The big interpretive question for Book III (and the second half of Book II) is how seriously we're supposed to take the program of censorship that Socrates proposes.
Jared points out one piece of evidence that there's at least some irony here. I noticed another piece.
The whole discussion of the second city (with a professional military class) kicks off because Glaucon doesn't like the food in the first city. "It seems that you make your people feast without any delicacies." (372C)
So Socrates agrees that they will design a city that will have "all sorts of delicacies, perfumed oils, prostitutes, and pastries." (373A) It seems that they are designing Las Vegas.
But in Book III, when discussing what sort of music will be allowed, Socrates says, "By the dog, without being aware of it, we've been purifying the city we recently said was luxurious." (399E)
And then they get around to the diet that the guardians will have. It will not be the sort of food that Glaucon was wanting. "Nor, I believe, does Homer mention sweet desserts anywhere." "If you think that, then it seems that you don't approve of Syracusan or cuisine, or of Sicilian-style dishes. I do not." "What about the reputed delights of Attic pastries? I certainly object to them, too." (404C-D)
No prostitutes either. "Then you also object to Corinthian girlfriends for men who are to be in good physical condition. Absolutely." (404D)
You can almost see Glaucon's disappointed face as he agrees to all this.
I wonder whether Plato was making a dig at his older brother's taste for fine food and other luxuries.
Jacob Howland's book Glaucon's Fate makes the case that Glaucon joined the Thirty Tyrants in 404-403, and that he was killed when they were overthrown.
That to me stuck out as the turning point too. It's like all of the constructions that we're building (guardians, censorship, etc) stem from having to expand the city to include more complex pleasures. I did not put two and two together though and see how Socrates is turning back a lot of these delicacies subtly, good point.
I'm quite an anti-consumption person. The moment Glaucon mentioned that the simple city was boring and without many pleasures he'd want, alarm bells immediately went off. I almost felt like that's the moment everything started going wrong.
It feels like many schools of thought teach that you can avoid a lot of trouble by picking a more ascetic life. I to me this was a least a nod by Socrates to the idea (feels like he almost nudged Glaucon to take us down this path).
I'm interested to see if this idea of asceticism comes up more as we go on (For example, the guardians are being trained to live in a very ascetic way. Perhaps if you as an individual want to indulge in pleasures you need an ascetic layer of values to prevent everything going wrong)
I don’t think Socrates initial city is all that great either tho. There are no thinkers in it. No artists. Everyone just does only their role and nothing else, which to me is more mechanical than human.
I also don’t think the initial city is immune to war. Unless you believe that war only happens when you attack someone else first…
That first point is interesting, thanks for bringing it up. Will have a think about it.
The whole immune to war thing makes me thing of tribes that survived for centuries without contact only to be wiped out by colonial powers – not sure if I'd feel comfortable considering their inability to defend themselves from war to be their fault. Surely without a need for all those excess things we might not find a need for war? Just a thought
Certainly societies that are overcome by other powers are not “at fault” for being so overcome, any more than I can be at fault for you punching me. To me, fault doesn’t factor in, though.
Imagine you are the initial city, one without need for excess. The initial city may still fall victim to war if their neighbours have “surrendered themselves to the endless acquisition of money” (hello colonialism!) and therefore need to defend itself.
What I’m saying is that the need for defences seems to be a consequence of your neighbour’s habit, not your own. Socrates saying, oh well now we want luxuries and need an army… that seems a little suspect, if you kinda needed guardians for defence anyways?
That's fair – I thought his point was that once we all want luxuries then there's not enough land for everyone, at which point he says something like "I think we've just discovered the origins of war", can't quite remember though!
I like in the music conversation (401d-e), "rhythm & mode penetrate more deeply into the inner soul than anything else does...since they bring gracefulness with them...anyone with the right kind of education in this area will have the clearest perception of things which are unsatisfactory." First as a musician I obviously like this train of thought of music getting into your soul. Second, this also previews a point made later about how good judges need to be brought up "good" (i.e. penetrated and ingrained into the soul) so in the long run able to then recognize "bad" as "external, in the souls of others."
He also uses the words attunement and harmonize throughout this Book, like harmonizing your physical with your spiritual training. It lends to interpreting much of the music talk as allegory - where the music provides the "voices of the prudent and of the brave in failure and success" basically, try to embody these traits and not the other ones.
Another point I've been toying with since we did Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is where the Greek philosophers come down on the point of nature vs. nurture but it really seems that you need both "goodness, if its natural gifts are improved by education, will in time gain a knowledge both of itself and of evil" (409e).
Finally, I think the point of having the guardians as ascetic philosopher-knights who only get subsistence and nothing more (so as not to use their strength and cunning to accrue wealth and property, to become scum of the earth landlords) is a good one and while some commenters here appear to be fixated on state censorship, there are points like this which provide upward checks across the city's social structure. The idea here, recalling that we are using the city as a way to get at finding justice in the individual, if we reduce it all into one person, is that your bronze & iron faculties, while vital to survival, should not govern your overall spiritual being; but rather your gold & silver - your discipline, your education, your spiritedness, your appreciation for beauty in the arts and in nature, your cultivated goodness, should.
It's an interesting read because I know we're only setting this up as an allegorical/ironic/hypothetical but also trying to read between the lines to find the macro & micro at the same time. Many re-reads are warranted!
RE Socratic irony, this book is also where I start to wonder how much he actually believes what he’s saying and, if so, how he reconciles it with earlier assertions.
In book 1, one of his refutations of the argument that justice is giving what is owed is that if you harm your enemies, harm makes them less virtuous, where justice would necessarily increase virtue.
This makes me wonder why or how guardians can protect freedom by being the least free members of this city. How can lack of freedom create it?
For that matter, are the people of this city harmed by all the many rules laid out in this book, and if so, how can the city be considered a just one?
If I understand correctly, the argument is that people each do one role and so long as they can do that role, that’s all that matters. We’re so narrowly focused on task here that it’s very mechanical, but humans don’t work that way. Maybe to be a great shoemaker this person also needs to go see a play once in a while, I dunno. Not according to book 3!
I generally dislike the worldview that in order to matter, a human being must be productive, and if unable to be productive by reason of illness, they may as well just die.
I recall reading that the first few books of the Republic were slow and I have to agree with that opinion. I understand we are building our metaphorical city but book 3 felt like quite the grind.
Book 3 is very hypocritical. Socrates puts forward that guardians must value truthfulness and not be exposed to stories about dishonesty, but pushes the idea of noble lies such as the myth of different metals in citizens souls. He also advocates for censorship while discussing the creation of an ideal free state by rejecting much of the cultural stories in the name of creating virtuous citizens. Is this making the case that a just society might require censorship?
I only started to enjoy it's contents of book 3 starting around 412c. It is around this point they focus on why citizens act, as opposed to how they should act. Love being a powerful motivator is put forward and in order to be devoted to something, they must love such thing. Socrates argues that guardians must genuinely love the city to serve it properly. He also suggests that we tend to love what we know well and understand. His opinion of love as motivation shows Plato's understanding that only intellectual agreement with principles is not enough for maintaining devotion to the city. The guardians need emotional attachment to be committed to their duties.
Note: This is my first time reading The Republic so I do not have insight into the upcoming books.
At one point this past week I was looking for an online translation of The Republic, thinking that I'd have to make do with the public domain Jowett translation. I came across a new translation of Plato's complete works by David Horan. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/
The big interpretive question for Book III (and the second half of Book II) is how seriously we're supposed to take the program of censorship that Socrates proposes.
Jared points out one piece of evidence that there's at least some irony here. I noticed another piece.
The whole discussion of the second city (with a professional military class) kicks off because Glaucon doesn't like the food in the first city. "It seems that you make your people feast without any delicacies." (372C)
So Socrates agrees that they will design a city that will have "all sorts of delicacies, perfumed oils, prostitutes, and pastries." (373A) It seems that they are designing Las Vegas.
But in Book III, when discussing what sort of music will be allowed, Socrates says, "By the dog, without being aware of it, we've been purifying the city we recently said was luxurious." (399E)
And then they get around to the diet that the guardians will have. It will not be the sort of food that Glaucon was wanting. "Nor, I believe, does Homer mention sweet desserts anywhere." "If you think that, then it seems that you don't approve of Syracusan or cuisine, or of Sicilian-style dishes. I do not." "What about the reputed delights of Attic pastries? I certainly object to them, too." (404C-D)
No prostitutes either. "Then you also object to Corinthian girlfriends for men who are to be in good physical condition. Absolutely." (404D)
You can almost see Glaucon's disappointed face as he agrees to all this.
It does read like Socrates is midwifing the idea from Glaucon, and Glaucon is realizing his baby is quite ugly!
I wonder whether Plato was making a dig at his older brother's taste for fine food and other luxuries.
Jacob Howland's book Glaucon's Fate makes the case that Glaucon joined the Thirty Tyrants in 404-403, and that he was killed when they were overthrown.
The minimal state is the just state. Everything after that is a show.
That to me stuck out as the turning point too. It's like all of the constructions that we're building (guardians, censorship, etc) stem from having to expand the city to include more complex pleasures. I did not put two and two together though and see how Socrates is turning back a lot of these delicacies subtly, good point.
I'm quite an anti-consumption person. The moment Glaucon mentioned that the simple city was boring and without many pleasures he'd want, alarm bells immediately went off. I almost felt like that's the moment everything started going wrong.
It feels like many schools of thought teach that you can avoid a lot of trouble by picking a more ascetic life. I to me this was a least a nod by Socrates to the idea (feels like he almost nudged Glaucon to take us down this path).
I'm interested to see if this idea of asceticism comes up more as we go on (For example, the guardians are being trained to live in a very ascetic way. Perhaps if you as an individual want to indulge in pleasures you need an ascetic layer of values to prevent everything going wrong)
I don’t think Socrates initial city is all that great either tho. There are no thinkers in it. No artists. Everyone just does only their role and nothing else, which to me is more mechanical than human.
I also don’t think the initial city is immune to war. Unless you believe that war only happens when you attack someone else first…
That first point is interesting, thanks for bringing it up. Will have a think about it.
The whole immune to war thing makes me thing of tribes that survived for centuries without contact only to be wiped out by colonial powers – not sure if I'd feel comfortable considering their inability to defend themselves from war to be their fault. Surely without a need for all those excess things we might not find a need for war? Just a thought
Certainly societies that are overcome by other powers are not “at fault” for being so overcome, any more than I can be at fault for you punching me. To me, fault doesn’t factor in, though.
Imagine you are the initial city, one without need for excess. The initial city may still fall victim to war if their neighbours have “surrendered themselves to the endless acquisition of money” (hello colonialism!) and therefore need to defend itself.
What I’m saying is that the need for defences seems to be a consequence of your neighbour’s habit, not your own. Socrates saying, oh well now we want luxuries and need an army… that seems a little suspect, if you kinda needed guardians for defence anyways?
That's fair – I thought his point was that once we all want luxuries then there's not enough land for everyone, at which point he says something like "I think we've just discovered the origins of war", can't quite remember though!
You are right, that’s what he says! I just disagree because I think it only takes one to upset the balance and discover war.
I like in the music conversation (401d-e), "rhythm & mode penetrate more deeply into the inner soul than anything else does...since they bring gracefulness with them...anyone with the right kind of education in this area will have the clearest perception of things which are unsatisfactory." First as a musician I obviously like this train of thought of music getting into your soul. Second, this also previews a point made later about how good judges need to be brought up "good" (i.e. penetrated and ingrained into the soul) so in the long run able to then recognize "bad" as "external, in the souls of others."
He also uses the words attunement and harmonize throughout this Book, like harmonizing your physical with your spiritual training. It lends to interpreting much of the music talk as allegory - where the music provides the "voices of the prudent and of the brave in failure and success" basically, try to embody these traits and not the other ones.
Another point I've been toying with since we did Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is where the Greek philosophers come down on the point of nature vs. nurture but it really seems that you need both "goodness, if its natural gifts are improved by education, will in time gain a knowledge both of itself and of evil" (409e).
Finally, I think the point of having the guardians as ascetic philosopher-knights who only get subsistence and nothing more (so as not to use their strength and cunning to accrue wealth and property, to become scum of the earth landlords) is a good one and while some commenters here appear to be fixated on state censorship, there are points like this which provide upward checks across the city's social structure. The idea here, recalling that we are using the city as a way to get at finding justice in the individual, if we reduce it all into one person, is that your bronze & iron faculties, while vital to survival, should not govern your overall spiritual being; but rather your gold & silver - your discipline, your education, your spiritedness, your appreciation for beauty in the arts and in nature, your cultivated goodness, should.
It's an interesting read because I know we're only setting this up as an allegorical/ironic/hypothetical but also trying to read between the lines to find the macro & micro at the same time. Many re-reads are warranted!
RE Socratic irony, this book is also where I start to wonder how much he actually believes what he’s saying and, if so, how he reconciles it with earlier assertions.
In book 1, one of his refutations of the argument that justice is giving what is owed is that if you harm your enemies, harm makes them less virtuous, where justice would necessarily increase virtue.
This makes me wonder why or how guardians can protect freedom by being the least free members of this city. How can lack of freedom create it?
For that matter, are the people of this city harmed by all the many rules laid out in this book, and if so, how can the city be considered a just one?
If I understand correctly, the argument is that people each do one role and so long as they can do that role, that’s all that matters. We’re so narrowly focused on task here that it’s very mechanical, but humans don’t work that way. Maybe to be a great shoemaker this person also needs to go see a play once in a while, I dunno. Not according to book 3!
I generally dislike the worldview that in order to matter, a human being must be productive, and if unable to be productive by reason of illness, they may as well just die.
“This makes me wonder why or how guardians can protect freedom by being the least free members of this city. How can lack of freedom create it?”
Wow such a great question - I’m very curious what others think of this.
It’s my first reading of Plato. I don’t know why I waited so long but glad to do so now.
I recall reading that the first few books of the Republic were slow and I have to agree with that opinion. I understand we are building our metaphorical city but book 3 felt like quite the grind.
Book 3 is very hypocritical. Socrates puts forward that guardians must value truthfulness and not be exposed to stories about dishonesty, but pushes the idea of noble lies such as the myth of different metals in citizens souls. He also advocates for censorship while discussing the creation of an ideal free state by rejecting much of the cultural stories in the name of creating virtuous citizens. Is this making the case that a just society might require censorship?
I only started to enjoy it's contents of book 3 starting around 412c. It is around this point they focus on why citizens act, as opposed to how they should act. Love being a powerful motivator is put forward and in order to be devoted to something, they must love such thing. Socrates argues that guardians must genuinely love the city to serve it properly. He also suggests that we tend to love what we know well and understand. His opinion of love as motivation shows Plato's understanding that only intellectual agreement with principles is not enough for maintaining devotion to the city. The guardians need emotional attachment to be committed to their duties.
Note: This is my first time reading The Republic so I do not have insight into the upcoming books.
At one point this past week I was looking for an online translation of The Republic, thinking that I'd have to make do with the public domain Jowett translation. I came across a new translation of Plato's complete works by David Horan. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/