences.
Jessica Bourdage
ReplyDeletePlato’s Republic
What is Plato’s view on political systems? Democracy?
Aristocracy is the best form of government especially when the ruler is a philosopher-king. Aristocracy is the most just form of government and tyranny is the most unjust. As you move down from aristocracy you have timocracy. When the people of the city become more spiritually driven and money driven, war will break out. The rulers that are selected will be more in the warrior classes than the philosopher. The son of a man will be influenced by others to follow his spirit and appetitive desires instead of the rational one which leads to timocracy. When the honor-loving men of a timocracy become more like money-lovers where the wealthy rule over the poor the constitution turns into an oligarchy. The oligarchy then turns into a democracy when the poor overthrow the rich and the masses take control. Socrates believes that a democracy is the most mixed and diverse constitution. People see it as beautiful and the best because of the variety but anyone can rule as long as he pleases the majority, that may not know anything. When the power is given to one individual in a democracy it turns into a tyranny, which is the least just of all the constitutions. Democracy in the Republic is seen kind of like communism, it’s good in theory. With democracy the majority has a say in the government and in communism everything is spread equally among people which are both good things. But they are only one step away from becoming tyrannies when one person gains the power and is in control of everything.
According to Plato are women equal to men or not?
Plato says that women have different natures to men but that they should be educated in the same way. Women can have the same natures as men when it comes to what they will excel at. Therefore there should be women guardians, warriors, and producers. The women who are guardians are considered the best of the women. Yet even though women would be trained the same as men, women are still seen to be weaker than men. “Do you know of anything practiced by human beings in which the male sex isn’t superior to the female in all these ways?” (line 455c) Plato has the stereotypical view of women. That the only things they may excel at better than men would be “weaving, baking cakes, and cooking vegetables.” He believes that it’s possible for women to be the same as men in nature and be a doctor, musical, or athletic but that women are always inferior to men. “Women share by nature in every way of life just as men do, but in all of them women are weaker than men.” (line 455e)
Are philosophers good?
Plato believes that cities should be ruled by philosopher-kings. He believes that the best rulers are ones that are educated in philosophy. The others make the argument that philosophers are useless and Socrates agrees. He says “the best among the philosophers are useless to the majority. Tell him not to blame those decent people for this but the ones who don’t make use of them.” (line 489b) The philosopher shouldn’t have to go to the people to help them, the people should come to the philosopher begging to be ruled by him. If the philosophers aren’t useless then they are vicious. Socrates argues that the very things that make a philosopher great can also corrupt him. “The best natures become outstandingly bad when they receive a bad upbringing.” (line 491e) Sophists corrupt the youth by shouting in public places. Relative and fellow citizens also corrupt philosophers by inflating their egos to a point where they can’t understand the truth.
Kelly Gilbert
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Professor B. Akmen
3/5/13
Plato II
I found this reading to be very all of the place. There was so much going on. Socrates seems to have really strange ideas for the city, kallipolis. Some of them just seemed so unethical and wrong to me, especially the idea with sex and that people were only allowed to have sex with certain people and that when babies were born, they weren’t given to their actual birth parents, they were given to someone else. I just don’t understand his reasoning for any of these ideas.
Also, why does it take so long and so much effort to become a philosopher king? Having to take music, poetry, physical training, 10 years of math, 5 years of dialects, and another 15 years of politics seems like way too much to become a philosopher king. The person wouldn’t be a king till they were at least 50. Nowadays, a person can become what they want to be hopefully by the age of 30 depending on what it is. It just seems crazy spending half your life trying to become this king. I suppose to many people back then, it was worth it. Being a philosopher king must have meant feeling powerful and intelligent.
I was actually pretty confused when reading about the allegory of the cave. I didn’t understand the allegory and why these people were forced to live in a cave since birth but after discussing it in class and seeing clips from The Matrix, I got a better understand of what Socrates was explaining with the allegory of the cave. I feel as though Plato is trying to demonstrate evolution of education with this allegory. There is a connection between the allegory of the cave and politics in that the producers are the people in the cave, or the puppets. The puppeteers are the philosophical kings. Plato is trying to explain that even with obstacles, a man can still pull through and make it. I found this to be a very complex, yet creative way to get his point, or opinion, across.
1. Why is Plato so set on making Kaliopolis an actual implementable republic, rather than a utopian thought exercise?
ReplyDelete- Plato’s insistence on making his republic real seems to stem from his total distaste for the government that, for his entire life, has stood in the way of philosophical progress in one form or another. Plato believes that, as a philosopher, he has reached the highest level of worldly understanding, and that by not embracing these principles of articulated abstract thought they are condemning themselves to an unstoppable slide towards tyranny. By placing democracy just a rung above the end-game tyranny, he is showing how much faith he has in the “masses” being entrusted with choosing representatives - that is, it’s not much. I hesitate to say that Plato has “faith” in the minds and decision making of his class of would be philosopher-kings. This solely because of his aversion to the concept, but the blind assurance that his cadre of highly educated aristocrats will be inherently better (and less self serving) than a group of Athenian citizens just doesn’t go very far with me, or anyone else with a passing knowledge of modern aristocratic societies. The smaller group of rich and educated individuals will just perpetuate their existence in any way they can, while making sure that their base of privilege and power remains uneroded.
2. What can be said about the producer class’s role in Kaliopolis’s society?
- This brings me to the situation that befalls the vast majority of people within Kaliopolis: the faceless, and apparently ambitionless producer class that is tasked with simply standing idly by as the city is run by those deemed more intelligent. It’s a non-participatory, totally subservient existence that would - unless these people were generously compensated to remain as such - fall apart as they would become anxious for social mobility that is self-determinant instead of predetermined by those aformentioned upper classes. Plato really seems to rely on the complacency of those who don’t do a lot of thinking, and not in that any person can be (and usually is) extremely emotional and strong-willed. Having the producer class be at the same time disenfranchised and complacent seems unlikely at best, and totally contradictory at its absolute worst. Does this mean that it’s impossible? Certainly not, but I just don’t see a society from antiquity being particularly equitable towards those considered unfit to participate in government and citizenship.
3. How do Plato’s feelings on Aristocracy and Democracy run counter to the democratic ideals espoused by many nations today?
Aristocracy, as a matter of definition, is control centered around a few elite citizens. In an age where nearly every country is attempting to increase it’s electoral franchise with the intent of improving the standard of living, it seems totally counter productive that entrusting only the most privileged and educated with fulfilling the needs of those who aren’t those two socio-economic traits. Detachment from the lower classes, as is recommended by Plato, would lead to a loss of knowledge about what makes them angry, happy, and mutinous. The cultures would become insular, divergent, and eventually totally incompatible as their value systems polarized. This would lead to social unrest, and a complete undoing of the nation-state. Plato’s insistence that this is the one true way to a perfect city belies his desire to be not just the most intelligent man in the room, but the most powerful and influential as well. Using history as the great vindicator, democratic countries and institutions have proven to be the most equitable and gratifiying spread of political responsibility.
It's hard for me to take Plato seriously when he speaks of the philosophers being the best kings. He is a philosopher, so obiviously he is going to think that the philosophers are the most worthy of the position. There was a part in the book where it says that it doesn't matter if the philosopher-king has the good of the city in mind. He just has to be working toward the most rationalized soul he can possibly have. It also said that this should be good for the city anyway, but it seems that a philosopher king that really doesn't have the city's best interest at heart is no better than any other king that doesn't have the city's best interest. I only see some difference between a king that is trying to be as wealthy as possible and a king that is trying to be as intelligent as possible.
ReplyDeletePlato says that women can be intelligent and be guardians but I feel this really isn't his opinion. He still in reality doesn't regard women with much respect. In fact, I think that Socrates and the men were saying that the women should be treated alongside the men just because it was such a novel idea and that they thought it was controversial. I don't think they really feel that way. Soon after they go on about women being taught alongside men and that some women may be intelligent Socrates goes ahead and says about stripping corpses, "Isn't it small-minded and womanish to regard the body as your enemy, when the enemy himself has flitted away, leaving behind only the instrument with which he fought"(144)? He doesn't regard women any higher than any other man of ancient Greece.
When we were talking about the two-headed beast and the lion in class regarding to the appetitive, spiritual and rational desires, it made me think of Freudian's id, ego, and superego. The id would be related to the appetitive due to both being the desires that cause negative results. The spiritual and the superego are related due to the superego trying to do the most good while the spiritual desires are in honor. The ego and the rational are related in the sense that they are both what keeps the three in balance. It is the reason that one uses to keep things under control. I also thought of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs when thinking about the different levels of getting to the form of good. Basic needs like shelter, food, water are what are at the bottom of the hierarchy and are the simplest while at the bottom or the intellectual scale, imagination would be the basic intellectual thought process. When jumping to the top when the Good of the Form is realized, it is similar to self-actualization in the hierarchy of needs.
Humn 220
ReplyDeletePlato’s Republic II
What is the status of women in Kallipolis?
According to Socrates, women in the city would be treated no differently than men. The only difference in status that the people of Kallipolis have with each other comes from different classes. So women of the Guardian class would have a higher status than someone of a lower class. Under Socrates system women would be allowed the same education and be available for the same political roles as women. Even though the society decides various aspects of your life, such as class, their decision is not based on gender. However, even though women are granted the same opportunities as men they are still supposed to be considered the weaker sex.
For what reason would Socrates’ city fail?
I believe Socrates’ city, Kallipolis, would undoubtedly fail. It is my belief that this failure would be the result of frequent violation of the rules set down by Socrates. The rules of the city restrict the rights and privileges of all its citizens to extreme levels. For instance, in Socrates city you are married randomly to someone for a specific amount of time for the purpose of procreating. Then once you have given birth you are not even allowed to raise your child. It is my opinion that many mothers would be resistant to giving up their child and would attempt to conceal their child so that they are not separated. Another reason I think Kallipolis would fail is through lack of incentive for people to work. In modern society people put effort into their work so that they can earn money and buy nice stuff. If you take that away then people have little reason to do their best, especially if they do not receive any more or less for their effort. It is this kind of factor that helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and I see no reason why it would not happen in Kallipolis as well.
Describe the education of kings in Socrates’ ideal city. How is it different from our current university education?
ReplyDeleteKings in Socrates’ ideal city go through an extensive process of education to become kings and most don’t make it all the way and become auxiliaries. Their initial education is in music and poetry, physical training, and elementary mathematics. This is followed by two or three years of compulsory physical training, rather like the military service that some countries still require. Those who are most successful in these studies next receive ten years of education in mathematical science. Those who are again most successful receive five years of training in dialectic. Those who are still most successful receive fifteen years of practical political training. Finally, those who are also successful in practical politics are “compelled to lift up the radiant light of their souls” to the good itself and are equipped to be philosopher-kings. This is a time consuming process that takes at least the first 50 years of their life. In modern times students go through elementary, middle and high school. Then, they go through undergraduate college and graduate school. Sometimes further schooling is involved as well for specifications. Most people specialize in one thing called a major, and excel in that but it does not take half their life time to accomplish their entire education like in Socrates’ city.
What does Plato say about the status of women and children in Kallipolis?
Women should have equal opportunities and the same education as men. However, they still have a disadvantage and get worse positions. Also, only superior men and women are allowed to reproduce which they do at specific times of the year at sex festivals. If inferior personal reproduce their children will be killed. Children live in communal societies and have many brothers and sisters. They don’t know who their specific parents are because when reproduction season comes around all the children born at that specific period are considered in the same family.
How is the study of philosophy (dialectic) a risk/danger? How can that danger be avoided?
In the wrong hands this knowledge can be used for no good. People who don’t understand logic and reasoning would waste time asking unrealistic and unnecessary things. Only the wisest guardians should learn philosophy. Being able to question things in a society like this holds a lot of power in politics and judgment and they don’t want ignorant people to possess this power. By having only the wisest and stronger individuals learn dialect this danger can best be avoided and cause less problems to occur.
Austin Stone
ReplyDeleteDr. Akman
Humanities 1
3/5/13
1) “In general, Plato’s allegories are often taken out of the context of Republic when considered by people today.” Respond to this statement, indicating whether it is true or false. How does this change the meaning of the allegories? Why do you think this is the case with this particular text?
This is absolutely a true statement. Most people have at least a vague knowledge of Plato’s famous allegories, such as the allegory of the Sun, the Line, or the Cave, but I would venture to say that few could explain the meaning of these allegories in the context of the Republic. This was exactly my situation going into today as I had encountered the Allegory of the Cave before, but had never studied what Socrates’ is attempting to say about his Kallipolis with this parable. Also, with modern media interpretations of these allegories that are not always accurate, many people may feel they know more than they actually do (myself included).
Looking at the allegories in the context of Republic, then, changes the meanings of these stories. Focusing on the Allegory of the Cave the popular culture version would, without a doubt, be the Matrix Trilogy. However, in Republic
Plato is referring to the state of ignorance and disbelief demonstrated by the producing class, and an elitist idea that a lower class will never be able to understand the acquired knowledge of the ruling class. This is not the exciting robot vs. human war that the Matrix movies portray and, while entertaining, some of the root philosophy is lost in this modern translation. Plato refers to this analogy to explain a specific ideology for his Kallipolis while the Matrix movies take this allegory out of its original context to create a plotline.
I believe this is the case with Plato’s Republic because the allegories Plato uses to explain his ideas are fascinating to us, even still to this day twenty-five hundred years later. However, with these allegories come some of Plato’s “nastier” ideas, philosophies that do not particularly mesh with our modern society and ideals. Therefore, in order to still expose people to these parables without the more radical ideas, the focus changes from the story in context to the allegory standing by itself. Popular culture puts its own spin on Plato’s philosophies and simultaneously censors out the extreme parts, an idea promoted by Plato himself.
2) Compare and contrast modern politicians with Plato’s Philosopher-Kings. Are they comparable? If so, in what ways?
While the Philosopher-Kings appear very different from politicians in a modern democracy there are quite a few interesting similarities that people may overlook while reading Republic. Take for example a Philosopher-King’s education. This is an extremely regimented sequence starting from an early age and going until the individual is in their 50’s. While the education of a politician is not as planned out, many actually follow this path i.e. Elementary and high school (music/poetry/physical training), college and graduate school (Mathematics), holding a full-time job (dialectics), and continuing on to politics (political training). By the time many reach a political office they are over 50 years old. But, one thing politicians have that Philosopher-Kings do not is the ability to relate to the people they serve. Plato’s Kallipolis requires little interaction between the rulers and their people, where as politicians need to interact with the people they represent in order to get elected to office.
William Jockers
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
How applicable is Plato’s republic to the modern and ancient world?
I almost posed this question with the term “real world” as opposed to “modern and ancient”, which makes clear my presupposition before the answer even began. The applicability of Plato’s kallipolis is as realistic as the world of “The Giver” coming to fruition. The fake lottery, the education of guardians until 50, and the discarding of deformed children are all institutions that could not be feasible even in the most loyal and naïve population. The long term education of the guardians may not initially seem like a ridiculous plan, but it surely is for Plato’s planned kallipolis. If he were to go into a city, and kick out everyone but the untainted children, they would have to wait almost a half-century for a true-blood philosopher-king? And how many children would be eligible for the philosopher-king role, and live long enough to make it to that age. I am unsure how Plato would take to this badgering about details, but the disregard of application of the kallipolis makes the Republic not a proper examination of society and individuals, but just care free imagining of how he would run his perfect world.
The Allegory of the Cave, from a different perspective.
The Allegory of the Cave is an incredibly cool way to present to the audience the idea that the visible world may not be the whole world. From this allegory comes some of Plato’s right to be considered such an impressive philosopher, to have contemplated this idea thousands of years ago. But where Plato begins to create a perturbing scenario is the return of the “enlightened” individual. Lamenting the fate of Socrates, Plato is evidently upset at the actions of society on a man he respected, but Plato could be disregarding the responsibilities of the chained people. Assuming that the puppeteers feed the prisoners, these men and women are chained to their responsibility, just like a farmer is enslaved in a way to his work. If they leave they could miss a harvest, not be there to scare away pests, until the absence or absences is his downfall. To be fair, society needs these people who will stay chained in the cave, to stick to their responsibilities as producers. While the bashing of the inanity of philosophy is very cliché, Plato must understand that not every man and woman can venture out of the cave, or hear the truth, because if everyone is a philosopher, then nothing could get done.
Blog Entry Week 7
ReplyDeletePlato II
Plato creates and presents the ideas behind what he thinks is the ideal city. His city would be ruled by what he calls a Philosopher King. The Philosopher King would have to be educated to a much higher extent in mathematics, dialectics, and politics. This would mean that the most educated man would be making the important decision for the ideal city. A single individual having all the power in a heavily class based society sounds a lot like many of the autocratic regimes in the developing world. Many of us grew up and were raised here in a mixed market system where the ideas of democracy are naturally preferred. When we read about Plato's ideal city, Kallipolis, we usually shake our heads and wonder how any society could operate in that manner.
Around the globe there are many states, whether they are in Africa, South America or anywhere else, that can be classified as "developing" or "underdeveloped" when being compared to our Western Civilization. In reality, would it be wrong to think that the ideas behind Plato's city wouldn't work in other "developing" parts of the globe. This isn't to say that these ideas would be successful for the long term or that they are what we see as the best solution for that state. For example, in the United States or anywhere else where democratic ideas have taken hold, there is a decent establishment of a higher literacy rate and/or higher education. This being said, the idea that most of population that is willing to vote on what they believe is best for their nation makes a lot of sense since they are educated. A democratic system where all individuals have a right to be heard and vote for what they believe is right may not be the best for some "developing" states that still have lower literacy rates and many that haven't taken part in higher education. The ideas behind Kallipolis may sometimes be what's best for some states for the short term until the people are ready for a new system of government (i.e. The Arab Spring).
I do understand that in many cases Plato's ideas behind Kallipolis would not work and that it's not crazy to think that the population under this kind of rule would not start a revolution or that a military coup d'etat would not take place. Those ideas lead to the process of a Philosopher King type government would lead to a Timocracy, Oligarchy, a Democracy, and even to an Autocracy. I believe that throughout history there are examples of Plato's ideas working for a nation or state even if it is for the short term.
What exactly is a form?
ReplyDeleteForms are the ideas that allow our mind to know things. Everything that exists physically has a form, and there are forms which you can’t sense, but mentally, you can reach them. The senses give us information about objects in the world, but we would not be able to tell what they are without some unifying concept or idea. That unifying concept or idea is “form.” Because physical things require a unifying concept, or form, Plato distinguishes between the senses, and the mind, which do not need a unifying concept. “[We] set down according to a single form of each, believing that there is but one, and call it ‘the being’ of each… And we say that the many beautiful things and the rest are visible but not intelligible, while the forms are intelligible but not visible…” (507b-c). A form is an idea that describes the being of some object and is known by the mind. Beauty is the form of beautiful things
How are the studies of a philosopher-king different form college today?
Well, the philosopher-king would study music, math, philosophy, and politics over the course of forty years. Now days, in less than ten normally, we complete our schooling. Not only is the time commitment considerably less, but we are also receiving a different kind of education. Today, we go through highly specialized training in one or two specific areas. The idea of the philosopher-king just wouldn’t be able to work in a modern society. It is my opinion, that there aren’t really any renaissance men left in the world. Because there are so many specialized jobs, there would be no real place for them. There is such a push for higher education in the work force that even if someone was smart enough to be one, they would probably end up with a terrible job, not nearly touching their potential.
Kelsey Davidson
ReplyDeleteHumn Blog- Week 7
Plato’s The Republic
How are women portrayed in the second half of the book?
I found it interesting that Plato believes in ‘equality’ between men and women. I would’ve thought it was the complete opposite. Men and women are educated the same way because it is believed that men and women have the potential to do the same things; they have similar skill sets. I also found it interesting how men and women were considered equal among the different classes you belonged to. What I mean by this is that a woman who is a guardian is thought to be much higher than a man of a warrior status. I see this as a great thing because these people aren’t judged by their gender, but rather their job and the things they do. This is not true however when you compare men and women within the class. Women will always be superior to men. This is not much different than today. There are still cases today in which men and women, doing the same job, get paid different amounts; the men get higher pay. In this respect, I see many parallels to today’s society.
Why is this society a communal society?
This society is all about communal and sharing the responsibility. Children, for example, are raised communally and separate from their nuclear families. This relates to the concept of shared responsibility. Children are meant to be “property of the society” and therefore must not be swayed in any which direction. These children are said to have potential and a specific skill set. Children are to be educated in such a way to only give and benefit from society.
There is no such thing as private property because it eliminates the conflict and fighting as to what land belongs to whom. The society works as a whole and everything anyone does is to benefit the society; if one piece is missing, the society may not function.
What about the Allegory of the Cave?
The reason I found the allegory of the cave so interesting is because I felt it had a very good connection to education and I was able to apply it very loosely to real life. When reading about the cave, I related it to the education that Socrates was trying to convince his audience of. The more education you have, the more knowledge you have; the more knowledge you have, the farther out of the cave you get. It can be argued that this analogy was meant to demonstrate how education could affect the soul. The education and knowledge you have will only help you in life. It is said that you almost have an obligation to return and spread your knowledge to those who don’t know, however, it is important not to share too much.
Shannon Gallagher
ReplyDeleteThe concentration on females in 'power' in “The Republic” is easily understood because of the new and extremely controversial view that females can actually do things. People look at what Plato wrote today and see a proto feminist, while still reassuring the males of that period that women would always be inferior to men. They may be able to do the same things as men, but women will always need to do lighter work, and listen to their superiors. This view is amazing for this time period, but the reflection that “The Republic” gets from todays society doesn't seem deserving to me. I understand that what Plato wrote is against contemporary opinion but to say that his ideas could still work is insane. People 'quote' or say they are quoting from Plato, that these Greek giants wrote the beginnings of the great democracies of today, but Plato didn't support democracy and basically said that a democratic government is a stones throw away from complete destruction. People today try to gather newer meaning to classic works, but Plato seemed to just argue about what he wished a perfect society should be while putting forward ideas that would never be accepted by his society.
The Allegory of The Cave
ReplyDeleteIf there's any one idea from Plato's republic that has really permeated popular culture it is his allegory of the cave. The allegory serves to function as a way of describing the differences between the way in which people who live 'unexamined lives' are, and what happens when one is exposed to the form of the Good. This allegory raises a few questions in my mind, like, why does the person who escapes the cave return and try to let the others know about how their lives are all lies? Is this some kind of attempt to get all people to live on the same level as the philosopher king? If it is, I don't see why Plato would want to do that, because to me the whole role of philosopher king can only exist as a hierarchal reaction to the people who live the unexamined life; if everyone was on this same level of knowing what the real world was, then The Republic wouldn't have needed to be written. The allegory of the cave also strikes me as being weirdly proto-marxist in the sense that you can read the people who are stuck in the cave as being marred by the false-conciousness implemented by their ideological constraints (the fire, the statues, etc.) and the philosopher king who escapes is the person who figures out how to think outside of their subject position, or whatever. Another interesting thing to consider is how more or less everyone can recognize a name like Plato, or The Republic, or even the allegory of the cave, and can more than likely also connect these things with Classical Greece, but then a large percentage of these people have never really read anything by Plato, or have faulty conceptions of the things that are actually in the texts. One major flaw that arises from this is the weird connection with American democracy and the Greeks. We are taught that the Greeks (Athenians) invented democracy, and we are also taught that the Greeks were a great people, so when we connect the dots, and take into account the fact that America is a democracy then we begin to make all kinds of Barthian implicatures about how America must also be a great society of people, etc. etc. Of course, we know that really many Greeks spoke out against the concept of democracy, like Plato does, for example, and that Athenian democracy was really a very, very unfair society and really not something that a lot of people would associate with 21st century ideals of equality, etc.
The Allegory of the Cave interpreted on an individual standpoint:
ReplyDeleteEach human being has their own individual "cave." It is our own "happy place" where we are comfortable, at ease, familiar with ourselves and our surroundings. It is our comfort zone. Many of us are prisoners to these realities because of the comfort we get from them. We fear change and challenge and making decisions so we stay complacent and blindly follow the set social norms we have followed since childhood. Think about it, it is usually the person who questions authority, tries to break barriers, attempts social changes, etc that are ridiculed. Those that dress differently, speak differently, think differently than the rest of mainstream society are usually the ones shunned and the ones we try to silence because they make it difficult to stay in our cocoons of "normalcy." It is easy to remain as you are until someone comes along giving you other options, trying to convince you that things could be different. These things are hard to hear, hard to put into perspective. They are scary. It was terrifying for me to realize I didn't have to study what my parents wanted me to study in school. It was scary to make a decision for myself and go against what was "normal" in my family. The "liberated man" here is like those people in society who think beyond what is normal and keeps accumulating new experiences and knowledge.
This peace speaks volumes to me. While change may be terrifying and certainly hard to adjust to, the rewards are far greater than the cost. Opening yourself up to the endless possibilities this world has to offer has got to be better than repeating the same life day in and day out. Why wouldn't a person choose to expand their horizons and realize that an entire reality awaits them?
How does Plato’s Kallipolis differ from an oligarchy or authoritarianism?
ReplyDeleteAn oligarchy is defined as a political system with a small ruling class distinct from the rest of the population. The Philosopher Kings seem to be a small group of individuals educated for the sake of ruling the city, fitting that description quite well. Plato says a government run by Philosopher Kings is superior to an oligarchy, but what he describes as an oligarchy is a plutocracy, or rule by the wealthy. In fact, there is no guarantee the Philosopher Kings won’t become a plutocracy anyway, given that they are so separated from their subjects and extolled as the most rational humans, they might consider it just to reward themselves. A history of religious institutions indicates that when a hierarchy is created, even one meant to be led by the most virtuous individuals, those individuals use their power to act against those same virtues. Popes declaring holy wars, the spread of Islam through warfare, and the lavishness of the Vatican and palaces owned by Caliphs all suggest that whatever values a group is meant to have may not be present. Without the proper control over their desires for power or wealth, even one greedy Philosopher King could easily set a precedent which creates a snowball effect in which each generation of Philosopher Kings expects more and more. These are things they would acquire besides women, as The Republic already guarantees the Guardians, or the “best” men, the responsibility to choose the best women for them to have sex with.
The ability for a small group of men to decide who women are going to have sex with is just one troubling example of the authoritarian powers granted to the Guardians. The power to banish poets (or anyone speaking subversively, presumably), the institutionalized deception of the people in the rigged lotteries, and the control over what gods may be worshipped are all disturbing examples of government overreach to anyone living in a free, modern society. Despite this, Plato criticizes tyrants, as he considers tyrannies prone to corruption. Given that both tyrannies and the Kallipolis would be very authoritarian, the only distinction would seem to be the number of rulers.
Philosopher Kings are presumably an elect few, as they must be skilled with rhetoric, trained in war, and excel in math. They must also identify as philosophers, or lovers of truth, and even then Plato considers many of those to be unfit, as they are lovers of sight and sound, not truth. Ultimately, the number of suitable Guardians in Plato’s lifetime, should his plans be carried out, would be one. Plato seems to be describing himself whenever his character Socrates describes the ideal Philosopher King, and gives this description of himself an incredible amount of power. Plato only makes his self-adulation more apparent when he comes to the allegory of the cave, in which the philosopher is criticized and seen as mad for trying to teach others. He has Socrates speak as though Philosopher Kings should be pitied for undergoing the pain of each realization and bearing the knowledge of the Form of the Good. What Plato doesn’t understand is that all the people in life feel misunderstood and underappreciated. Plato is just the only one with the gall to describe the people who don’t understand him as cave dwellers playing with fire. This double standard in which he considers it unjust to call a philosopher like himself a madman while comparing others to cave dwellers can be found in his feelings toward imitation. Plato condemns imitations and would not stand for them in a Kallipolis, yet reveals this by writing a fictional story with characters named after real people. Plato is casting shadows in his own cave while condemning those who do not seek the sun.
Relevant comic regarding the people in the cave: http://xkcd.com/610/
DeleteHow does Averroes reconcile the truth that philosophers believe to define mankind and the truth that Muslims believe defines mankind?
ReplyDeleteAverroes must reconcile that philosophy will eventually conflict with the teachings of Islam in the Decisive Treatise. The philosophical view which Averroes refers to as “demonstrative truth” and the teachings of Islam which he refers to as “scriptural truth” at times will present two different views of life and how man should act towards his fellow man. This is a problem for every religion, when a follower of any faith begins to profess another style of learning and action that is not based in the teachings of their gods they are labeled as a heretic, an infidel, or simply as a non-believer. These labels can bring harsh social, cultural, and legal sanctions, there have been examples from every religion in which challenging the established faith has caused the death of the individual. So, how does Averroes avoid this and actually use this argument to strengthen his connection with his religion through the examination of truths that are not based in Islam? He states that these teachings must be “interpreted allegorically” or that the teaching from Allah was meant to be examined more closely to understand the meaning that was not implied in the literal text but rather a deeper meaning that requires intellect and close examination.
How can this concept of an allegory be applied to religion and philosophy in modern times?
This idea of religious texts not being applicable to modern times is a very important concept now that science and technology has allowed us to understand so much about the Earth and the history of mankind. Philosophy is also believed to be either unimportant or even useless now, when Plato references a city in which a ruling class is raised like the guardians and producers that are used as ways to ensure that the city will continue to exist it seems ridiculous. Perhaps the value of both of these texts is not in the literal reading such as, spirits made of fire tempting man or a city that should be ruled by people with gold in their soul. Rather the ideas that inspired them are the important aspect of the reading, here is where Averroes and his concept of allegory is important. Reflecting on this material and applying the deeper meaning to the cultural image of society is where these texts show their true value. Religion and philosophy were both ideas of how to deal with the evils and inequities of mankind, which is an issue that all of humanity has to deal with. Teachings of ancient people on how to deal with temptation or why justice is intrinsically good can be helpful to people in the present and future.
Hierarchy of governments
ReplyDeletePlato lists democracy being only one step above tyranny, in Plato’s Republic. Is democracy really that close to tyranny?
In Plato’s time it is easy to see why Plato could think this, most people were uneducated and were to focused on living to have any other concerns in the world. These people would be easily swayed to follow whatever a charismatic leader would say. Or if they were more assertive they would be closed to reason and there would be tyranny of the majority, which is a theme still talked about today. Another issue Plato has with democracy is the lack of specialization, due to the people’s freedom of doing whatever they wanted. His theory, that you should do whatever you are best at seems very simple and straightforward, but then the idea of happiness comes in. We can easily understand that someone might be best suited to be a janitor, but they may not be happy doing that job. If this is in most cases then you would develop a very unhappy society that would inevitably become less productive than if you left people do what they wished.
It is interesting to think of Plato’s ideas on democracy in respect to the United States. Plato believed that through democracy the uneducated would be equal in control to the educated which is obviously a flaw. It seems that America combated this problem by making the electoral system. Each state chooses representatives that solely focus on politics, which leads to the “educated” ruling. An example of this would be when John Kerry won the popular vote which is a vote of the common people, while Bush won the Electoral College. Bush became president. In today’s time I believe that the electoral system should be changed considering that more people are educated now and most have the time to become politically aware which makes the role of representatives less important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow does the "Dialogue of Civilizations" pertain to the Republic's influence on Medieval Islam and Latin Europe?
ReplyDeleteCurrently history is viewed to be one continuous timeline, and in Plato's republic we see that this cannot be the case because the influences of Plato's politics branches to many continents and effects the development of many civilizations. This is in effect seen in how the founding fathers of America had a great love of Greek philosophy and how Islamic cultures embraced many of the same values as Plato. While both cultures where influenced, the United States tends to emphasize their usage of these influences which drowns out how other cultures used them too. There were many medieval Islamic-European influences (for example Ibn Rushd) so these too can be seen as reason to change our two dimensional thinking about the cultural divide. The history is too interconnected even though these countries developments are taught as being very separate.
Is Greek society so strictly patriarchal that their views are what we are fighting against in an effort to provide equal rights 2393 years later?
I would argue that while the Greeks are laminated as being very fair to women yet it is their values that hold us back in today from evolving as a culture. The Greeks had many strong and valiant women role models in their fables but as a society women where not equally valued. I do not know if this is true before the Greeks or even at the beginning of Greek culture. A story I know of this shift in Greek culture begins with Athena who having won by one vote the right to name the city Athens caused a punishment to befall all women. They lost their right to vote. Strong women figures dominated societies before the Greeks and in many cultures that the Greek societies touched. Early Europe had many strong female religious mythical characters as did their decedents the Vikings. The goddess Hel who was feared even by her father, banshees, and succubi.
The idea of education and how Greek values have been modified over the years...
ReplyDeletePlato uses the metaphor of the cave as a way to describe why a philosopher king can be trusted with power. But when after thinking about the cave some more I realized it is not the education that makes the philosopher king better in Plato's eyes but the values he gains from the very specialized and contained information Plato would provide. This is why our modern education system is very different from his. While education is forced on all American children, and it does not change the values that the child has already been exposed to. Since our modern children are not raised separately from their parents they have a vastly different idea of important and education than Plato. It is also important to note that raising a child separately from parental figures has been proven to cause irreparable damage to a child's psyche. <> Society took Plato's idea that education would benefit the whole and expanded that idea to allow everyone the opportunity to be educated. While it is a system that develops slowly, ours has been changed based on hundreds of years of experience, his is based on the ideas of one extremist man and a handful of ancient mathematicians.
In class we were discussing how Plato would react to our current state of politics, and how Plato would defend himself in our current climate of debate. I think there are 2 separate issues here. In regard to our current political ideals and climate Plato would quite obviously not be happy about our democracy. I think also the fact that we are seen by many (mostly Americans) as being the bastion of freedom and success, taking into account Plato’s distaste for the idea of democracy, would not be to his liking. It seems rather transparent that as Plato discusses auxiliaries left to excesses of music or artists who stop working when they grow rich can be quite an analogy for the US in many ways. Perhaps we have become so happy with our success and indulgences that we have lost the drive to succeed. The attitude that has made us great has turned to argument and a dangerous political climate where the uneducated masses are blind to our real state.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Plato defending himself I do not believe he would feel the need. The Republic is an argument against his theories. Everything he says is countered and then rebutted. He addresses every issue he can think of. Obviously there are more, but looking at it honestly our society has changed so much since the time this was written that he cannot be reasonably expected to factor in all the arguments we might now come up with. Health care, international politics, economic reasoning and even the technology of warfare are all relatively new. When Plato says his warriors can take out 2-3 competing soldiers simply because of their training he is talking about battle with swords, not fully automatic rifles or guided missile systems. In the end though there really is no need for him to defend himself. The final say would be, in my opinion, that we have never tried it. We can say that as a country we have shown that democracy works, against his assertion. However, our country is really less than 300 years old. It has been a modern success, and changed the world. History will remember us, but will we last 1,000 years like some nations? That is debatable. With the ideal state of The Republic though no one has officially tried it, there has never been an enactment of the Republic in its whole. We cannot say it does not work in any more than theory. Some of the ideas may seem crazy and even against basic human rights, but these are human rights we have developed within the context of our modern world. If one were raised in Plato’s world then our notions of basic rights would be totally different. Maybe though, since it has never been tried, that is the final argument against. That in all these years and all the interpretations of the plan no one has ever thought “Let’s do this thing.” If you believe that human beings have inimitable, basic compulsions of self-interest and desires than a nation that so clearly work counter to them cannot possibly be anything more than a theory.