I haven’t read the chapter but a thought on the extended metaphor for self-governance…
I’m reading the Human Condition concurrently, having missed that read along, and something that’s been bothering me all along is how Plato’s ideal city entirely lacks a polis. As I understand Arendt’s analysis, things of necessity are private/household concerns. Plato has constructed a city that is entirely necessity-oriented and has no public life of any kind.
You could interpret this as another consequence of tyranny. But maybe it is further indication that this is meant as an extended metaphor for an individual life. There is no polis because there is no public.
Edited: that said, I’m not entirely sure we should look for ways to give credit to Plato. He may have just been describing a horrible political philosophy, and we are searching for ways to justify the continued inclusion of the Republic within the Canon. Maybe because I’m an outsider to philosophy it’s easier for me to say this but: ideas don’t have to be good or remain relevant just because they have historical weight.
I think that point about the lack of a polis is really bang on, and it's exactly what we these days criticise about Totalitarianism (I'm currently thinking about how 1984 deals with this lack of individual freedom). I also wonder if we as individuals have a private polis. Perhaps our subconscious, or the things we refuse to admit even to ourselves could be considered private even to our own minds?
I also agree with that last point about Plato/Socrates perhaps just missing the mark. It's not his fault that he'd not seen 2000+ years of history play out, we have a lot more examples than he had to work with haha. I think it's also relevant to consider that the Greek civilization was sliding towards decline and perhaps Plato/Socrates was desperately looking for a way to prevent this, and the Republic was his best shot. (Anyone with more historical context here please do weigh in)
That being said, it's incredibly interesting as a historical work with wide influence to me. I also like what Jared has said about continuing to engage with it at a deeper level, despite it feeling wrong when considered from the lens of a political system. Who knows, perhaps the fact that the "Just Republic" has flaws in it will lead us to interesting parallels in how Plato/Socrates sees the "Just person"
“It’s not his fault that he'd not seen 2000+ years of history play out”… right, exactly this. I think he’s contemporary with Hippocrates, who got a ton of stuff shockingly close to correct while also being dead wrong. We recognize him as father of medicine while also not adopting the four humours.
Michelle, as per your comment "Plato's ideal city entirely lacks a polis", I'd like to share with you the following passage by Alan Ryan, a political philosopher, from his two-volume treatise ON POLITICS:
"Almost all accounts of the history of political thinking begin with Plato. This is a paradox, because Plato's political thought is antipolitical. Readers of his REPUBLIC see that in the polis of Plato's imagination, there is no politics, and are puzzled; but throughout European history there has been a current of thought that seeks the resolution of the conflicts that 'ordinary politics' resolves in the creation of a such a degree of social harmony that the conflicts which everyday politics resolves have simply disappeared, and politics with them . . . Utopian thinkers hope to maintain social order and meet the needs of the population without economic or political competition, and without rulers' having to justify their decisions to their peers or to the common people. The founder of European political thought is the founder of antipolitical thinking." Ryan goes on to point out that, though Plato was not the only one who had become disenchanted and bitter about Athenian democracy as a result of the execution of Socrates and the subsequent exile that they had had to undertake, nevertheless, he was the only one who "provided an elaborate philosophical justification for giving up on politics as such".
Even though criticisms of Plato's ideas began almost immediately, it is accurate to say that Platonism, in various forms, has remained the dominant influence in the Western philosophical tradition; UNTIL Nietzsche, at the end of the 19th C, made it his mission to totally destroy everything that Platonism stands for! The tides then turned. Almost all of the major philosophers since Nietzsche (Heidegger, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Habermas, Rorty, etc.) maintain positions that are fundamentally contrary to the basic tenets in Plato's philosophy.
Obviously, the above is merely my personal reconstruction of the recent history of Western philosophy; I'm sure many people will disagree. But it makes sense to me and I am sticking to it. Just another disclaimer: I am by no means dismissing Plato's ideas in total. On the contrary, I will write about some of the things I've learned from him in future posts. All I am advocating is this: we need to scrutinize every one of his ideas carefully and critically; don't take any for granted just because he IS Plato; take what's useful and reject what's not; and, most importantly, be ready to call him out whenever necessary.
Philosophy is for everyone! I saw a comment on one of these threads the other day where someone felt ill-equipped for the discussion because they weren't in the know; it's like not going to the gym because you're not strong - the process is the goal here. I've seen you comment every week though so I know this is not you, which is great! I also took zero credit hours of philosophy at university and my high school didn't touch any of this stuff with a 10 foot pole. So these are very fun discussions.
"it’s easier for me to say this but: ideas don’t have to be good or remain relevant just because they have historical weight. "
I love this. There are definitely works that people cling to way too much despite their drawbacks and/or demonstrated detriment. Whether or not The Republic is one of those I can't say yet because I'm not done with it. But I respect seemingly audacious claims such as this.
I have a vivid memory of handing the final exam paper back to my philosophy 101 professor and saying that there was no point in wasting his time reading nonsense and grading my exam because I had not done the reading. The only failing grade I ever made in my life. And yet (and yet) thirty years later, I still have the textbook on my bookshelf. It was only in the last few years that I was able to devote myself to this type of thinking outside of work, other hobbies (I lean more toward early civilization(s) studies these days), or the basic yet tedious demands of any given day. So thank you for sharing your experience. And couldn’t agree more that these are, indeed, very fun discussions ✨
Thanks for the reply! I guess I meant more like… I don’t feel any kind of particular attachment or connection to Plato the way someone who has studied philosophy and understands his significance might. And so I don’t feel any need to “save” him from just… being wrong.
I haven’t finished either and am also reserving judgement. Plato did start the city by saying he was trying to understand what a just individual would be. So it’s not a huge leap to say he planned it this way.
But also his teacher was executed by the state so not a huge leap that he’s just writing a bad city where philosophers get to be kings instead of victims, either!
It’s not so much a matter of ‘saving’ him from being wrong. The reason you try your best to find some plausible and attractive interpretation of the text is to prevent yourself from dismissing the ideas or overlooking what’s actually of value in it.
I think it's worth saying that your criticism is bang on, people have brought this up before so you're for sure getting a good read of it. I think there's a school of criticism (I can't remember which, but it became popular after psychoanalysis got big) that talks about how a lot of philosophers created systems that justified their own way of life as the ultimate good. Looking at philosophy through the psychology of it's authors and the times they lived in to me seems like an interesting angle.
Thanks for this! I wish I knew more about Ancient Greece so I could more properly identify Plato’s context. I think there’s definitely a lot about the man himself in these pages, and it’s nice to see that thoroughly recognized here (including in Jared’s discussion starters).
After reading Jared's comments on this chapter and reflecting on the reading, it occurs to me that the book so far could be Plato's answer to the unspoken question: "What use is a philospher to society?" I can see that to answer it, Plato had to build an ideal society in order to properly place the philospher.
What use is a philosopher to a society today? I haven't given it as rigorous a thought as Plato, but so far I feel it's for similar reasons: to properly lead society, maybe not in governing, but maybe in its moral and ethical issues.
As an aside, what happens to philosophers that fail the rigid tests for ruling? Do they teach? Do they teach gym?
I'm greatly looking forward to the Parable of the Cave. I hope I can understand it to the point where I can explain to others, if not to excite them to read it.
Wayne, I agree with you that "What use is a philosopher to society?" is an important, and urgent, I might add, question for all of us to struggle to answer. For at least the last one hundred years, the world has been skipping from one disaster to another; without any end in sight. I can't even bear to listen anymore to the latest on what's happening with the children starving in Gaza or the families in Ukraine living under the threat of bombardment every day or all the international students studying at different universities in the US afraid to travel or to go home for the upcoming summer because they worry that they would be denied reentry into the country. For me, it's not about the politics; it's about the humanity of each and every individual; the different degrees of suffering that each is going through. So I ask myself constantly: What, as a philosophy-lover or just a common intellectual, can I, should I, do under these circumstances? My answer is: I have no special skills; all I have is the knowledge I've accumulated through reading and, hopefully, the ability to think independently and critically. So, I try my best to do what I can do best: raise doubts and ask questions; especially where others are hesitant to do so. I guess this is a long-winded explanation of why I've been persistent in speaking up about my reservations about REPUBLIC.
I believe there are many ways a philosopher can serve society. Holding those in power to account by asking questions comes first to my mind. Obviously Socrates serves as the supreme example; that is, the one who irritated everyone by asking questions and was eventually sentenced to death by the powers-that-be. Another way is the one you suggested: to provide moral and ethical leadership; which I agree wholeheartedly. In the context of this readalong, our challenge is to find out what exactly does Plato have to say about moral and ethical leadership, or the workings of the soul, as many have said; not just platitudes like philosophers have to be smart, self-disciplined, love learning, and so on; but nitty gritty details, like his student Aristotle, or Confucius. And if the ideal city that Plato imagines is fundamentally flawed, wouldn't that prevent him from properly placing the philosopher in it?
You've brought up a really interesting and important question. I hope this forum will continue to examine it.
I commented on Plato’s lack of polis, but reading your comment it strikes me that he has a bit of a crisis- he rejects the public “polis” but then finds the work of a philosopher cannot be located within the privacy of “household”. So now we must find a purpose for philosophy, and naturally his argument turns towards ruling, because philosophers are wise and so to should be rulers.
I just thought if I invented a new type of world, my imagination would surely fail somewhere. And for Plato, imagining that a philosopher just sits at home and thinks about things, or simply doesn’t exist at all- that’s a bit too much.
Edit: also it would be typical to say “this whole world could be better!” And then to realize you are a product of your world.
In an attempt to imagine quite a different world than we live in now- maybe a role of a philosopher could be to make more philosophers?
People almost always want to believe they are a special and rare type of person. But if almost everyone is a bit of a philosopher and going about talking about these ideas was more normal, wouldn’t that also be a good world?
Let us sidestep for now the debate about how seriously to take the political ideas in REPUBLIC and, instead, focus on the specifics of Plato’s core philosophical ideas, those that made him famous.
Who are philosophers for Plato? Right on the first page, he characterizes philosophers as “those who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects”; those “who know each thing that is”; and those who is “always in love with any learning which helps to reveal that reality which always is, and which is not driven this way and that by becoming and ceasing to be“. In other words, for Plato, philosophers are those who have attained knowledge of true reality; the eternal universal essence of things (inclusive of physical objects and immaterial qualities such as beauty, justice, courage, etc.). He calls these objects of real knowledge Forms or Ideas; the highest of which is the Form of the Good. Without this knowledge of the Forms, we are like blind people who “have no clear model in our souls”; all we can have are opinions, pale copies of the Forms. This conception of Truth and Knowledge, and the epistemological and metaphysical questions it has generated, dominated mainstream Western philosophy for two thousand years.
I have several basic questions about Plato’s conception of the Forms. I’ll start with this one: Why does “what is” take precedence over “what was” and “what will be”?
The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus famously said that reality IS becoming and that we can never step into the same river twice. Buddhism, of course, has also made becoming the cornerstone of both its thinking and practices. In the last century, this privileging of “what is” spurred Heidegger to embark on his BEING AND TIME project. He argues that humankind has mostly forgotten about the question of the meaning of Being because we have lost sight of the different modalities of time and become obsessed with only one of them, that of “eternal presentness.” For Heidegger, humans are inescapably born, or “thrown,” into a world that already exists, one that is created in the past. At the same time, we are always living with an eye towards the future, especially death, our mortality. This is the fundamental human condition, which we will continue to fail to grasp as long as we remain trapped in the mode of the “forever present.” More importantly, Heidegger claims, we will not be able to live in an authentic manner.
Heidegger’s fundamental reorientation of our outlook played a big role in the rise of the philosophical movement of Existentialism (“existence precedes essence”), which can be seen as a contemporary revolt against the influence of the Platonic model. As a student of Heidegger, Arendt incorporated many of his influences into her conceptions of the World, the public sphere, and especially her theory of history as a continuous narrative web of human action and their consequences.
I still remember our discussions during the MRS. DALLOWAY readalong. At first we were all confused and stumped by Woolf’s very different writing style. Later we realized that it was due to her adoption of the stream-of-consciousness approach to reality and consciousness. For her, the past, the present, and the future are always mixed together in our minds and we, hard as we try, cannot put dividers between them. The revolt against Platonism is not restricted to philosophy.
There seems to be this assumption throughout Greek philosophy that eternality is a mark of perfection. I do not know what the arguments are for that, but it certainly carried over in Christianity (God being described as unchanging and eternally the same in classical theism). What is, what will be, and what was are all the same in the realm of the Forms....but why is the static preferred to the dynamic? Of that, I'm not quite certain.
I will note that Arendt describes this in The Life of the Mind a bit. She says the Greek philosophers found that the gods, in being immortal but not eternal, possessed some limitation; the philosophers wanted to find that which was not limited, and so they studied Being itself.
Just want to share two passages from the opening of my favorite poem, FOUR QUARTETS, by T. S. Eliot. They address what we're talking about.
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
It all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time past and time future
Allow but a little consciousness.
To be conscious is not to be in time
But only in time can the moment in the rose garden,
The moment in the arbour where the rain beat,
The moment in the draughty church at smokefall
Be remembered; involved with past and future.
Only through time time is conquered.
Eliot wrote his dissertation at Harvard on the philosophy of Henri Bergson (whom you had discussed). So it's easily understanding where he's coming from.
There's a lot of wisdom in poetry. If I have to choose between literature and philosophy, I'll choose the former in a heartbeat.
Raymond, do you know how Plato thought about the need to learn this knowledge? If a philosopher is one who has already attained this knowledge, then what do we call people who are seeking after it, but don’t know it already? Is Socrates not a true philosopher? Or does Socrates already know all these Forms and his questions are all rhetorical?
The rest of your comment is so interesting, but I got stuck (as above) on like, the very first point and couldn’t fully grasp it. I’ll be thinking about this as we continue reading.
One thing I find fascinating about our discussions here is how they reveal that many of the basic assumptions I have are so rooted in philosophical traditions I had no idea existed. In revelation, it becomes possible to examine them.
I am not certain how Plato thought about the motivation for learning the Forms. The only thing I can think of is that he might claim that we have a natural desire to live a happy life, but without the knowledge of the Form of the Good and other virtues we would be unable to. I also don't know what Plato would call people who have not yet attained the knowledge of the Forms. I need to reread to see if I can find the answers. I hope others can jump in to help too.
As for your questions about Socrates, there are no definite answers! I've really looked into the case of Socrates and what I've found is that the literature does not have a consensus one way or another! There are plenty of studies about his different possible uses of irony. Some say he was just playing dumb. Some say he sincerely didn't know the answers himself. I lean towards the latter. I believe Socrates was sincere when he talked about his idea of "Socratic ignorance;" i.e., he was wise only in the sense that he knew that he didn't know, whereas others thought they knew when they didn't. If you remember my very first post for this readalong, I made the case that the Socratic method is a negative dialectic--there is no positive synthesis at the end; the process just keeps going. In other words, I believe that thinking is a never-ending process; to be human means we must keep reflecting.
In any case, Socrates remains a big mystery or enigma in the history of Western philosophy. The key question is: how could he be the wisest and most virtuous man in Athens when he professed that he didn't know himself the definitions of wisdom and virtue? I encourage you to explore the four dialogues devoted to his trial and death. They are completely different from the REPUBLIC.
“The sailors are quarrelling among themselves over captaincy of the ship, each one thinking that he ought to be captain.” When I read this, I laughed out loud and thought about both our own internal dialogues wrestling this way as well as our interpersonal external dialogues.
Why is it always so natural and easy to be the critic looking from outside and thinking “better” about a given dynamic?
Maybe this is a function specifically designed for our progress in the big picture sense of humanity?
It can be useful, after all, to be confident enough to jump in and do the best one can if the situation arises.
Throughout reading The Republic, I made notes about seeing examples lining up with modern sciences like IFS (internal family systems) and of Daniel Kahneman’s work like the Illusion of Validity, Biases of Overconfidence and Hindsight etc (I had to look these up since I don’t recall the science terms off hand!) Anyone else seeing this in reading Plato?
> It can be useful, after all, to be confident enough to jump in and do the best one can if the situation arises.
This made me think again of Arendt, who said that the outcome of political actions is often unknowable and so the best we can do is make what we think to be good decisions for the right reasons at the time
She also talked a lot about how this made forgiveness incredibly important in politics, and almost essential. I think about this when I consider her relationship with Heidegger
This makes me think of another book I have read- “On Repentance and Repair” by Rabbi Dayna Ruttenburg. It’s an exploration of Judaism’s traditions on the topic. Really interesting to think of how those traditions must have been at least known to Arendt.
Arendt was Jewish; and she knew Gershom Scholem well. There's a collection of her essays on Jewish questions. If I remember correctly, Arendt and Walter Benjamin were cousins.
>She also talked a lot about how this made forgiveness incredibly important in politics, and almost essential. I think about this when I consider her relationship with Heidegger
Outstanding. This is v helpful insight. I so wish I had known about those read alongs! I’m new to both of them. Yesterday I was listening to a podcast and the host mentioned the difficulty reading Heidegger aware of his affiliation with the N*z* party. On that note, I have lunch on occasion with a former and elderly colleague who is opposed to my political views. One of the smartest and most educated people I know and yet is far far away from my worldview- but I make a point not to discuss those things and focus instead on his scientific knowledge.
> Daniel Kahneman’s work like the Illusion of Validity, Biases of Overconfidence and Hindsight etc (I had to look these up since I don’t recall the science terms off hand!) Anyone else seeing this in reading Plato?
I've not thought about this explicitly but I'll try keep an eye out as we go forward! Do share examples if you find them :)
I think it's anachronistic to look for "Rights" in a tract written long before this concept was popular. In an admittedly brief search, it looks like Cyrus a few years before Socrates, and then the Constitution of Medina 800 years later. I am sensitive to this issue because I have been reading some modern historians scoff at the political practices of medieval times for not being electoral which is just completely absurd. You take the past as it is.
It sounds like there's plenty else to glean from Socrates as you've mentioned. But as a political tract, what about the idea that the ruler ought to be wise and live in constant pursuit of the truth? Wouldn't that be objectively good? I also get the sense that Socrates doesn't really "care" that much about what people do, so long as they stick to their profession and contribute to society; he's more concerned with the nature of ruling. While there are no "rights" as such there's also not much apparently infringing upon peoples' ability to live unless like, idk, someone with all the faculties of a carpenter insisted on being a mason when there were already too many masons and not enough carpenters. (But I also think that following your natural aptitudes is a pretty good bet anyway - and maybe just lay some bricks on the weekends or something).
Which brings me to another point, "it's not up to the ruler, if he really is any good, to beg those he is ruling to be ruled" (489b) and following, is a pretty solid indictment of electoral pageantry, and that a philosopher would debase themself by pandering, by speaking only in images instead of forms, or that one who successfully hoodwinked the many would be like trying to tame a wild animal and supposing that in so taming the many, that the manner of the hoodwinking was in fact "the good" itself. Is the mass hoodwinking of electoral pageantry preferable to having an appointed philosopher-king and just like, living your life and not doomscrolling the various propaganda apps and/or social media cesspools to self-affirm how much you hate the wing of our political class that you didn't push the button for and then just count down the days until you get to push the button again and demand that everyone else does because like it will maybe totes be different and better?
Could you take this aspect of The Republic, about the nature of the ideal ruler, and add on some more modern constraints on state power and endow the many with certain rights, and have a composite that's more amenable?
I think most of around 497-507 is straight fire regarding knowledge vs. opinion and it does feed exactly into what you said about how the philosophical life can be gleaned from this text. The emphasis on the soul vs. sense pleasures is a recurring theme both here and in Aristotle's Ethics, and there's plenty to learn from here in forming your own constitution - as you've mentioned, to love learning, or to "work as hard at studying as he does at physical training" (504d) or the idea of thinking as a "halfway house between opinion and understanding." Sounds like Aristotle's Eudaimonia.
For effective leadership in today’s age I envision a foundation of critical thinking and logic. Effective leaders need to know how to reason, how to argue their position, and how to avoid fallacies. Beyond reasoning and logic, leaders must grasp the complexities of justice in a globalized world. They must recognize that morality is shaped by diverse cultures and experiences. This understanding will enable them to govern with greater empathy and adaptability in a globalized world. An effective leader would also need an interdisciplinary education. They would need some level of understanding of various topics such as economics, science, technology, psychology, and history among others.
After having a broad base of knowledge, they would need to put that knowledge to the test. They would need to engage others in discussions. This would help them to refine their ideas and learn how to apply their ideas to real world situations. This can be done through internships, publishing papers, or assuming leadership roles. As leaders gain knowledge and experience, they can take on more complex challenges, refining their ability to create effective solutions in an ever-changing world.
Plato’s vision of leadership shares many of these principles. There is an emphasis on reason, justice, and education. However, the world today requires a more practical, interdisciplinary, and global framework. Unlike Plato, who restricted leadership to a select class of philosopher-kings, effective leaders can emerge from diverse backgrounds and experiences.
I completely agree with your fair, clear-headed, and useful thoughts on what kind of effective and realistic leadership is needed to address the complex and often ambiguous dilemmas of the modern world.
I have fallen behind but I am still working my way through. I found the beginning of this particular writing very helpful in the way you have taken a step back and explained your approach to how you deeply read the text and apply meaning in a different way (not as political). Though I haven't participated as much as I would like, I am trying to learn what I can from my first read through of The Republic. I appreciate the incites you have given.
I haven’t read the chapter but a thought on the extended metaphor for self-governance…
I’m reading the Human Condition concurrently, having missed that read along, and something that’s been bothering me all along is how Plato’s ideal city entirely lacks a polis. As I understand Arendt’s analysis, things of necessity are private/household concerns. Plato has constructed a city that is entirely necessity-oriented and has no public life of any kind.
You could interpret this as another consequence of tyranny. But maybe it is further indication that this is meant as an extended metaphor for an individual life. There is no polis because there is no public.
Edited: that said, I’m not entirely sure we should look for ways to give credit to Plato. He may have just been describing a horrible political philosophy, and we are searching for ways to justify the continued inclusion of the Republic within the Canon. Maybe because I’m an outsider to philosophy it’s easier for me to say this but: ideas don’t have to be good or remain relevant just because they have historical weight.
I think that point about the lack of a polis is really bang on, and it's exactly what we these days criticise about Totalitarianism (I'm currently thinking about how 1984 deals with this lack of individual freedom). I also wonder if we as individuals have a private polis. Perhaps our subconscious, or the things we refuse to admit even to ourselves could be considered private even to our own minds?
I also agree with that last point about Plato/Socrates perhaps just missing the mark. It's not his fault that he'd not seen 2000+ years of history play out, we have a lot more examples than he had to work with haha. I think it's also relevant to consider that the Greek civilization was sliding towards decline and perhaps Plato/Socrates was desperately looking for a way to prevent this, and the Republic was his best shot. (Anyone with more historical context here please do weigh in)
That being said, it's incredibly interesting as a historical work with wide influence to me. I also like what Jared has said about continuing to engage with it at a deeper level, despite it feeling wrong when considered from the lens of a political system. Who knows, perhaps the fact that the "Just Republic" has flaws in it will lead us to interesting parallels in how Plato/Socrates sees the "Just person"
“It’s not his fault that he'd not seen 2000+ years of history play out”… right, exactly this. I think he’s contemporary with Hippocrates, who got a ton of stuff shockingly close to correct while also being dead wrong. We recognize him as father of medicine while also not adopting the four humours.
Michelle, as per your comment "Plato's ideal city entirely lacks a polis", I'd like to share with you the following passage by Alan Ryan, a political philosopher, from his two-volume treatise ON POLITICS:
"Almost all accounts of the history of political thinking begin with Plato. This is a paradox, because Plato's political thought is antipolitical. Readers of his REPUBLIC see that in the polis of Plato's imagination, there is no politics, and are puzzled; but throughout European history there has been a current of thought that seeks the resolution of the conflicts that 'ordinary politics' resolves in the creation of a such a degree of social harmony that the conflicts which everyday politics resolves have simply disappeared, and politics with them . . . Utopian thinkers hope to maintain social order and meet the needs of the population without economic or political competition, and without rulers' having to justify their decisions to their peers or to the common people. The founder of European political thought is the founder of antipolitical thinking." Ryan goes on to point out that, though Plato was not the only one who had become disenchanted and bitter about Athenian democracy as a result of the execution of Socrates and the subsequent exile that they had had to undertake, nevertheless, he was the only one who "provided an elaborate philosophical justification for giving up on politics as such".
Even though criticisms of Plato's ideas began almost immediately, it is accurate to say that Platonism, in various forms, has remained the dominant influence in the Western philosophical tradition; UNTIL Nietzsche, at the end of the 19th C, made it his mission to totally destroy everything that Platonism stands for! The tides then turned. Almost all of the major philosophers since Nietzsche (Heidegger, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Habermas, Rorty, etc.) maintain positions that are fundamentally contrary to the basic tenets in Plato's philosophy.
Obviously, the above is merely my personal reconstruction of the recent history of Western philosophy; I'm sure many people will disagree. But it makes sense to me and I am sticking to it. Just another disclaimer: I am by no means dismissing Plato's ideas in total. On the contrary, I will write about some of the things I've learned from him in future posts. All I am advocating is this: we need to scrutinize every one of his ideas carefully and critically; don't take any for granted just because he IS Plato; take what's useful and reject what's not; and, most importantly, be ready to call him out whenever necessary.
I’m learning just as much from everyone’s comments like yours as I from the reading. Pretty neat!
And to your point
"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"
Wanted to say I also appreciated what you shared here
Thanks very much for this! It’s always interesting to hear more context.
I agree completely with your last three sentences- that is precisely what I meant, phrased much more elegantly.
"Maybe because I’m an outsider to philosophy"
Philosophy is for everyone! I saw a comment on one of these threads the other day where someone felt ill-equipped for the discussion because they weren't in the know; it's like not going to the gym because you're not strong - the process is the goal here. I've seen you comment every week though so I know this is not you, which is great! I also took zero credit hours of philosophy at university and my high school didn't touch any of this stuff with a 10 foot pole. So these are very fun discussions.
"it’s easier for me to say this but: ideas don’t have to be good or remain relevant just because they have historical weight. "
I love this. There are definitely works that people cling to way too much despite their drawbacks and/or demonstrated detriment. Whether or not The Republic is one of those I can't say yet because I'm not done with it. But I respect seemingly audacious claims such as this.
> the process is the goal
Omg this! This is applicable to so very much.
Related to your comments on philosophy -
I have a vivid memory of handing the final exam paper back to my philosophy 101 professor and saying that there was no point in wasting his time reading nonsense and grading my exam because I had not done the reading. The only failing grade I ever made in my life. And yet (and yet) thirty years later, I still have the textbook on my bookshelf. It was only in the last few years that I was able to devote myself to this type of thinking outside of work, other hobbies (I lean more toward early civilization(s) studies these days), or the basic yet tedious demands of any given day. So thank you for sharing your experience. And couldn’t agree more that these are, indeed, very fun discussions ✨
Thanks for the reply! I guess I meant more like… I don’t feel any kind of particular attachment or connection to Plato the way someone who has studied philosophy and understands his significance might. And so I don’t feel any need to “save” him from just… being wrong.
I haven’t finished either and am also reserving judgement. Plato did start the city by saying he was trying to understand what a just individual would be. So it’s not a huge leap to say he planned it this way.
But also his teacher was executed by the state so not a huge leap that he’s just writing a bad city where philosophers get to be kings instead of victims, either!
It’s not so much a matter of ‘saving’ him from being wrong. The reason you try your best to find some plausible and attractive interpretation of the text is to prevent yourself from dismissing the ideas or overlooking what’s actually of value in it.
That’s absolutely fair.
I think it's worth saying that your criticism is bang on, people have brought this up before so you're for sure getting a good read of it. I think there's a school of criticism (I can't remember which, but it became popular after psychoanalysis got big) that talks about how a lot of philosophers created systems that justified their own way of life as the ultimate good. Looking at philosophy through the psychology of it's authors and the times they lived in to me seems like an interesting angle.
Thanks for this! I wish I knew more about Ancient Greece so I could more properly identify Plato’s context. I think there’s definitely a lot about the man himself in these pages, and it’s nice to see that thoroughly recognized here (including in Jared’s discussion starters).
> ideas don’t have to be good or remain relevant just because they have historical weight.
Wooooo boy now that is what I’m talking about. So well said! 🎤
After reading Jared's comments on this chapter and reflecting on the reading, it occurs to me that the book so far could be Plato's answer to the unspoken question: "What use is a philospher to society?" I can see that to answer it, Plato had to build an ideal society in order to properly place the philospher.
What use is a philosopher to a society today? I haven't given it as rigorous a thought as Plato, but so far I feel it's for similar reasons: to properly lead society, maybe not in governing, but maybe in its moral and ethical issues.
As an aside, what happens to philosophers that fail the rigid tests for ruling? Do they teach? Do they teach gym?
I'm greatly looking forward to the Parable of the Cave. I hope I can understand it to the point where I can explain to others, if not to excite them to read it.
Wayne, I agree with you that "What use is a philosopher to society?" is an important, and urgent, I might add, question for all of us to struggle to answer. For at least the last one hundred years, the world has been skipping from one disaster to another; without any end in sight. I can't even bear to listen anymore to the latest on what's happening with the children starving in Gaza or the families in Ukraine living under the threat of bombardment every day or all the international students studying at different universities in the US afraid to travel or to go home for the upcoming summer because they worry that they would be denied reentry into the country. For me, it's not about the politics; it's about the humanity of each and every individual; the different degrees of suffering that each is going through. So I ask myself constantly: What, as a philosophy-lover or just a common intellectual, can I, should I, do under these circumstances? My answer is: I have no special skills; all I have is the knowledge I've accumulated through reading and, hopefully, the ability to think independently and critically. So, I try my best to do what I can do best: raise doubts and ask questions; especially where others are hesitant to do so. I guess this is a long-winded explanation of why I've been persistent in speaking up about my reservations about REPUBLIC.
I believe there are many ways a philosopher can serve society. Holding those in power to account by asking questions comes first to my mind. Obviously Socrates serves as the supreme example; that is, the one who irritated everyone by asking questions and was eventually sentenced to death by the powers-that-be. Another way is the one you suggested: to provide moral and ethical leadership; which I agree wholeheartedly. In the context of this readalong, our challenge is to find out what exactly does Plato have to say about moral and ethical leadership, or the workings of the soul, as many have said; not just platitudes like philosophers have to be smart, self-disciplined, love learning, and so on; but nitty gritty details, like his student Aristotle, or Confucius. And if the ideal city that Plato imagines is fundamentally flawed, wouldn't that prevent him from properly placing the philosopher in it?
You've brought up a really interesting and important question. I hope this forum will continue to examine it.
Oh I like that “what use is a philosopher”.
I commented on Plato’s lack of polis, but reading your comment it strikes me that he has a bit of a crisis- he rejects the public “polis” but then finds the work of a philosopher cannot be located within the privacy of “household”. So now we must find a purpose for philosophy, and naturally his argument turns towards ruling, because philosophers are wise and so to should be rulers.
This is an interesting and original take on Plato's ideas in REPUBLIC!
A comment I never expected to receive!
I just thought if I invented a new type of world, my imagination would surely fail somewhere. And for Plato, imagining that a philosopher just sits at home and thinks about things, or simply doesn’t exist at all- that’s a bit too much.
Edit: also it would be typical to say “this whole world could be better!” And then to realize you are a product of your world.
In an attempt to imagine quite a different world than we live in now- maybe a role of a philosopher could be to make more philosophers?
People almost always want to believe they are a special and rare type of person. But if almost everyone is a bit of a philosopher and going about talking about these ideas was more normal, wouldn’t that also be a good world?
Let us sidestep for now the debate about how seriously to take the political ideas in REPUBLIC and, instead, focus on the specifics of Plato’s core philosophical ideas, those that made him famous.
Who are philosophers for Plato? Right on the first page, he characterizes philosophers as “those who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects”; those “who know each thing that is”; and those who is “always in love with any learning which helps to reveal that reality which always is, and which is not driven this way and that by becoming and ceasing to be“. In other words, for Plato, philosophers are those who have attained knowledge of true reality; the eternal universal essence of things (inclusive of physical objects and immaterial qualities such as beauty, justice, courage, etc.). He calls these objects of real knowledge Forms or Ideas; the highest of which is the Form of the Good. Without this knowledge of the Forms, we are like blind people who “have no clear model in our souls”; all we can have are opinions, pale copies of the Forms. This conception of Truth and Knowledge, and the epistemological and metaphysical questions it has generated, dominated mainstream Western philosophy for two thousand years.
I have several basic questions about Plato’s conception of the Forms. I’ll start with this one: Why does “what is” take precedence over “what was” and “what will be”?
The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus famously said that reality IS becoming and that we can never step into the same river twice. Buddhism, of course, has also made becoming the cornerstone of both its thinking and practices. In the last century, this privileging of “what is” spurred Heidegger to embark on his BEING AND TIME project. He argues that humankind has mostly forgotten about the question of the meaning of Being because we have lost sight of the different modalities of time and become obsessed with only one of them, that of “eternal presentness.” For Heidegger, humans are inescapably born, or “thrown,” into a world that already exists, one that is created in the past. At the same time, we are always living with an eye towards the future, especially death, our mortality. This is the fundamental human condition, which we will continue to fail to grasp as long as we remain trapped in the mode of the “forever present.” More importantly, Heidegger claims, we will not be able to live in an authentic manner.
Heidegger’s fundamental reorientation of our outlook played a big role in the rise of the philosophical movement of Existentialism (“existence precedes essence”), which can be seen as a contemporary revolt against the influence of the Platonic model. As a student of Heidegger, Arendt incorporated many of his influences into her conceptions of the World, the public sphere, and especially her theory of history as a continuous narrative web of human action and their consequences.
I still remember our discussions during the MRS. DALLOWAY readalong. At first we were all confused and stumped by Woolf’s very different writing style. Later we realized that it was due to her adoption of the stream-of-consciousness approach to reality and consciousness. For her, the past, the present, and the future are always mixed together in our minds and we, hard as we try, cannot put dividers between them. The revolt against Platonism is not restricted to philosophy.
There seems to be this assumption throughout Greek philosophy that eternality is a mark of perfection. I do not know what the arguments are for that, but it certainly carried over in Christianity (God being described as unchanging and eternally the same in classical theism). What is, what will be, and what was are all the same in the realm of the Forms....but why is the static preferred to the dynamic? Of that, I'm not quite certain.
I will note that Arendt describes this in The Life of the Mind a bit. She says the Greek philosophers found that the gods, in being immortal but not eternal, possessed some limitation; the philosophers wanted to find that which was not limited, and so they studied Being itself.
Just want to share two passages from the opening of my favorite poem, FOUR QUARTETS, by T. S. Eliot. They address what we're talking about.
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
It all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time past and time future
Allow but a little consciousness.
To be conscious is not to be in time
But only in time can the moment in the rose garden,
The moment in the arbour where the rain beat,
The moment in the draughty church at smokefall
Be remembered; involved with past and future.
Only through time time is conquered.
Eliot wrote his dissertation at Harvard on the philosophy of Henri Bergson (whom you had discussed). So it's easily understanding where he's coming from.
There's a lot of wisdom in poetry. If I have to choose between literature and philosophy, I'll choose the former in a heartbeat.
Raymond, do you know how Plato thought about the need to learn this knowledge? If a philosopher is one who has already attained this knowledge, then what do we call people who are seeking after it, but don’t know it already? Is Socrates not a true philosopher? Or does Socrates already know all these Forms and his questions are all rhetorical?
The rest of your comment is so interesting, but I got stuck (as above) on like, the very first point and couldn’t fully grasp it. I’ll be thinking about this as we continue reading.
One thing I find fascinating about our discussions here is how they reveal that many of the basic assumptions I have are so rooted in philosophical traditions I had no idea existed. In revelation, it becomes possible to examine them.
I am not certain how Plato thought about the motivation for learning the Forms. The only thing I can think of is that he might claim that we have a natural desire to live a happy life, but without the knowledge of the Form of the Good and other virtues we would be unable to. I also don't know what Plato would call people who have not yet attained the knowledge of the Forms. I need to reread to see if I can find the answers. I hope others can jump in to help too.
As for your questions about Socrates, there are no definite answers! I've really looked into the case of Socrates and what I've found is that the literature does not have a consensus one way or another! There are plenty of studies about his different possible uses of irony. Some say he was just playing dumb. Some say he sincerely didn't know the answers himself. I lean towards the latter. I believe Socrates was sincere when he talked about his idea of "Socratic ignorance;" i.e., he was wise only in the sense that he knew that he didn't know, whereas others thought they knew when they didn't. If you remember my very first post for this readalong, I made the case that the Socratic method is a negative dialectic--there is no positive synthesis at the end; the process just keeps going. In other words, I believe that thinking is a never-ending process; to be human means we must keep reflecting.
In any case, Socrates remains a big mystery or enigma in the history of Western philosophy. The key question is: how could he be the wisest and most virtuous man in Athens when he professed that he didn't know himself the definitions of wisdom and virtue? I encourage you to explore the four dialogues devoted to his trial and death. They are completely different from the REPUBLIC.
“The sailors are quarrelling among themselves over captaincy of the ship, each one thinking that he ought to be captain.” When I read this, I laughed out loud and thought about both our own internal dialogues wrestling this way as well as our interpersonal external dialogues.
Why is it always so natural and easy to be the critic looking from outside and thinking “better” about a given dynamic?
Maybe this is a function specifically designed for our progress in the big picture sense of humanity?
It can be useful, after all, to be confident enough to jump in and do the best one can if the situation arises.
Throughout reading The Republic, I made notes about seeing examples lining up with modern sciences like IFS (internal family systems) and of Daniel Kahneman’s work like the Illusion of Validity, Biases of Overconfidence and Hindsight etc (I had to look these up since I don’t recall the science terms off hand!) Anyone else seeing this in reading Plato?
> It can be useful, after all, to be confident enough to jump in and do the best one can if the situation arises.
This made me think again of Arendt, who said that the outcome of political actions is often unknowable and so the best we can do is make what we think to be good decisions for the right reasons at the time
She also talked a lot about how this made forgiveness incredibly important in politics, and almost essential. I think about this when I consider her relationship with Heidegger
This makes me think of another book I have read- “On Repentance and Repair” by Rabbi Dayna Ruttenburg. It’s an exploration of Judaism’s traditions on the topic. Really interesting to think of how those traditions must have been at least known to Arendt.
Arendt was Jewish; and she knew Gershom Scholem well. There's a collection of her essays on Jewish questions. If I remember correctly, Arendt and Walter Benjamin were cousins.
That's really interesting
>She also talked a lot about how this made forgiveness incredibly important in politics, and almost essential. I think about this when I consider her relationship with Heidegger
Outstanding. This is v helpful insight. I so wish I had known about those read alongs! I’m new to both of them. Yesterday I was listening to a podcast and the host mentioned the difficulty reading Heidegger aware of his affiliation with the N*z* party. On that note, I have lunch on occasion with a former and elderly colleague who is opposed to my political views. One of the smartest and most educated people I know and yet is far far away from my worldview- but I make a point not to discuss those things and focus instead on his scientific knowledge.
> Daniel Kahneman’s work like the Illusion of Validity, Biases of Overconfidence and Hindsight etc (I had to look these up since I don’t recall the science terms off hand!) Anyone else seeing this in reading Plato?
I've not thought about this explicitly but I'll try keep an eye out as we go forward! Do share examples if you find them :)
I think it's anachronistic to look for "Rights" in a tract written long before this concept was popular. In an admittedly brief search, it looks like Cyrus a few years before Socrates, and then the Constitution of Medina 800 years later. I am sensitive to this issue because I have been reading some modern historians scoff at the political practices of medieval times for not being electoral which is just completely absurd. You take the past as it is.
It sounds like there's plenty else to glean from Socrates as you've mentioned. But as a political tract, what about the idea that the ruler ought to be wise and live in constant pursuit of the truth? Wouldn't that be objectively good? I also get the sense that Socrates doesn't really "care" that much about what people do, so long as they stick to their profession and contribute to society; he's more concerned with the nature of ruling. While there are no "rights" as such there's also not much apparently infringing upon peoples' ability to live unless like, idk, someone with all the faculties of a carpenter insisted on being a mason when there were already too many masons and not enough carpenters. (But I also think that following your natural aptitudes is a pretty good bet anyway - and maybe just lay some bricks on the weekends or something).
Which brings me to another point, "it's not up to the ruler, if he really is any good, to beg those he is ruling to be ruled" (489b) and following, is a pretty solid indictment of electoral pageantry, and that a philosopher would debase themself by pandering, by speaking only in images instead of forms, or that one who successfully hoodwinked the many would be like trying to tame a wild animal and supposing that in so taming the many, that the manner of the hoodwinking was in fact "the good" itself. Is the mass hoodwinking of electoral pageantry preferable to having an appointed philosopher-king and just like, living your life and not doomscrolling the various propaganda apps and/or social media cesspools to self-affirm how much you hate the wing of our political class that you didn't push the button for and then just count down the days until you get to push the button again and demand that everyone else does because like it will maybe totes be different and better?
Could you take this aspect of The Republic, about the nature of the ideal ruler, and add on some more modern constraints on state power and endow the many with certain rights, and have a composite that's more amenable?
I think most of around 497-507 is straight fire regarding knowledge vs. opinion and it does feed exactly into what you said about how the philosophical life can be gleaned from this text. The emphasis on the soul vs. sense pleasures is a recurring theme both here and in Aristotle's Ethics, and there's plenty to learn from here in forming your own constitution - as you've mentioned, to love learning, or to "work as hard at studying as he does at physical training" (504d) or the idea of thinking as a "halfway house between opinion and understanding." Sounds like Aristotle's Eudaimonia.
For effective leadership in today’s age I envision a foundation of critical thinking and logic. Effective leaders need to know how to reason, how to argue their position, and how to avoid fallacies. Beyond reasoning and logic, leaders must grasp the complexities of justice in a globalized world. They must recognize that morality is shaped by diverse cultures and experiences. This understanding will enable them to govern with greater empathy and adaptability in a globalized world. An effective leader would also need an interdisciplinary education. They would need some level of understanding of various topics such as economics, science, technology, psychology, and history among others.
After having a broad base of knowledge, they would need to put that knowledge to the test. They would need to engage others in discussions. This would help them to refine their ideas and learn how to apply their ideas to real world situations. This can be done through internships, publishing papers, or assuming leadership roles. As leaders gain knowledge and experience, they can take on more complex challenges, refining their ability to create effective solutions in an ever-changing world.
Plato’s vision of leadership shares many of these principles. There is an emphasis on reason, justice, and education. However, the world today requires a more practical, interdisciplinary, and global framework. Unlike Plato, who restricted leadership to a select class of philosopher-kings, effective leaders can emerge from diverse backgrounds and experiences.
I completely agree with your fair, clear-headed, and useful thoughts on what kind of effective and realistic leadership is needed to address the complex and often ambiguous dilemmas of the modern world.
I have fallen behind but I am still working my way through. I found the beginning of this particular writing very helpful in the way you have taken a step back and explained your approach to how you deeply read the text and apply meaning in a different way (not as political). Though I haven't participated as much as I would like, I am trying to learn what I can from my first read through of The Republic. I appreciate the incites you have given.