There was a lot in this chapter about the protectors of the city and the stripping away of their private lives to align their interests with the Republic. After reading Arendt I can't help but feel she'd actually see this as a very dangerous proposition, with the clear potential for Totalitarianism. Equally Byung Chul Han has a great short book called "The Transparency Society" that continues in this theme of defending the private life. It's just a theme I'm paying attention to as we all know the history of totalitarianism in the 20th century.
I did not quite capture the ideas around understanding the essence of good as opposed to seeing it instantiated in specific things (good music, good art, etc). I think this just relates to me struggling with this Platonic idea of good being more real than it's instances. I think this is a common point of contention, and I'm looking forward to digging into it in the future chapters. I suspect Socrates' point is more nuanced than "Ideas are real and their instances are just imperfect copies"
Enjoying this ancient philosophy a lot more than I thought I would. I've always been drawn more to the post-structural, language game, deconstructionist type philosophy as social critique of the world we live in. I'm reminded that Nietzsche (a philosopher I like) was a Philologist with extensive knowledge of the classics. Gotta keep reading broadly!
Your hunches are correct. Arendt represents a philosophical outlook that is diametrically opposed to that of Plato. Whereas Plato, speaking through the mouth of Socrates, believes that only universal, absolute Ideas or Forms constitute the objects of true knowledge, Arendt believes that contingency and natality are the basic dimensions of the human condition and that human history is always open-ended and unpredictable. The Republic, as defined by Plato, would destroy all opportunities for action, the essence of humanity according to Arendt, as it is totally characterized by utilitarian, instrumental behavior.
In my opinion, what we've seen so far has already far exceeded a mere potential for totalitarianism. It is already a totalitarian society, with the goal of achieving total control of the citizenry in the name of harmony; just like all other totalitarian societies we've seen.
I hope you'll be able to join a future Zoom call, Raymond! We discussed this yesterday. I have basically given up on reading the Republic as a work of political theory — it's simply uninteresting while also appalling if read that way. And so I've been trying to think more about what this means for Plato's view of the soul instead.
Jared, I did not join the last Zoom call because I didn't want to sound like a broken record. I will join the next one.
There are several reasons why I want to persist in speaking up:
1. As we will also be reading POTITICS later on, which is Aristotle's critique of his teacher, I thought it might be useful to highlight some of the implications of Plato's political theory in order to pave some groundwork for future discussions.
2. Like you, I am also doing research related to the view of the soul in Plato's DIALOGUES. Specifically, I am studying how Foucault, in his last years, focused on investigating how Plato's concepts of "the care of the self" and "Know Thyself" can be reinterpreted to develop a new understanding of a subject (which is his secular take on the soul) that is able to exercise freedom and to counteract practices of domination. However, at least so far, I remain doubtful whether we can separate Plato's metaphysics and epistemology from his politics; they seem to be all cut from the same cloth. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind as I continue to read.
3. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the REPUBLIC is too ridiculous and so we don't have to take it too seriously. However, as Alan Ryan, the Oxford philosopher points out in his classic ON POLITICS, all that we have to do is to replace the Philosopher-King with something like a Communist Party, especially if it takes the form of Pol Pot of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, then we would see the reincarnation of Plato's ideal city quite easily, with its re-education camps, forced contraception and abortions, strict censorship of all forms of media, and "disappearances." After all, we are even seeing "disappearances" here in our own democratic country!
Finally, let's not forget the central question that the REPUBLIC is supposed to answer: Why is it better to live a just life rather than an unjust life, even if the odds of material rewards are against you? I believe that if we take away Plato's politics we also take away his answer to this question. This ethical question is universal and deserves an adequate answer. Therefore, it is important that we figure out what went wrong with Plato's answer so that we can work on finding a better one.
I did not mean to but ended up writing a long note again. Sorry.
Raymond, I also am reluctant to give up on the Republic as a work of political theory altogether. Yes, none of us would want to live in Plato‘s state. But if we stop asking what Plato may have to teach us about political justice, I think we are bound to miss some valuable nuggets. I also think there may be more ideas of immediate relevance in the second half of the book. For instance, later on Plato lays out a basic typology of political forms that carries through into Aristotle and is still with us. Also, his analysis of the character of the tyrant is incredibly insightful and, I think, highly relevant to our current political moment. I hope you join for the next call as well.
I spoke up about the totalitarian tendencies in REPUBLIC because nobody else was doing so at the beginning. I didn't understand how public intellectuals, for lack of a better label, could remain silent when faced with such intolerable ideas. As a result, I think I've been perceived as a "one-trick pony," totally hung up with Plato's politics.
If you have seen my latest posts, you'll see that I am trying hard to veer about from the superficially political. Instead, I want to draw attention to the other aspects of Plato, which, I regret to admit, are just as objectionable.
My fundamental objection to Plato, in spite of his occasional nuggets of wisdom, is this: whereas he believes reality to be exclusively what is, I believe reality to be inclusive of what was, what is, and what will be. I read philosophy to look for a more meaningful way to live, which requires me to consider reality and life as a continuum of past, present, and future. Like Nietzsche, I believe Platonism is against life.
There is an exchange in Chapter VI of REPUBLIC which is a "deal-breaker" for me. Socrates asks Glaucon: "And will a thinker high-minded enough to study all time and all being consider human life to be something important?" Glaucon answers: "He couldn't possibly."
Plato does not value human affairs; he only cares about his eternal and universal Forms. I value human life, in all its contingent, unpredictable (and thereby free), and passing glory.
Yeah I am also reading it for what it says about Plato. And maybe a bit what it says about philosophers past and present that this is such an enduring work.
To say nothing of any of Plato’s other rules so far, I think once you are requiring certain people to have sex with certain other people in order to have certain types of babies, you’ve well crossed into totalitarianism!
I'm amazed that so far nobody has brought up 1984, BRAVE NEW WORLD, THE HANDMAID'S TALE, and, my favorite YA novel, THE GIVER, which, I suspect, was inspired by the REPUBLIC. There are countless other stories and shows with similar themes.
Just saw this and wanted to say I've not brought it up as I assumed it's almost too obvious. I've always thought of The Republic as the first utopian/dystopian fiction. I actually thought it was the first use of the word utopia
I mentioned The Giver in the last one, we're definitely veering into that territory the further we go.
All this talk about "totalitarianism" is also omitting Socrates' admission in 472c-d that this is just pure theory, that "practice [has] less hold on the truth than theory" and that he is in no way suggesting that these things are actually possible.
(Reminder here that George Orwell himself reported fellow citizens to British intelligence for thoughtcrime. His ridiculous book should be viewed for what it is: government propaganda that says "us good, them bad" and not a window into the ill-defined term "totalitarianism").
It’s been a long long time since I read the Giver, but totally.
I was giving Plato too much credit I think. By reputation and by the fact of this book continuing in popularity for so long, I expected it to say something less horrifying. But the “ideal city” gets worse the longer he goes on!
It’s interesting to you point to totalitarianism in the 20th century, since what Socrates proposes very much sounds like creating a master race (of the guardians and thus also rulers), to me.
I do wonder how much is just informed by the reality that in Ancient times many more diseases, injuries, and disabilities were basically death sentences than they are today. But, since Socrates seems to be talking about removing “inferior” children not just ones that probably can’t survive, I still think he’s advocating for more than just Ancient pragmatism. Even his story about guardians being silver and rulers being gold points in that direction.
As an aside this one had some very funny moments, like Socrates in 453 d: “Then we must swim too, and try to save ourselves from the sea of argument, hoping that a dolphin will pick us up or we’ll be rescued by some other desperate means” - what a drama queen.
My fav tho, from Glaucon: “if you insist on taking me as your example of what erotically inclined men do, then, for the sake of argument, I agree” LOL
This was a really illuminating chapter for me, actually, although it seems like a side quest.
I agree that Socrates’ system of eugenics would create the optimal guardians. All of his arguments track. However, I am fundamentally opposed to the implementation of eugenics. So, this leaves me with a question of, essentially, where did we go wrong- one I think we in the comments have been grappling with since the idea that in the ideal city everyone does only one thing.
For me, the eugenics discussion clarified it because it essentially says: get rid of the babies who are inferior ie not suited to their purpose. Since I don’t want to kill the babies, I have to either find a purpose for them, or accept that the premise, “all people must have a purpose/all people must be useful” is broken in some way.
In modern times we do try to give people a purpose, for example often people will say that someone disabled is “inspiring”. I dislike that, also, because it’s so demeaning. So I think I have to say that either we don’t have a purpose at all, or that our purpose is not related to what we do for other people, maybe? I don’t know.
But if you reject “the purpose of people is to be useful”, then the Greek definition of virtue “something which allows you to be better at fulfilling your purpose ie being useful” makes no sense, then justice as a virtue maybe makes no sense?
So anyways. This clarified a bit why I’m even reading this. I’m used to reading for enjoyment (obviously), or to learn something from the author, or to see whether or not I agree. Since I don’t think I can agree with Plato, I’m now on learning more about what I think through his ongoing inquiry, I think. A helpful chapter.
The fundamental ethical and political question for me is this: Who has the ultimate right to define what one's purpose or meaning in life is? Myself or some other party? It should be obvious what my answer is. In that case, I agree with you, I have to then define what virtue means for me.
I also think people have varying abilities to contribute or support themselves (some not at all) and we should take care of those who can’t care for themselves.
Maybe for me the definition of justice lies somewhere in how we reconcile those two (freedom vs obligation).
I agree: to find a just balance between the public obligations and private rights of its citizens should be the core question for every government. From the perspective of the individual, it is necessary to give up some private rights in order to receive the benefits of living in a community, of whatever size.
You’re right about the “dominant worldview” at the time. The Greeks were definitely leading with beauty first mindset. I suppose my comment is meant to say they weren’t aware of unfiltered truth and wisdom that comes from the mouth of those with, for example, Down syndrome. (But we could make lots of points about what they weren’t yet aware of during their time.)
I don’t recall discussion about truth and wisdom which comes from those who’ve fallen from grace. But categorically speaking, those two examples would be, imo, an outstanding group of this philosopher king city!
Considering that this was written years after Socrates own fall from grace… it surprises me that Plato isn’t more focused on the possibility of justice and truth from the very ones who have been discarded from dominant public view.
Perhaps that was too emotionally close to him to dig into?
Surely the ongoing wars surrounding everyone at that time were exhausting and many had little patience for failure (for lack of a better word)
For myself, when I say I don’t think human beings NEED have a purpose to exist, I mean that don’t care if a disabled person speaks truth or wisdom or if they never do. I don’t think being able to contribute something defines whether you should be allowed to live.
But, this is a very modern opinion that I wouldn’t expect Plato to hold.
Alexander Nehamas, a philosopher, professor, and translator of Plato whom I respect a lot, theorizes that Plato wrote the Republic mainly to create an ideal society in which philosophers like himself and Socrates, his teacher, would never again be persecuted or sentenced to death; on the contrary, they would go on to become the Supreme Ruler! From then on, whatever they say, the people must obey; or else ....
It’s a difficult section to slog through. In their search for truth, they failed to see how often it’s the very ones discarded that are, in fact, the most truthful
Oh interesting. I don’t think they’ve discarded any truth along the way necessarily. What do you think they have thrown out?
I think rather that Socrates/Plato has constructed based on some assumptions I don’t agree with- the purpose of human beings, as one. He has not interrogated that idea at all, it’s just necessary. I’m assuming rooted in the dominant worldview at the time, but I’m no historian.
I’m also not sure whether or not I agree with his idea that there is only One True Way of doing something, which is another foundation for the entire concept of an ideal city.
Since Socrates tells us explicitly that we're theorizing here and know that practice will be different, I'm not going to fixate on all the strict ideas of organizing a city. Like, yes, I could weigh every meal out and never go to a restaurant; I could automate my budget similarly by having this same repeating grocery list and timing my showers and use of electricity; or I could just have these ideals in mind while living my life (aka Shit Happens).
What I really like about this one is continued discussion on what philosophy is, on the nature of knowledge vs. opinion, on the nature of shallowness.
A philosopher is a lover of ALL wisdom, they are "spectators of the truth," they take it all in and think big picture. They develop knowledge based on understanding the Big Picture. Compare that to those who like to believe things, are mere "spectators" who only take in one shiny thing at a time, who form opinions on these things but do not see the Big Picture. (wouldn't it be great if the first kind of person were in charge, rather than the second?)
This also feeds into some thoughts I have on shallowness, how the latter kind is shallow, seeks simply "happiness", whereas the former seeks "flourishing." The former tends to be based on sense pleasures and the latter a condition of the soul.
The troubling part for me comes not from the organization of the city but with the remarks in the direction of natural selection, that basically some people "are naturally fitted both to grasp philosophy and to be leaders" whereas others are "born spectators" incapable of wisdom or knowledge and are meant to follow. This is of course circular, because the wise philosopher king would be the one determining who is who.
Since you mentioned 2026 I just want to throw out there either more Aristotle (Metaphysics!) and/or something similar on the nature of knowledge (Descartes Discourse, Locke Essay)
I also think it would be neat if you & Parker teamed up on one, either the same book with companion essays that go at cross purposes, or two books that feed well into each other.
In reading Plato's view on the classes, I wondered about his background. At first, I thought he was setting Kallipolis up as a thought experiment. But after reading about the history leading up to The Republic, I came to believe he was quite serious about his vision.
He came from a powerful and old aristocratic family. His father, who died when he was young, was rumored to be descended from kings. His mother was a descendant of Solon. She remarried her uncle, who was himself an aristocrat. He was likely exposed to traditional aristocratic beliefs of Athenian democracy and expected to have a role in politics.
He wasn’t happy with the politics of the day. The loss of the Peloponnesian War took a toll on Athens. He also witnessed the Thirty Tyrants, some of whom were his own relatives, which reinforced his skepticism about political power and corruption. At the time, Athens was a direct democracy where everyone had a voice in government. He came to believe that the uneducated could be manipulated by a corrupt leader. This hit close to home when his mentor, Socrates, was sentenced to death.
Putting it all together, it seems he was quite disillusioned with the political system. He wanted an ideal state built on specialization and natural differences. Essentially, a structured society with a small degree of meritocracy. The lower classes would stay busy and productive in their roles, while the ruling class (educated philosopher-kings) would run the city. Since they were trained in philosophy, they would know best how to govern without interference from the uneducated.
On the tragedy of hope disguised as beauty, just out of reach
“…won’t this kind of person stand out above the crowd even in childhood, especially if his appearance and physique match his mind and character?” (494a-e)
Because of their closeness to the rollercoaster path Alchibiades sent Socrates into, (and most especially all the emotions involved therein), I do wonder if both he and Plato had a greater vantage point of deeper thinking than those around them. Alchi must have been beyond beautiful to keep his political boat afloat though constantly teetering for as long as he did.
Forgive me lol but I thought of Taylor Swift singing about a guy 🎶 “You’re so gorgeous - I can’t say anything to your face - cuz look at your face.”
A note of encouragement: if you're behind, just pick up with the next book! You can keep following along.
The Republic is a demanding book, but reading it while knowing you won't fully understand it is a prerequisite to eventually understanding it.
Indeed, "a reasonable length of time to listen to a discussion of this kind is their whole life."
There was a lot in this chapter about the protectors of the city and the stripping away of their private lives to align their interests with the Republic. After reading Arendt I can't help but feel she'd actually see this as a very dangerous proposition, with the clear potential for Totalitarianism. Equally Byung Chul Han has a great short book called "The Transparency Society" that continues in this theme of defending the private life. It's just a theme I'm paying attention to as we all know the history of totalitarianism in the 20th century.
I did not quite capture the ideas around understanding the essence of good as opposed to seeing it instantiated in specific things (good music, good art, etc). I think this just relates to me struggling with this Platonic idea of good being more real than it's instances. I think this is a common point of contention, and I'm looking forward to digging into it in the future chapters. I suspect Socrates' point is more nuanced than "Ideas are real and their instances are just imperfect copies"
Enjoying this ancient philosophy a lot more than I thought I would. I've always been drawn more to the post-structural, language game, deconstructionist type philosophy as social critique of the world we live in. I'm reminded that Nietzsche (a philosopher I like) was a Philologist with extensive knowledge of the classics. Gotta keep reading broadly!
Your hunches are correct. Arendt represents a philosophical outlook that is diametrically opposed to that of Plato. Whereas Plato, speaking through the mouth of Socrates, believes that only universal, absolute Ideas or Forms constitute the objects of true knowledge, Arendt believes that contingency and natality are the basic dimensions of the human condition and that human history is always open-ended and unpredictable. The Republic, as defined by Plato, would destroy all opportunities for action, the essence of humanity according to Arendt, as it is totally characterized by utilitarian, instrumental behavior.
In my opinion, what we've seen so far has already far exceeded a mere potential for totalitarianism. It is already a totalitarian society, with the goal of achieving total control of the citizenry in the name of harmony; just like all other totalitarian societies we've seen.
I hope you'll be able to join a future Zoom call, Raymond! We discussed this yesterday. I have basically given up on reading the Republic as a work of political theory — it's simply uninteresting while also appalling if read that way. And so I've been trying to think more about what this means for Plato's view of the soul instead.
Jared, I did not join the last Zoom call because I didn't want to sound like a broken record. I will join the next one.
There are several reasons why I want to persist in speaking up:
1. As we will also be reading POTITICS later on, which is Aristotle's critique of his teacher, I thought it might be useful to highlight some of the implications of Plato's political theory in order to pave some groundwork for future discussions.
2. Like you, I am also doing research related to the view of the soul in Plato's DIALOGUES. Specifically, I am studying how Foucault, in his last years, focused on investigating how Plato's concepts of "the care of the self" and "Know Thyself" can be reinterpreted to develop a new understanding of a subject (which is his secular take on the soul) that is able to exercise freedom and to counteract practices of domination. However, at least so far, I remain doubtful whether we can separate Plato's metaphysics and epistemology from his politics; they seem to be all cut from the same cloth. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind as I continue to read.
3. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the REPUBLIC is too ridiculous and so we don't have to take it too seriously. However, as Alan Ryan, the Oxford philosopher points out in his classic ON POLITICS, all that we have to do is to replace the Philosopher-King with something like a Communist Party, especially if it takes the form of Pol Pot of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, then we would see the reincarnation of Plato's ideal city quite easily, with its re-education camps, forced contraception and abortions, strict censorship of all forms of media, and "disappearances." After all, we are even seeing "disappearances" here in our own democratic country!
Finally, let's not forget the central question that the REPUBLIC is supposed to answer: Why is it better to live a just life rather than an unjust life, even if the odds of material rewards are against you? I believe that if we take away Plato's politics we also take away his answer to this question. This ethical question is universal and deserves an adequate answer. Therefore, it is important that we figure out what went wrong with Plato's answer so that we can work on finding a better one.
I did not mean to but ended up writing a long note again. Sorry.
Raymond, I also am reluctant to give up on the Republic as a work of political theory altogether. Yes, none of us would want to live in Plato‘s state. But if we stop asking what Plato may have to teach us about political justice, I think we are bound to miss some valuable nuggets. I also think there may be more ideas of immediate relevance in the second half of the book. For instance, later on Plato lays out a basic typology of political forms that carries through into Aristotle and is still with us. Also, his analysis of the character of the tyrant is incredibly insightful and, I think, highly relevant to our current political moment. I hope you join for the next call as well.
Jimmy, thank you for your warm note.
I spoke up about the totalitarian tendencies in REPUBLIC because nobody else was doing so at the beginning. I didn't understand how public intellectuals, for lack of a better label, could remain silent when faced with such intolerable ideas. As a result, I think I've been perceived as a "one-trick pony," totally hung up with Plato's politics.
If you have seen my latest posts, you'll see that I am trying hard to veer about from the superficially political. Instead, I want to draw attention to the other aspects of Plato, which, I regret to admit, are just as objectionable.
My fundamental objection to Plato, in spite of his occasional nuggets of wisdom, is this: whereas he believes reality to be exclusively what is, I believe reality to be inclusive of what was, what is, and what will be. I read philosophy to look for a more meaningful way to live, which requires me to consider reality and life as a continuum of past, present, and future. Like Nietzsche, I believe Platonism is against life.
There is an exchange in Chapter VI of REPUBLIC which is a "deal-breaker" for me. Socrates asks Glaucon: "And will a thinker high-minded enough to study all time and all being consider human life to be something important?" Glaucon answers: "He couldn't possibly."
Plato does not value human affairs; he only cares about his eternal and universal Forms. I value human life, in all its contingent, unpredictable (and thereby free), and passing glory.
Yeah I am also reading it for what it says about Plato. And maybe a bit what it says about philosophers past and present that this is such an enduring work.
To say nothing of any of Plato’s other rules so far, I think once you are requiring certain people to have sex with certain other people in order to have certain types of babies, you’ve well crossed into totalitarianism!
I'm amazed that so far nobody has brought up 1984, BRAVE NEW WORLD, THE HANDMAID'S TALE, and, my favorite YA novel, THE GIVER, which, I suspect, was inspired by the REPUBLIC. There are countless other stories and shows with similar themes.
Just saw this and wanted to say I've not brought it up as I assumed it's almost too obvious. I've always thought of The Republic as the first utopian/dystopian fiction. I actually thought it was the first use of the word utopia
I mentioned The Giver in the last one, we're definitely veering into that territory the further we go.
All this talk about "totalitarianism" is also omitting Socrates' admission in 472c-d that this is just pure theory, that "practice [has] less hold on the truth than theory" and that he is in no way suggesting that these things are actually possible.
(Reminder here that George Orwell himself reported fellow citizens to British intelligence for thoughtcrime. His ridiculous book should be viewed for what it is: government propaganda that says "us good, them bad" and not a window into the ill-defined term "totalitarianism").
It’s been a long long time since I read the Giver, but totally.
I was giving Plato too much credit I think. By reputation and by the fact of this book continuing in popularity for so long, I expected it to say something less horrifying. But the “ideal city” gets worse the longer he goes on!
It’s interesting to you point to totalitarianism in the 20th century, since what Socrates proposes very much sounds like creating a master race (of the guardians and thus also rulers), to me.
I do wonder how much is just informed by the reality that in Ancient times many more diseases, injuries, and disabilities were basically death sentences than they are today. But, since Socrates seems to be talking about removing “inferior” children not just ones that probably can’t survive, I still think he’s advocating for more than just Ancient pragmatism. Even his story about guardians being silver and rulers being gold points in that direction.
As an aside this one had some very funny moments, like Socrates in 453 d: “Then we must swim too, and try to save ourselves from the sea of argument, hoping that a dolphin will pick us up or we’ll be rescued by some other desperate means” - what a drama queen.
My fav tho, from Glaucon: “if you insist on taking me as your example of what erotically inclined men do, then, for the sake of argument, I agree” LOL
The whole conversation at this point sounds like a lot of fun haha
Who knew Socrates was such a sparkling conversationalist lol
This was a really illuminating chapter for me, actually, although it seems like a side quest.
I agree that Socrates’ system of eugenics would create the optimal guardians. All of his arguments track. However, I am fundamentally opposed to the implementation of eugenics. So, this leaves me with a question of, essentially, where did we go wrong- one I think we in the comments have been grappling with since the idea that in the ideal city everyone does only one thing.
For me, the eugenics discussion clarified it because it essentially says: get rid of the babies who are inferior ie not suited to their purpose. Since I don’t want to kill the babies, I have to either find a purpose for them, or accept that the premise, “all people must have a purpose/all people must be useful” is broken in some way.
In modern times we do try to give people a purpose, for example often people will say that someone disabled is “inspiring”. I dislike that, also, because it’s so demeaning. So I think I have to say that either we don’t have a purpose at all, or that our purpose is not related to what we do for other people, maybe? I don’t know.
But if you reject “the purpose of people is to be useful”, then the Greek definition of virtue “something which allows you to be better at fulfilling your purpose ie being useful” makes no sense, then justice as a virtue maybe makes no sense?
So anyways. This clarified a bit why I’m even reading this. I’m used to reading for enjoyment (obviously), or to learn something from the author, or to see whether or not I agree. Since I don’t think I can agree with Plato, I’m now on learning more about what I think through his ongoing inquiry, I think. A helpful chapter.
The fundamental ethical and political question for me is this: Who has the ultimate right to define what one's purpose or meaning in life is? Myself or some other party? It should be obvious what my answer is. In that case, I agree with you, I have to then define what virtue means for me.
Ooh yes, that’s a good one.
I also think people have varying abilities to contribute or support themselves (some not at all) and we should take care of those who can’t care for themselves.
Maybe for me the definition of justice lies somewhere in how we reconcile those two (freedom vs obligation).
I agree: to find a just balance between the public obligations and private rights of its citizens should be the core question for every government. From the perspective of the individual, it is necessary to give up some private rights in order to receive the benefits of living in a community, of whatever size.
Indeed. Certainly Plato’s “balance” aka “everyone does his own which is whatever I tell him it is” isn’t for me!
You’re right about the “dominant worldview” at the time. The Greeks were definitely leading with beauty first mindset. I suppose my comment is meant to say they weren’t aware of unfiltered truth and wisdom that comes from the mouth of those with, for example, Down syndrome. (But we could make lots of points about what they weren’t yet aware of during their time.)
I don’t recall discussion about truth and wisdom which comes from those who’ve fallen from grace. But categorically speaking, those two examples would be, imo, an outstanding group of this philosopher king city!
Considering that this was written years after Socrates own fall from grace… it surprises me that Plato isn’t more focused on the possibility of justice and truth from the very ones who have been discarded from dominant public view.
Perhaps that was too emotionally close to him to dig into?
Surely the ongoing wars surrounding everyone at that time were exhausting and many had little patience for failure (for lack of a better word)
Ah I understand.
For myself, when I say I don’t think human beings NEED have a purpose to exist, I mean that don’t care if a disabled person speaks truth or wisdom or if they never do. I don’t think being able to contribute something defines whether you should be allowed to live.
But, this is a very modern opinion that I wouldn’t expect Plato to hold.
Alexander Nehamas, a philosopher, professor, and translator of Plato whom I respect a lot, theorizes that Plato wrote the Republic mainly to create an ideal society in which philosophers like himself and Socrates, his teacher, would never again be persecuted or sentenced to death; on the contrary, they would go on to become the Supreme Ruler! From then on, whatever they say, the people must obey; or else ....
This theory seems logical! But ooof a doozy to consider
It’s a difficult section to slog through. In their search for truth, they failed to see how often it’s the very ones discarded that are, in fact, the most truthful
Oh interesting. I don’t think they’ve discarded any truth along the way necessarily. What do you think they have thrown out?
I think rather that Socrates/Plato has constructed based on some assumptions I don’t agree with- the purpose of human beings, as one. He has not interrogated that idea at all, it’s just necessary. I’m assuming rooted in the dominant worldview at the time, but I’m no historian.
I’m also not sure whether or not I agree with his idea that there is only One True Way of doing something, which is another foundation for the entire concept of an ideal city.
Since Socrates tells us explicitly that we're theorizing here and know that practice will be different, I'm not going to fixate on all the strict ideas of organizing a city. Like, yes, I could weigh every meal out and never go to a restaurant; I could automate my budget similarly by having this same repeating grocery list and timing my showers and use of electricity; or I could just have these ideals in mind while living my life (aka Shit Happens).
What I really like about this one is continued discussion on what philosophy is, on the nature of knowledge vs. opinion, on the nature of shallowness.
A philosopher is a lover of ALL wisdom, they are "spectators of the truth," they take it all in and think big picture. They develop knowledge based on understanding the Big Picture. Compare that to those who like to believe things, are mere "spectators" who only take in one shiny thing at a time, who form opinions on these things but do not see the Big Picture. (wouldn't it be great if the first kind of person were in charge, rather than the second?)
This also feeds into some thoughts I have on shallowness, how the latter kind is shallow, seeks simply "happiness", whereas the former seeks "flourishing." The former tends to be based on sense pleasures and the latter a condition of the soul.
The troubling part for me comes not from the organization of the city but with the remarks in the direction of natural selection, that basically some people "are naturally fitted both to grasp philosophy and to be leaders" whereas others are "born spectators" incapable of wisdom or knowledge and are meant to follow. This is of course circular, because the wise philosopher king would be the one determining who is who.
Since you mentioned 2026 I just want to throw out there either more Aristotle (Metaphysics!) and/or something similar on the nature of knowledge (Descartes Discourse, Locke Essay)
I also think it would be neat if you & Parker teamed up on one, either the same book with companion essays that go at cross purposes, or two books that feed well into each other.
In reading Plato's view on the classes, I wondered about his background. At first, I thought he was setting Kallipolis up as a thought experiment. But after reading about the history leading up to The Republic, I came to believe he was quite serious about his vision.
He came from a powerful and old aristocratic family. His father, who died when he was young, was rumored to be descended from kings. His mother was a descendant of Solon. She remarried her uncle, who was himself an aristocrat. He was likely exposed to traditional aristocratic beliefs of Athenian democracy and expected to have a role in politics.
He wasn’t happy with the politics of the day. The loss of the Peloponnesian War took a toll on Athens. He also witnessed the Thirty Tyrants, some of whom were his own relatives, which reinforced his skepticism about political power and corruption. At the time, Athens was a direct democracy where everyone had a voice in government. He came to believe that the uneducated could be manipulated by a corrupt leader. This hit close to home when his mentor, Socrates, was sentenced to death.
Putting it all together, it seems he was quite disillusioned with the political system. He wanted an ideal state built on specialization and natural differences. Essentially, a structured society with a small degree of meritocracy. The lower classes would stay busy and productive in their roles, while the ruling class (educated philosopher-kings) would run the city. Since they were trained in philosophy, they would know best how to govern without interference from the uneducated.
On the tragedy of hope disguised as beauty, just out of reach
“…won’t this kind of person stand out above the crowd even in childhood, especially if his appearance and physique match his mind and character?” (494a-e)
Because of their closeness to the rollercoaster path Alchibiades sent Socrates into, (and most especially all the emotions involved therein), I do wonder if both he and Plato had a greater vantage point of deeper thinking than those around them. Alchi must have been beyond beautiful to keep his political boat afloat though constantly teetering for as long as he did.
Forgive me lol but I thought of Taylor Swift singing about a guy 🎶 “You’re so gorgeous - I can’t say anything to your face - cuz look at your face.”
Oops! I just realized this is book 6.
> watching a hard
Whut?