Money

In Book I of the Republic, Socrates states on 330 c "For the most part, those who do not make money themselves are that way. Those who do make it are twice as attached to it as the others. For just as poets are fond of their poems and fathers of their children, so money-makers too are serious about money - as their own product; and they also are serious about it for the same reason other men are - for it's use. They are, therefore, hard even to be with because they are willing to praise nothing but wealth."

While this seems to be correct at face value, a more careful examination of it can say otherwise. People who inherit money can either not be attached to it because they didn't earn it, or they can become spoiled thanks to it. I've been able to observe many of these people thanks to attending not only a rich, private university, but a rich, private school too. And more often than not, people who grow up in rich households and inherit lots of wealth tend to be spoiled. It's the only way of life they know, where many things are given to them. When dealing with people who make money; Socrates' assumption is correct in a way. Look no further than to Wall St. and out current financial crises. However, there are those who make money and use it not to please themselves (like Bernie Madoff did), but to please others. My Grandfather grew up in the Great Depression and worked his way up to a financial advisor. He is now a millionaire - but you wouldn't know it. This is because he praises other things such as family, faith, and friends way above wealth. It's people like this that earn their wealth not for themselves, but for others. All this to say, when dealing with large amounts of money (be it through inheritance or work) it is best to have a reason (other than getting rich and pleasing yourself) behind it all. This could be a spiritual reason (i.e. Church offering), humanitarian reason (i.e. donating for Haiti's recovery), or for a family member (i.e. helping them financially with their education, real estate, etc.). Earning money for those reasons will prevent you from becoming hard and only praising wealth - as Socrates states.

What is harm?

Socrates in many areas of the book talks about harm to enemies. Sometimes it is discussed as good, sometimes it is discussed as bad. Sometime just necessary. But what really is harm? Does he mean physical harm, or just permanent mental harm? I believe in this situation he means permanent mental harm. That might come through physical harm, but i believe he means having a lasting negative affect on a person.

Soul and the City

Socrates believes cities arise because no one is self-sufficient and everyone has a certain skill to contribute to help each other survive. He compares it to a soul because no soul can thrive alone without engaging in another. I believe “the city of utmost necessity” symbolizes justice and when the luxury items are introduced by Glaucon the injustice becomes visible. Individuals begin to try to be better than the other, making the city and the soul suffer. The soul strives for what it needs which are the just characteristics but when they all are met the soul starts to look for more. When the people of the community start becoming greedy and prideful it can lead to war. War for the soul is an evaluation of what are just actions and what are unjust actions and which ones make the soul content.

Educating Guardians

In book 2 of Plato when they are talking about educating the children to be guardians, they talk about how they think they should modify some of the stories about the Gods. As much as this angered me at first while reading it, it no longer angers me because I feel like I’m starting to understand. They feel as if the Gods are good and therefore the stories that contradict that God may be good are false and poorly written. They think because they are false and poorly written then they must modify them for the children who are learning to be guardians because these are the examples that are set for the children and they want them to be morally sound and aware. I think that the stories that homer and other famous intellectuals wrote at that time were really common and even though they were common that doesn’t mean that the people believed they were true. At first I thought that they were just telling their children untrue stories about the Gods they believed in but in actuality I think they didn’t fully believe those stories and they were in fact being true with their children. I can’t help but let this intertwine with my beliefs in that I believe my God is all mighty and all good. One day when I have a family and I raise my children in a Christian home, I think it will be vital to their beliefs to educate them on all the love and goodness that God provides. I would want to shape my children into beautiful and amazing Christian people and I would want to provide them with as much information that I could that would set the perfect example of this. Of course I’m going to teach my children to rely and depend on God for examples and for a way of living because there is no other image of perfect and there is no other image of love that is greater. I wouldn’t want them to think they have to be exactly like God because no one will ever be as perfect but I would want them to want to be more like God in that he is all loving and of good doing. I would never tell them of stories that were untrue of God doing evil acts because I don’t believe that God is capable of being evil. If I’m following the story correctly, which I very well might be lost, but if I am then I completely agree with and understand why they wanted the guardians of their state to be educated morally and in wholly goodness.

The City of Socrates and the Soul

Socrates builds his city on the premise that a man is not self-sufficient and is in need of his fellow man to survive. This much is true; while it is possible for a single man to be self-sufficient, it is human nature to seek companionship of some sort and the necessities of life are certainly easier to come by when one is living within a community. So Socrates and Adeimantus establish the city of necessities and end up with a surprisingly adept analogy for the nature of justice in the human soul. The city represents the soul, and if every member of the community is working towards what is just (i.e. what is beneficial for not only themselves but for the rest of the community), then the community thrives, just as the soul does when it is truly just. But if a member of community acts out of injustice, such as the homemaker creating inadequate homes or the tradesmen cheating his clients, then the community suffers. It is in the same way that the soul suffers from injustice; if any part of the soul commits an injustice, then the rest of the soul suffers. Of course, there is the possibility for remorse and rehabilitation for acts of injustice. If only on member of the community is unjust, then the rest of the community can come together and either replace him or make sure he only takes actions that are just. This is also true for the soul. If a just person commits an act of injustice, they can recognize their injustice and attempt to rectify it. But if the act of injustice goes unchecked, whether in the city or the soul, then all that remains just stands the chance of becoming unjust.

Once the city Socrates creates has all of its necessities taken care of, they start to create luxuries. This is when injustice appears within the community. Once the community starts seeking out luxuries that are beyond its means, it must expand. "[We must] cut off a piece of our neighbors' land, if we are going to have sufficient for pasture and tillage," explains Socrates (373d). This, he says, is the "origin of war". Once the city moves past its necessities to luxuries, it starts committing acts of injustice against other communities to sustain itself. This is where injustice emanates in the soul. Once a man has (or even witnesses) the luxuries of the just, then they are more inclined to obtain more luxuries, and it is easier to obtain luxuries through acts of injustice than justice (the city had to work to provide its own necessities before it could obtain luxuries, but once they had those luxuries another city maybe feel inclined to come take the luxuries for themselves). This, I believe, is the origin of evil; when a man recognizes the luxuries of another and attempts to obtain them through unjust means.

Understanding ancient thought process?

On line 365 d of Book II Adeimantus’ discussion of the god’s involvement in just and unjust things struck an interest for me. He states “But it surely isn’t possible to get away from the gods or overpower them. But, if there are no gods, or if they have no care for human things, why should we care at all about getting away…” Later in the book Socrates then presents the idea of ignoring the work of famous author’s like Homer and also discusses the status of the gods and how they are. The ideas of ignoring famous literature and discussing the gods in such certain terms was shocking for me. Reading this it does not surprise me that Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, given the nature of the times. What I have taken from these passages so far may seem a little strange as they are not the obvious points of discussion and may not be strong philosophical questions. For me I could not hope to understand the message that these ancient men were trying to convey unless I first understood the way that they thought about certain aspects of faith and society. Reading the way that Socrates and the other men speak of the gods, as if they know them personally, is much different than I would think of a god today. I could not hope to derive understanding for their ideas of knowledge, virtue, or justice without first understanding the way they thought of society. And that is what I took as most valuable so far in my readings, the attempt to understand the ancient poeple's thought processes on various issues.

Meno.....

Hey guys, I am sorry this post from Meno last week is so late, I had issues getting the blog to work but here it is finally........

Toward the end of class on Thursday, we were discussing Meno's attitude and thoughts following his dialogue with Socrates. The conversation begins with Meno asking a forceful, perfectly posed, confident question on how one comes to have virtue. Meno lists Socrates a list of optional answers to his question. Instead of answering with one, Socrates begins posing questions to Meno. The whole latter part of the conversation pretty much consists of Socrates asking questions or making statements and Meno typically agrees with him using statements like "Certainly," "That's my opinion, at any rate," and "Yes, absolutely." These short and concise answers gave me the impression that Meno is disinterested in Socrates' statements. It appears to me that Meno is simply agreeing with Socrates so he would hush. I would think that if Meno truly agreed and understood what Socrates was saying, he would have much more to say. He would have asked more questions and tried to gain more understanding.

Also, while I was reading the end of Meno, I was actually very curious as to why Socrates says to Meno, "As for you, persuade Anytus here, your guest-friend, of the same things that you yourself have been persuaded of, so that he may be gentler.If you do persuade him, there is a certain benefit you'll render to the Athenians as well." I was completely unaware that Anytus was one of Socrates' persecutors. This now makes complete sense as to why Socrates would ask this of Meno. I feel that this is a huge clue of how Meno felt about the dialogue with Socrates. As we learned in class, Anytus was obviously not convinced by Meno since Socrates was put to death. Meno was not compelled to convince Anytus. Is this an indicator of his disintrest? Is it an indicator that he did not understand enough to converse with Anytus?