During the second part of Republic, I always had the Nietzche quote in the back of my mind, the one that says Plato is scared of the human reality and therefore hides behind is mathematical logic. I think Nietzche was on to something. Although I still find Platos arguments as unagreeable as when I read the first half, there are a few new things that i’ve noticed, and things that stuck with me. There were times it seemed Plato was slipping up. There were even certain things I found myself agreeing with.

I’ll begin with the things I don’t agree with. I earmarked page 134 as a “dangerous” page. Here Plato brings together his ideas on selective breeding. What is really curious to me is this: Plato previously states that he wants his citizens educated, and to be knowledgable about how the city works. The idea is once they understand the philosophy, they’ll see why things have to be done and they’ll accept that it is for the greater good. And yet, Socrates/Plato proposes to keep the selective breeding secret from the people. So does Plato not have faith in his own philosophy? Sometimes his class system seems to go against his idea of a whole harmonious entity.On the same page he also condones infanticide, and that tends to send up some red flags as well. He goes on to critizise the education system, and I think some of his criticisms are valid. At one point, however, he states that education isn’t about giving a person sight, but instead directing where they look. This is interesting and I think most people today, in our society at least, would believe the opposite.

When it comes to Plato’s criticism of democracy, I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of it. Although HIS doctrine is just as likely to fail, the flaws he points out are legitimate, I think. He predicts huge gaps between the rich and poor. Todays society is proof that this can occur. It seems that in his system, one gets to the “top one percent” through wisdom, skill, and physical competence. That sounds better right? Hmm…. Well, the wisdom and skill part is fair enough I suppose, but at the same time that was the idea behind the free 1st world democracies, and I don’t think Plato would like those.

The definition of a tyrant was interesting because it was very human. Tyranny is associated with flattering others to get something or hanging out with people who flatter you. Someone with a tyrannical nature “lives his whole life as either a master to one man or a slave to another, never getting a taste of true freedom or friendship.” I’m sometimes guilty of hanging out with people because they tell me i’m great, and i’ve also been very kind to people who I thought could get me somewhere. But i still think this statement is one of Socrates wiser ones.

There is one other thing Plato and I can agree on. I believe that if mankind didn’t have as many choices to make they would probably be happier.

See you tomorrow!

After finishing Plato’s Republic, I still was left unconvinced as to the benefits of the philosopher’s utopia.

I found the metaphor of the three beds to be particularly interesting. With regards to the truth, it truly shed light upon the Plato’s idea of uniformity. Throughout the work, Plato makes it well known that there may only be one form of reality, and that all others are mere imitations. These replicas arise out of ignorance and opinion, and have no real basis in intelligent thinking. To an extent, I agree with this belief, as there are no other means by which certain components of the universe operate, such as with regards to the Earth’s spherical shape. Although I agree, though, I also have strong opinions concerning the matter as well. When Plato dismissed art as being completely insignificant, and a mere lie about reality, I almost wanted to slap him. To be so confident and unmoving in one’s own belief of truth to completely ignore the other perceptions of life presented through art demonstrates a lack of knowledge. The entire point of art is that it provides various other means and perspectives by which we experience and see the world. Simply because it opposes or questions the idea of a uniform truth does not mean that it must be thrown out the window. When an artist paints a blacksmith, he does not claim to be fully knowledgeable about the subject’s worth, but rather presents it through another lens. Art may offer different opinions and perspectives on truth, but that does not by any means signify that it possesses no realities about life.

Aside from my rant on Plato and art, I found the idea of tyranny restricting the soul to be very intriguing. Normally, I would agree with those who say that the tyrannical are completely content in their reign, but to see Plato’s opinion changed my perspective slightly. When the philosopher describes the tyrant as needing to constantly be in control, and is perpetual in fear of losing it, it definitely painted the picture of a man trapped by his own greed. In trying to obtain liberation to control a society where all one’s whims are obeyed, the individual truly loses sight of humanity and becomes a slave to desire.

Although I was not the biggest fan of Plato’s work, upon completing it I have become slightly persuaded by a few of his ideas, but not many.

Based on this book, I have to say that although Plato is a man with many legitimate arguments, he ultimately possesses misguided fundamentals coupled with even more misguided theories of application. His ideal of justice is nothing more than a state-regulated lifestyle of moderation and conformity, while his ideal state is nothing more than an assembly line with which to pump out the “just” masses and have them lead utterly uninteresting lives. Uninteresting to me, that is—as par one of Plato’s legitimate arguments, the pumped out masses would definitely be hard-wired to love their respective lifestyles. A foundation of society is, after all, to make the masses think they’re happy.

            In any case, where Plato’s fundamentals go wrong is at the very start of his logic. The problem, however, is not that he only sees one answer to every question (every question does only have one answer in relation to it). The problem is that he sees only one answer to all questions, and subsequently only one path to the said answer. That answer, of course, is justice, and the path to it is a moderated and conformed lifestyle. Even the philosophers, who he sees as the highest class of citizen, must follow this established path every step of the way. The main issue with such two-dimensional thinking (aside from the fact that it’s nothing short of ignorance), is that it is fragile against anything that even has a semblance of being able to prove it wrong. It is a thin and brittle tower built from the ground up, and anyone with the slightest curiosity could just poke at it and cause the entire thing to crash right back down. In this case, the tower crashers are anyone beyond the ideal citizen that Plato described; he is well aware of this fact, which is why he explicitly stated that his state cannot let anyone who doesn’t conform to his standards enter the city. It is also why he says to censor the poems and the songs, and eliminate the greatest highs and the lowest lows. He is desperate to retain the illusion that his ideal is absolute, and has devised every method he is capable of conceptualizing to maintain that illusion, which of course won’t stop anyone from nuking the city of crazies if they by some miracle actually manage to survive that long. Thankfully, however, the man has enough sense to admit that creating such a state is virtually impossible. The closest you could probably get to it in reality is the state depicted in George Orwell’s 1984, and even then you’d be hard-pressed to maintain it. So, for all intents and purposes, Plato’s argument (or at least the state part) is realistically impossible as well as utterly unappealing to those who have lived outside of its illusion.

After working my way through the first half of the book, I found that reading the second half wasn’t as bad. Maybe it was because by then I’d gotten used to the dialogue in the book and the way Socrates made his arguments. The “Republic” became less of a headache and I even found myself liking the book (but, I’ll admit, not always!).

One thing that really interested me in the book was how Socrates argued that painters and craftsmen were imitators. First of all, when we think of painters, I, at least, think of them as people who create art that is original and authentic, something that reflects emotions or inner beliefs. Socrates make them out to be people who lack originality and “produces work that is inferior with respect to the truth.” Even though I totally disagree with Socrates that painters are imitators (which can be a nicer word for plagiarism), I find his views interesting. First of all, he says that the work painters produce is inferior to the truth, but perhaps his view towards truth is too platonic. Why should there be only one truth as to what the truth is? Why shouldn’t a painter’s work reflect the truth too?

Another argument that Plato made that really held my interest was towards the very end, where Socrates was describing a situation where many people chose to become animals for their next life. Odysseus, in this situation, chooses to be a “private individual who did his own work” and “other souls changed from animals into human beings.” Having come from the Odyssey lecture where Caroline Williams emphasized the importance of Odysseus having made the choice to be human rather than a god, Plato is emphasizing the opposite. I feel Plato has a feeling of hatred for humans and what makes humans… human. I get the impression from him that he’s trying to tell us how flawed human life is, with all its pains and shortcomings that are a part of human existence, and that’s why he wants to make the argument that many people choose to become animals in their next life. Animals have a much simpler life, after all. Socrates also states a number of times how humans are at the mercy of their own appetites, forever in pursuit of something…

Plato also has a lot to say about politics. He says a number of times how democracy is monstrous and that, ideally, a state should have only a philosopher-King. I feel that Plato’s “philosopher-king” is perhaps the modern equivalent of a Senate. Plato compares democracy as a many headed monster who is never fully satisfied. On the other hand, his philosopher-king seems to know how best to rule. His philosopher-king isn’t pressured by the public to make certain decisions the way a democratic ruler would. This was another bit that lingered in my mind (and trust me, I forgot a large part of the book after finishing it!).

Reading Plato’s arguments were hard. I’m not sure what this proves about us as readers. Are we too narrow-minded to accept Plato’s arguments? Is that why they are so difficult to read and retain? Who exactly is monstrous, us or Plato?

After a long flight and careful examination I have finally finished The Republic. Now that I’ve finally finished Plato’s text and read his long winded arguments I can finally critique him.
What I found consistent with the text is that Plato is obsessed with objective truths. He cannot fathom the notion that there is no single answer to any question. For example according to him everything in this world must be either “good” or “evil”, or a person is either “Just” or “Unjust”. There are no shades of gray in his morality code. Furthermore he believes that every scenario can only have a single outcome. According to his own system every Democracy will eventually devolve into a Tyrannical system, but this isn’t a destined equation. Wouldn’t his praised Timocratic or Obligarchy governments be what we today define as tyrannical governing systems? Would we consider only those who posses property rightful to dictate it’s citizens? Wouldn’t majority of these leader rule based only on their own needs? Plato is stubborn in his thinking and cannot come to terms with the complicated subjectivity of the real world.

Plato is an idealist who firmly believes that all human emotion can be suppressed with enough will power. In Book X, he states that poets and poetry are not ideal for his society. Plato believes that poetry often invokes negative emotions such as sadness or grief and fosters sympathy to those who succumb to it.  Plato believes that if a father loses a child and falls into hysteria than it is not ideal for either himself of those around him. The rational thing to do is to move forward and continue with our lives, This is absolutely true, what good comes of grief? But could any loving father master this discipline? Absolutely not! Plato does not realize that human beings decisions are mainly subject to our emotions. Grief for loss isn’t by any means a good thing but it is a necessary one. Grieving is just a part of life, and any attempts to avert it can only lead to worse emotions. Would any man be capable of completely controlling their emotions? Is a Philosopher King even possible?

To Plato, a philosopher or proper ruler is one who lacks all characteristics of humanity. If he cannot understand his people’s emotions should he really be fit to rule? Plato’s vision of an ideal human state lacks all realism. He simply cannot deal with the fact that human nature and imperfection cannot be tamed.

I gotta say, I really enjoy Plato’s Republic so far. We’ve only done stuff from a more imaginary standpoint (I know, I know, subject to debate) in terms of Greek literature so it is quite refreshing to have something besides just a dramatic/actiony story for our next read.

Plato had a concept of an ideal state based on logic and living in accordance with certain duties to more than one’s self. He wanted a governing power that founded on a trained elite who would govern wisely and in which art and music would be forbidden that destroyed one’s individuality. After having seen how his friend and teacher Socrates was executed by the Athenian democracy, Plato disillusioned himself with the notion that men could govern over themselves freely since they were prone to being tricked by demagogues, swindlers, and con men into acting against their true intentions… Granted, the book certainly is impractical in depicting the kind of world Plato would have liked to see but all the same there is no disputing that, as one of greatest philosophers who ever spawned on this planet, we still find ourselves arguing not whether we can ever achieve a perfect, utopian state, but whether we can expect a government and society to hold integrity in regards to its character and policy.

That is the real issue at stake The Republic presents to us… at least from what I can see thus far. That being said… this was a tough slog so far. I had to read over at least 2-3 times to derive true understanding from this book so far… Plato often seems to transcend us in thinking even at our best, eh? The footnotes in the copy we have to read helped a bit though.

If only we had presidential hopefuls that were even a fraction as wise and laconic as Socrates… sigh….

What are your guys’ thoughts so far? I’m reading through a few of your blog posts so expect comments soon…

So much like everyone else, reading this first half of Plato was quite challenging to say the least. I’d say that the first book was definitely harder to get through than the rest of it though. I have never read any of Plato’s work, but I now know that it will most likely be philosophical, or require quite a bit of detailed analysis (not saying there’s anything wrong with that). I also felt that I had to focus really hard to clearly understand what was going on. Basically, it was kind of a task to concentrate while reading this book.

But anyways, much like other people who have posted, I too, have heard about Socrates prior to reading the Republic, but I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of him yet. Speaking on the Republic as a whole, I realized that this book proposes many questions that people have yet to find the answers to. The Republic’s meaning is still undefined which further strikes people’s attention.

What particularly caught my interest was the heated conversation of what it means to be just and unjust with Socrates and Thrasymachus. Reading their continuous refutes of each other’s beliefs and statements was of great interest to me. However, I did find that for many aspects of their debate, there were oftentimes moments where I would need to re-read a certain argument a few times, just to fully understand and make sense of it. But asides from that, I found their different perspectives intriguing. For instance, like how Socrates argued that justice is a virtue and injustice is a vice, whereas Thrasymachus disagreed and stated that those who are unjust will prosper over those who are just. Another aspect that was of interest to me was the way Socrates argued. I’m not too sure about what everyone else though, but I found his questioning somewhat like a lawyer interrogating the accused. From what I read, Socrates had a very persuasive and intimidating approach, which clearly seemed to work, upon having Thrasymachus blush in the end. With that being said, I particularly agree with Socrates’ views on justice.

Another idea that was of interest to me was the concept of a perfect city and Socrates’ perspective regarding societal ways. According to Socrates, an idealistic state is restricted to censorship of religion, ideas, and stories, just to list a few. I do not necessarily agree with his views, though I enjoyed viewing this topic from a different perspective; to challenge my stance.

Although being a difficult read, the Republic so far is an interesting book that definitely needs to be further analyzed. See you all in the seminar!

I have never read Plato’s work personally, though I have heard of him and my IB Theory of Knowledge class did go over his Allegory of the Cave by discussion and by watching ‘The Matrix’ (Only the first one). So going into The Republic, I was rather unprepared for the amount of processing my poor brain had to do.  At this point though, I am enjoying the Republic, though I am becoming steadily uneasy at the content being presented within the dialogue as it does not conform to my views on government (not that I could possibly give a good judgement on).

Having been in IB Theory of Knowledge, we briefly went over Plato and Socrates in discussion, which I am quite used to.  However, the rhetoric and logic presented within The Republic astounded me and yet made sense.  The reasoning was sound and I found myself agreeing with what Socrates/Plato was arguing about.

As Book 1 ended though and Book 2 began, my interest only grew.  I mean, creating a perfect city in which to test their theory of justice and injustice would do that to your interest.  However, as the book began to progress, my eyes went O_O and a crinkle appeared on my brow.  I agreed with the points of a good polis or city such as it should not be so luxurious.  As roles began to be addressed, I still agreed with what they were suggesting.

It was when they reached what the Guardians should learn and not learn that I began to become increasingly worried.  I admit, my modern perspective is not allowing me to understand Plato’s view, but in my opinion, censorship of certain aspects is never a good thing.  The very reason I am able to write good essays was because my parents encouraged me and exposed me to a variety of works and a variety of views.  The training of the guardians, just reminded me of the Hitler Youth.  Basically training dogs of the state.   I also disagreed that the state would work because it was so logical.  My view (though unproven) is that humans do not always think logically and therefore, they do not always do logical things.  The city Plato is suggesting would work provided everybody was logical enough to understand his/her role, but humans who do not think logically would not be able to stand this city.  The only way this city would possibly work, is if the humans were replaced by Star Trek’s Vulcans who are supposed to always think logically.  Thus my admiration for Plato turned sour.

Yet, I also understood some of Plato’s points about the Guardians.  In real life, during the time of the Roman Empire, their was an Emperor called Marcus Aurelius (You may have heard of him in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator in which Maximus (Russell Crowe) announces himself as a general of Marcus Aurelius).  He was in fact, as most historians describe him, philosopher turned king and was one of the most successful Roman emperors.  Reading Plato actually made me realize that Marcus Aurelius’s reasons for suppressing the Christians may have possibly been the same reason why Plato is arguing for the suppression of Homeric texts (mega speculation here and going on a wild limb).  The populace, or the guardians should not get ahold of the wrong information and it must be censored or in the Christians case, wiped out.

For people wondering why I said Oh the Irony in my title.  Here is why.  For a piece of work to be called Republic, implying a government made up from elected members of a populace, Plato’s polis, is extraordinarily totalitarian and NOT a republic, and yet this work is called Plato’s Republic.  Oh the irony.

So all in all I found Plato’s Republic a very interesting read, though the content that was suggested furrowed my brow for a couple of hours.

Honestly, I really enjoyed reading (the first half of) Plato’s republic. It confused and intrigued me, and what most interested me about it was the way in which arguments were presented. Being a former member of the debate club, (yes… I’m just that nerdy) the many different devices one may use to convince someone to agree with your opinion has always spiked my curiosity. So, although I have to get it off my chest that the lack of quotation marks seriously frustrated me at some points as I tried to keep track of who was talking, I really liked this… book? I find I’m now hesitant to call each of our readings a “book” or define them in any way other than simply as literature as they may be merely disguised as a book, and in fact be something else.

            I have of course heard a lot about (Plato’s portrayal of) Socrates before opening Republic, but was still not quite prepared for his incredibly unique way of arguing. I found myself having to reread certain passages to try to follow the chain of arguments leading to the opposition being convinced or unconvinced. Hopefully that wasn’t just me? There were, however, many familiar aspects I found in way the debate went on, the defining of terms being one.

            I tried to view the description of this grand, ideal state without any particular bias of my own opinion, for a change, as I really just wanted to focus on the development of the argument and the presentations of ideas. However, this didn’t entirely work, and I’d still like to comment on a few literal elements of the argument. First off, the idea of anything being perfect is absolutely ridiculous, just to get that opinion out of the way. But Socrates valiantly tries to describe and envision the ideal state, and spends a great deal of time describing it, and the people within it. I found the suggestion of every person having only one occupation interesting, as I know very few people who have stuck with one profession their entire life, having known it was right for them from the beginning of their education. This is assuming everyone will only ever want to do that one thing which they are best at. However, I must also say that I was glad at last to have seen an argument put forth advocating that women are equal to men, and therefore the positions of “guardians” should be multi-gendered. One thing I’m not entirely sure of is, is Socrates using this ideal city merely as a device to prove his argument, or is this supposed to be something he genuinely believes to be feasible?

Over and out,
Camille

Plato’s Republic was another tough read, and I agree with some of the other posts, in that,  it required so much concentration and patience just to get through it. That being said, the book definitely raises a few important questions and takes a close look into issues that hold relevance in our modern society, so, at the end of the day it’s a worthwhile read, in my opinion. It’s transcendence through time and culture are reflective of it’s poignant remarks and essentially unresolvable conflicts. This struggle of thought is enough to keep this book’s ideas in my head because it’s very nature demands deeper analysis of it’s contents and personal struggle with the issues it raises. Plato’s Republic is the perfect example of a book that remains alive because we haven’t found it’s meaning  yet.

Plato’s discussion of justice and injustice was particularly interesting to me because the points of logic the were making, all strung together well and all made rational sense. Valid points were supported by valid points and, when either person disagreed, a logical statement was made in return which the the other person actually took into consideration. However, taking the sociological perspective and applying to the society at large doesn’t work by sitting in the living room and reasoning out, point by point why society is the way it is. What’s not taken into account in the discussion is the idea of a non scientific, but still valid, way of attacking the argument. The part of us that just doesn’t mix with the idea that injustice disguised as justice is right is what the either man takes into account. Nor does either man take into account the societal conflict that is inevitable if certain members of society are constantly treated to injustice and told it’s justice. Ultimately, I think the biggest thing missing from these great logical debates is a practical real world application, which often tends to complicate even the most well thought out plans. Especially when the plans deal with humans who are volatile, in a sense, because they are subject to emotion and a change of ideals which is an, almost always, immeasurable detail. Overall I enjoyed reading the republic so far and look forward to the rest of the book.