What's next? A few questions.

Because I am a history major the question of the historical significance of The Republic has stayed with me the whole time i've been reading it. It has obviously been infleuntial to western style thought but to what extent? How much are the ideas of moderation and justice based on Socates' conversations. I read the interpretive essay for books VI and VII and it in my opinion it seemed to state that the breaking of ties with family and sexual stereotypes would allow everyone an equal opportunity to pursue their best interest. This is certaintly idealistic and yet it seems to represent most modern western cultures. If The Republic is seen by many as a catalyst for the western-style school of thought then I can definitely understand its significance.
I have not read book VIII yet so I am anxious to see what happens next. The reason for this anxiety is because it seems Socrates has already proven the city will fail because the philosopher/king can not and will not rule and is also doubtful that "the good" could actually be rationalized by a mortal. If this is the case then what is left for the city in the next seventy pages? For me what seemed like the pursuit of perfection now seems to be turning into some form of ideology that hints at danger. Will Socrates dismantle his city or try to regroup and built it in a differnt manner? These are some of the questions that are on my mind if anyone has input.

Cave Parallels

In this chapter through them discussing the theory of the cave, I am curious as to whether this parallels to the theory that we are “dreaming” instead of living. That our “living” is actually our dreaming. When they talk about how the prisoners can only see shadows and hear echoes but don’t get the full effect it makes me wonder if people these days are doing the same thing. Are we just dreaming and hearing echoes, seeing shadows and not receiving the full effect? Is there more to life than the eye perceives? Could it even parallel to heaven? We are only living life to the extent that we see it but once we get to heaven, will we be blinded because it will be so much more distinct, so much more beautiful, so much more alive than what we are used to seeing each day? I know I’m going off on a silly tangent that doesn’t make sense but reading these theories just kind of gave me all these ideas that I just can’t seem to finish or place. I wonder if people these days are just seeing shadows and not really even thinking to look beyond seeing shadows. It even makes me think about “heaven on earth”. Are people who aren’t Christians really just seeing shadows and hearing echoes when they could be seeing vivid objects, people, thoughts, etc. When you aren’t a Christian and you become one I feel like there is a huge turning point in that you see life from a whole new perspective. Almost like how they say when a guardian goes out to see the light and he comes back to share it with the others who have no idea what it is. As Christians aren’t we supposed to share the light (or gospel) with our brothers and sisters? Isn’t it our job to bring what we have learned and share it with humanity so that they too can experience it? I feel a strong connecton with this passage because I feel like I’m making a lot of resemblances with my faith. I just thought I would throw a few of those ideas out there.

Can you understand what you do not know yet?

In class we had a large discussion on why glaucon could not understand dialectics. It seemed to me that the conclusion that he just wasn't smart enough yet wasn't quite what i was looking for. Because i mean do we all not know something? How can we gain any knowledge at all if we first have to understand it to learn it? Is that not part of understanding something? It seems like socrates himself just doesn't understand it's full meaning, so instead of just saying he couldn't define it he just said that Glaucon couldn't.

Glaucon becoming dialectic

Towards the end of Book VII Glaucon and Socrates discuss becoming dialectic. At 533 a, Socrates tells Glaucon, "You will no longer be able to follow, my dear Glaucon." I think the reason Socrates tells that to Glaucon is because Glaucon isn't far enough on his journey on the divided line. Because dialectic is at the end of one's journey of learning, one cannot be told what it is. Just as Meno wanted Socrates to tell him what virtue is, Glaucon is doing the same thing with the issue of dialectic. And just as Socrates didn't expressly tell Meno what virtue is; he is doing the same thing with Glaucon and dialectic. It is just foolish for Glaucon to think that Socrates will tell him all about becoming dialectic because even Socrates admits that he hasn't accomplished that yet. And that is the beauty of it all; we are in the same way just like Socrates in that we don't know it all, however we are able to use the teachings of Socrates and others to help us on our way to becoming dialectic.

Philosopher Kings

In book six, Socrates and Adeimantus discuss the necessity of philosophers to rule the just city. They decide that a philosopher is has certain traits, like seeking out truth and good. The forms must all be present in order for someone to be considered a philosopher. A person cannot seek only one form of the good. All must be sought equally in order to have true harmony. Not only are these qualities needed to run a just city, but also to have a satisfied soul. In my interpretation of book six, these philosopher kings represent the virtuous guiding qualities in our souls. To obtain justice in our own lives, we must allow the truth-seeking, just traits to control us.

Philosopher Kings: Fit to Rule?

In the issue of philosophers making the best rulers, yes, I agree they have intellect but will a philosopher have the civic-mindedness to rule a group of people who think completely different from him? Their natures are, after all, “always in love with that learning which discloses to them something of the being that is always and does not wander about, driven by generation and decay” (485b). Socrates points out that philosophers have a soul dominated by reason and rational thinking. Their desires and appetite are quieted by the love for learning and pursuing the truth. This is all well and good but when the majority of the people he has rule over are knowledgeable in the civic realm, can true intellect or understanding carry him through? Socrates says that there are only a small number of true philosophers and that they make up the extreme minority. What is the guarantee then for these men be able to stay true, or as Socrates puts it, “What salvation do you see for a philosophic nature so that it will remain in its practice and reach its end” (494a)? Can he even relate to the problems that arise from a city of these thinkers if his own mind is only on the truth? Or will he be unable to relate to the people and even be able to resist the influence of majority. And as Socrates states, “Do you think it will be easy for him to hear through a wall of so many evils” (494d)?

The Philosopher-Statesman

Reading The Republic first for politics classes and second for philosophy, I have definitely noticed a difference in the nature of the material. In a political theory class one analyzes the nature of Socrates’ government: the bureaucracy, the classes, the communal nature of the Guardians’ lifestyle. However, here in philosophy the outlook changes completely and the nature of the text is analyzed more fully. We are here for the argument; the means, not the end of Socrates search. And so the feeling of this book differs significantly.

I think that that different “feeling” is represented well in Book V during Socrates’ debate with Adeimantus (473d-474c) in which he inquires about the difference between kings (politicians) and philosophers, and in Book VI where Adeimantus also notes that all the philosophers he sees are either “quite vicious” or “useless to the city” (487 d-e). They recognize that there is a significant difference between the political and philosophical minds. I believe there to be three main reasons why a politician in a democracy like that in Athens or our own does not always act as a philosopher, some reasons being more innocent than others.

First, obviously, some politicians are doing their job for the money rather than for “the art” of making society more just. He is the least righteous of the types since he consistently put his own welfare above that of the people he represents. He may also be considered the “vicious” type of philosopher, who uses his wisdom only for personal gain. The second type of politician is prevented from philosophizing for the opposite reason. This man is the populist, who, in hopes of pleasing his constituents will violate his own beliefs. He places the voters’ opinion above his own—even though his opinion may be the correct one. Finally there is the politician who knows the right thing and would like to do it, but is prevented from doing so because of time constraints or opposition. This would be well represented by the “useless” philosopher who knows what to do but is never consulted. He will leave politics out of disappointment or frustration. This politician/philosopher, although rare, is the most innocent of the three; he is only stopped because the government does not work in his favor. He would probably provide an apt blueprint for Socrates’ philosopher-king.

Stargazers

In Book VI of the Republic, Socrates compares the treatment of true philosophers in Athens to a ship where ignorant sailors will doing anything(drugging the ship owner) to gain power on the ship while the someone who is adept at navigation not noticed because he is spending is time looking at the stars. While this serves its purpose well and offers a clear analogy for true philosophers vs. the corrupt philosophers that Adeimantus refers to, when I view passage in terms our class discussion about the value of philosophers particularly in modern times, I can't help think some people truly are just stargazers. They may study philosophy with a sense of bewilderment even coming up with ideas that provide them a sense of calm, but they do not take that leap into navigation. To use another metaphor of Socrates they do not become "midwifes" of other peoples ideas.

Philosopher as Ruler

Socrates tells Glaucon that the last crucial component for of the city of necessity to be possible is for philosophy and political power to meet, and thus the rulers must themselves be philosophers (473d). He hesitated to mention it because he sees it as a paradoxical notion. Why does Socrates think that the idea of a philosopher with political power is a paradox?

Mr. Bloom provides a lengthy and (I think) helpful note on this subject. He says that "the philosopher has neither the desire to be a ruler nor would he do what is necessary to impose his rule on unwilling people" (Book V, note 36). It seems as if this description is confined to one type of philosopher, and is likely the sort of philosopher that Socrates and Glaucon agree on ("...rather than lovers of opinion those who delight in each thing that is itself" [480a]).

Maybe Socrates and Glaucon do not think that the philosopher will do what is necessary to impose his rule on unwilling people because the philosopher does not know the form of the good and maybe cannot know it. And without such knowledge the philosopher would have no preeminence for ruling. Hence Socrates' hesitation with completing the argument, as he claims that he is merely "in doubt and seeking", and does not claim to have discovered or established anything about how to actually make a city (or a man for that matter) just (450d).

Book IV

Polemarchus and Adeimantus want Socrates to explain his earlier claim of wives and children being held in common. They want to know why this idea should be ideal and whether it could actually be realized in practice, which interestingly becomes a more broad or general issue for the whole project about making a just city. I think the whole reason behind Socrates wanting to keep wives and children in common is to prevent any attachments that would alter the devotion and the concern of the guardians. (462 a-b) " Is there any greater evil we can mention for a city than that which tears it apart and makes it many instead of one? Or any greater good than that which binds it together and makes it one?" It seems as we discussed in class that Socrates would want the city to be united in pain that for just some of the people in the city to be happy. With the whole idea of the people not knowing which individual is their biological kid it makes the guardians effectively become a big family and the guardians will be encouraged to do what is proper and right. Socrates then goes on to talk about how the city should breed, just like we talked about in class people who breed dogs only want the best dogs and will breed the right dogs together. This is essentially what Socrates is wanting to do in the city, to have the best to mate with the best in order to produce the best. I think a good question comes from when Socrates talks about the women training naked with the men, which could cause problems. Socrates responds by saying that this is the rational way to do things and that people will see this as the norm. (457 a) " These women will wear virtue or excellence instead of clothes." How is it that we can educate everyone into seeing this as the norm, basically reprogramming the way they think on a deeper level? I have issues with this I think. I am not sure how you can just change people's minds so fast and quickly with no repercussion.

Justice vs. Injustice

At the end of class Thursday Miss Merwin asked if it is in justice or injustice if our desire was not fulfilled. If desire is to cause some sort of harm to our body and we chose not to give into our desire would that be injustice or justice. If our desire is not completed leaving some sort of incompletion is that justice or injustice. In 443 d Socrates gives an overview what justice seems to be. That a man is truly concerned with his overall state of being, not just one part but all aspects to create the whole. This idea extends to a just city. There are numerous components towards the working/making of a city. The homogenous goal is specifically for the greater good of the city. With that in mind I believe Socrates would argue that if a desire is not adequately met, we must still observe the overall effect on the body.

An example used in class if our desire was to have more food than our body needed but we deny our desire to eat would that be considered injustice or justice. According to Socrates I think it would be considered justice, even though our desire is not satisfied it is only one component. The unified goal is in the best interest of our body's health. Not giving into our desire is best for our health establishing justice rather than injustice. Even so Socrates argues that the city is not interested in the happiness of one single person but the overall happiness of the homogeneous city.

The Ways of Music

From 424b through 424c Socrates talks about the guarding of music and making sure there is no innovation of music contrary to the established order. He ends by saying, "For never are the ways of music moved without the greatest political laws being moved." In dealing with the first part; just because there is new innovation of music that is different to the norm, does not automatically mean that it is corrupt. Music has always been evolving; sometimes for good, other times for bad. When deciding what types of music should not be censored and what types should be censored, it is necessary to decide based on the reactions that the music produces in one person. It seems to me that it would be best to censor on a case by case basis. For one person in the city, a particular type of music might influence them to perform their job to perfection. Yet that same type of music might influence someone else to perform their job poorly. With this being the case, censoring on a case by case basis is a good way to help promote a just city. Socrates' statement about the "ways of music" is correct. Throughout history, governments and people in power have tried to eliminate the ways of music through the strictest of political laws and actions. This method does work. However, music has always been able to find a way to break down barriers and continue to innovate, no matter what the law is.

Justice, or just following orders?

It seems to me that socrates's definition of justice doesn't seem fit. It seems as if what he thinks is justice is only following orders. He says that true justice is when you do your job right essentially is when you have justice in the soul. But what if your job is one of a negative nature, or you are told to do something by the great leaders that is bad, or seen as negative. Is that really true justice, or just following orders?

Is justice naturally occuring?

The idea of what justice is can be quite tedious and I do not believe that we have nailed it down yet as to what it actually is. The idea of justice is, like most things, a civilized construct or more precisely something that humans implemented as a result of civilized living. The idea that what occurs in the soul is natural or is our nature is a strong idea. More than that, the idea of what's natural could be the definition of soul. I'll argue that humans natural instincts are geared at survival and don't correlate with "justice" and its different attributes.
If anyone is in a burning building their natural instinct is to get out regardless of the fate of the poeple around them, but because of societal constructs that have been taught or observed the human uses courage (a supposed part of justice or virtue) to stay in the building and help others get out first. When a horse or dog is able to eat endlessly it will. I also would like to eat like this, but once again mother culture is whispering in my ear telling me, "dont eat all of that you glutton." Wisdom is also relevant because it could be that we are born with everything we need via instinct. Anything further is knowledge and just conflicts with animal (human) instinct. As a result justice may not be naturally occurring as what we think of as unjust may be mostly our animal instincts. Therefore, the question is could justice and its attributes be a part of the sould if we are not born with it? We danced around this question in class but the answer eludes me.

Post#1

In book three Socrates talks of all the things which should be taught in order to promote an "orderly and courageous life." He likes the idea of teaching by a positive example. Everyone must live their life in moderation. He wants boys that grow up fearing slavery more than death. These methods seem good enough, but they raise some questions. It seems to me that growing up without any negative would possibly leave a weaker positive. There may be a lack of reinforcement in a man's character when he is faced with opposition. I imagine a boy that is taught to stand up for what he sees as right and defend the weaker. He goes through his life hearing this and accepting it as his creed, but he is never exposed to the fight on the other end. Come time to act and he is an amateur. Now, if the same boy had his nose rubbed in the dirt a few times and knew what bad was he is no longer an amateur. He knows where he stands and where he has stood in similar situations, and he knows the reason that he opposes his opposite.

Censorship

When I first read Book III from The Republic, I felt that Socrates was taking too many rights from the people of the just city, more specifically the guardians. I have always feared that I was living in some crazy censored society like those portrayed in The Truman Show or The Village. The thought of having my freedom to certain knowledge prohibited secretly by certain “rulers” terrifies me. That’s how I feel about this city that Socrates has built. I understand that children can’t distinguish subtleties as well as adults and that children are censored from many aspects of life anyways, but not everything should be censored. I think that children should learn of these vicious characters so that they know these kind of people exist. I know that I was never censored as a child. I could watch whatever movies I wanted (often R-rated and considered “inappropriate”) since I can remember, and I still grew up with a grip on what was right and what was wrong. I understand that Socrates wants a city without corruption, but I don’t think the cost of human rights is worth it.

The Children: Good/ Evil

In book II, Socrates talks about modifying the stories where the gods are portrayed as evil. He does this in order to protect the minds of their future guardians. I have a hard time agreeing with Socrates in this instance because this would effect everyone and not just the children. There is a good and evil in the world and choices that come with that, but also by seeing the evil, in most cases, it makes people want to do the good. I feel that if we hold back the differences from the children they will be sheltered and naive. It is kind of like Sunday school, they teach us the good and the bad, but of course it is a more watered down version they teach because they are not going to tell us straight off that if we do not accept Jesus that we will go straight to hell. However, they do tell us about the evil and give us a distinct difference of the good and bad. My point is that the Bible has bad characters as well, but the teachers still told us some version of the stories when we were younger (still molding our brains/knowledge). Those teachings did not make us want to be like them and idolize the bad characters we were learning about. I have never been in a place where there wasn’t evil in stories so I couldn’t imagine what this impact would look like. I believe that in Socrate’s society they should not shelter the children and they should always tell the protagonist and the antagonist in the stories so the children can distinctly see what lifestyle they should model.

State of the Soul

When first reading Book III of the Republic, I could not believe the structured city that Socrates described with its limitations or complete lack of personal freedoms and manipulation of education. But then I realized that I was looking at this city from the wrong angle. I had forgotten that Socrates originally set out to build this city as a metaphor for the soul. Caught up in the governmental aspects, I was angered at Socrates’ lack of respect or care for peoples’ personal liberties, their right to know all about the world around them. But then I realized two very important things: first, this city is representative of the soul, not a modern interpretation of a city in America and second, Socrates is referring to children and the state of their souls when he talks about censoring them from the tales of evil. Before these restrictions, children and adults were being treated and educated the same. That is, the children had no censor to the horrors present in the city. But Socrates recognizes the soul as something delicate. Going back to Book II, Socrates discusses how children are the future and that “the beginning is the most important part of every work and that this is especially so with anything young and tender.” He goes on to say that “at this state [the soul is] most plastic, and each thing assimilates itself to the model whose stamp anyone wishes to give to it” (376b). Socrates is hinting here what he addresses fully in Book III: that a child’s soul must be protected so that when they meet the hardships of adulthood and their souls find a definite shape, they will be good. This doesn’t mean that children are sheltered for the rest of their lives but instead their souls will be rooted in what is good so that when they inevitably witness and experience the bad, their soul will recognize it for what it is. Is this such a ridiculous concept? Don’t parents today try to protect their children from the evil of the world? Do parents raise their children by reading them bedtime stories about going to hell and the devil? No, but these stories do exist and children will discover them later in life when their souls have been shaped with the good and they can clearly recognize the bad in the world. Socrates merely stresses that children must be raised with a foundation of good rather than bad because children imitate what they are taught and if these imitations “are practiced continually from youth onwards, [they will] become established as habits and nature, in body sounds and thoughts” (395d).

The Noble Lie: is it just?

Nearing the end of Book III, Socrates asks Glaucon, "Could we...somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need...some one noble lie to persuade... the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city?"

What he is referring to as "one of those lies that come into being in case of need" is the kind of lie that he is talking about with Adeimantus in Book II. They agree that lies are useful "as a preventive, like a drug, for so-called friends when from madness or some folly they attempt to do something bad" when they are likened to the truth as best as possible. It appears that Socrates views the noble lie as a way to protect the people from the truth so as to prevent them from making mistakes or going crazy. Some advantages of persuading the people of this lie are plain: it will create unity among the people and they will love and honor their homeland. But it also creates a mysterious authority that cannot be reckoned with in the Earth as it determines (according to the noble lie) the mixture of metal in each person's soul (or the aptitude of each person). But how can Socrates hold that this noble lie would be just in an actual situation, or would he at all? This is a point of great conflation for me, although I am inclined to say that Socrates is doing all he can to make this city of necessity seem successful in being likened to the human soul. But maybe not.

In Favor of Democracy

Mr. Davis raised the point today in class about who should be capable of choosing rulers. He stated in so many words “wouldn’t it make the most sense for your teachers (K-12) to chose who was capable based on their ability learn?” Keep in mind; I do not know if this is his personal view but Mr. Davis or one that he stated merely for the purpose of debate. Unfortunately the subject changed before I was able to off a relevant rebuttal, but I would like to say that I disagree. As Mr. Davis would pointed out the argument is hard to make in our society because teachers have been appointed by politicians that have potential to be corrupt, and frankly it is a statistic that many teachers of K-12 made only average grades and scored relatively poor on test when they themselves were going through school, but lets take away the variables and lets imagine teachers are proficient in their jobs which I personally feel most are. Also lets shrink the size of our society for this scenario to say the size of a classroom. Would not better to have more than one person making a decision about who should rule considering first that everyone has live with this all-important decision second people might have different views of the same person based on personal experience with said person? For instance, maybe a boy is capable of impressing his teacher with his grades and appears to his teacher to be both virtuous and capable, but others in the class (his peers) notice things that the teacher does not like say the fact that he treats his classmates cruelly when the teacher is not looking. Essentially this how view democracy, many eyes keeping each other in check and agreeing on laws so that there is not chaos. Which to me seems to away from Socrates’ “myth of the metals” to a large extent.

A State of Control

As a political scientist reading The Republic, it is difficult for me to separate the political philosophy from the metaphysical philosophy. After all, in his attempt to explain the soul, Socrates makes sweeping assumptions about human ability and wisdom. He does not think that people are capable of managing their lives. He begins by altering the people’s view of the gods by removing any negative stories about them from the city (386c-392a). Although we eventually came to the conclusion in class that he is probably just watering the stories down for children, one must still ask if this is the government’s role.

Socrates continues the book by analyzing types of music , banning some while permitting others(397c-400e), and gymnastic (412a). He wants to create a population of Guardians that has the proper balance between lightness of the soul and strength of the spirit. Once again, however, we are faced with the question of whether or not the government always knows best and should replace parents as the guides in this system.

At the end of Tuesday’s class, the topic of parental competence was addressed. Basically Socrates decided that since parents are imperfect and cannot properly raise their children, then the State should do it for them. I am not convinced by this argument. While parents are imperfect so is every other human. I believe that nobody is in a better position to guide a child’s mind than the people who brought them into the world. The children raised under Socrates’ regime will not always turn out the way he intends. If I have learned anything by helping my mom in her kindergarten class sometimes, it is that different children learn differently. In fact, people are far too different in tastes, personalities, or talents to be able to exist under the same set of rules to guide their whole life.

I believe that the greatest virtue is freedom and the “right to be let alone.” I understand the need to guide children, but I do not believe that this is the job of the State, that nameless, faceless creature that asserts all the power of a parent but none of the love or care for each individual. The problem with Socrates’ entire analysis is that paternalistic government does not work; humans are far too complex, rebellious, and brilliant to be stifled and managed so closely.

Book 3 and the "City"

In book 3 Socrates gets down to the means of the discussion of the just city. We see the whole exploration with the Guardians. In Book 2 Socrates told us that the education in this just city that he created must be of moral education. Basically I think he says here that there are only certain subject to which can be looked at and those that need to be put aside or ignored. We saw that in book 3 also when Socrates was trying to tell us that we should only tell the Guardians the good things and let them learn only good and not to associate with the bad. As said in class I don't like how this sounds. I have a suggestion of what should happen though. I think that Socrates should raise these Guardians as children in any way he wants. If that is knowing only the good then that is fine, but as they grow they should be exposed to everything which is even the bad and by the age of understanding and talking on the role of being Guardians then the once children should be able to decide and choose what they want for themselves. At the end of Book 3 the guardians lifestyle is more closely examined and it seems to be joyless. Socrates wants us to have these Guardians for the city because people were already unhappy with life if that is how I understand it. If the whole point of the Republic is justice, then is it even just to have Guardians? I hope someone can help me answer this question. I find this question hard to find an answer to. I want to believe that if it was truly a just city then there would be no need for Guardians, but I also think that to be just we might need that role model type person like the Guardians to help give us a push in the right position. If anyone wants to help me answer this question please do.