Plato's Republic

[speed]

Of all the books of philosophy, this is surely one of the most interesting. A book that creates the perfect republic for mankind. Unlike Marx and Christ, Plato's republic is both spiritual and temporal; it is founded on the desire to create the ideal place for philosophers.

Plato through Socrates, argues in a series of interconnected dialogues that build upon one another about: Justice, Education, Music, Poetry, the need for censorship, communism with an abolishment of money and family, forms, imitation of forms, and finally the immortality of soul, judgment, heaven and a platonic hell--a dialogue that surely inspired the Christians.

Thus, my question is whether Plato was off his rocker when he wrote this book? Is it possible to "fix" the world of its trivial pursuits? And, just how wrong or right, was Plato in his ideas--especially concerning censorship, the proper education, and the soul?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

are you assumming that everyone on this forum has read this book???
is there a site where i can read this book on-line or at least a synopsis???

 

[speed]

are you assumming that everyone on this forum has read this book???
is there a site where i can read this book on-line or at least a synopsis???

Yes, I do presuppose most are familiar with its contents. But here is a link to the etext: http://http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71r/index.html

Essentially Lord Red Dragon, Plato through Socrates has a number of dialogues with a variety of others, but mostly GLuacon, in which, he argues in dialectical fashion and convinces Glaucon or other characters, of the veracity and validity of his claims. What Socrates is getting at, is the formation of a Perfect Republic, and to do so, he has these 10 books of arguments that build upon one each other. To create this republic, he defines Justice, just rule, Virtue, form, the soul, and then uses these ideas to convince Glaucon or others, of the right way to set up and run a government. This just philosophical government that Plato creates, is one that has censorship in music and poetry/writing, abolishes the family and a monetary based economic model, has very interesting almost Spartan ideas towards education, sets up a government form where philosophers rule, and uses the knowledge of the true One, or Soul, to validate all the recommendations for this Platonic Utopia.

 

[HMJ]

Plato was pretty damn crazy!! Ok...some pretty good ideas; philosopher's know right, know the common good, know the forms, so know how to rule and what exactly the best decisions are. His metaphors are wonderfully written, if not slightly out. He is, after all, assuming that all politicians are selfish.

Other parts of Plato's state are fairly odd too. He argues that lying is wrong...except when a philosopher is lying. Example...eugenics. In Plato's ideal state, breeding would be selective. It would take part in the form of a random lottery, pairing up peope to breed (before their children were taken off to be educated and never know their parents...Plato really didn't like the idea of a 'family', it might get in the way of obedience to the state). Except...it wouldn't actually be a lottery. It would be fixed by philosophers to pick the best people to create the best child and let others die out. Early forms of Mein Campf really.

Bit more discussion, and I would come to the conclusion that philosopher rulers are not a good idea, and stick with Churchill's opinion that democracy isn't great, but its the best we've got.

 

[judas69]

I believe he had dismissed a lot of what he had said, in later years.

 

[speed]

Plato was pretty damn crazy!! Ok...some pretty good ideas; philosopher's know right, know the common good, know the forms, so know how to rule and what exactly the best decisions are. His metaphors are wonderfully written, if not slightly out. He is, after all, assuming that all politicians are selfish.

Other parts of Plato's state are fairly odd too. He argues that lying is wrong...except when a philosopher is lying. Example...eugenics. In Plato's ideal state, breeding would be selective. It would take part in the form of a random lottery, pairing up peope to breed (before their children were taken off to be educated and never know their parents...Plato really didn't like the idea of a 'family', it might get in the way of obedience to the state). Except...it wouldn't actually be a lottery. It would be fixed by philosophers to pick the best people to create the best child and let others die out. Early forms of Mein Campf really.

Bit more discussion, and I would come to the conclusion that philosopher rulers are not a good idea, and stick with Churchill's opinion that democracy isn't great, but its the best we've got.

Excellent comments. I have always thought Plato was the first fascist. As for philosopher rulers not being a good idea, I am not so sure. Essentially, our American founding fathers were heavily influenced by the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu, and the Ancients, and put many of their once philosophical ideas into practice.

 

[derek]

I think Plato took some interesting strides towards a better way of living, but ultimately he oversteps the mark. I think the underlying structure of the most able being the ones that rule, is a common sense system and one which I wholeheartedly agree with.

The fascist stylings of the elaborations on these basic principles are where I begin to find Plato distasteful. I know some people on this board would advocate eugenics as a course mankind must take sooner or later but in my eyes, it's a step in the wrong direction. In the way Plato outlines it, at least, it demonstrates an ideology that i find difficult to swallow.

 

[HMJ]

@Speed - admittedly I don't know a lot about Montesquieu, but Locke was a classic liberal, who believed in a democracy, so isn't exactly a philosopher ruler with absolute powers (aka dictator). As you said, America has put into practice a lot of philosophical ideals in the form of government, and i do agree that philosophical thought is essential in forming a working governing body, just not necessarily Plato's State dictatorship.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Locke, Montesquieu

please forgive me for not knowing who these people are

 

[Kenneth R.]

Red Dragon, if you entertain a mild interest in philosophy at all, you must read this work by Plato, and as well Locke, who did much for the concept of democracy as we now it.

 

[Dän]

I dont think its essential to know of those people if you are interested in philosophy - ive tried reading some of their shit and it makes no sense to me what so ever

 

[derek]

i do agree that philosophical thought is essential in forming a working governing body, just not necessarily Plato's State dictatorship.

In total agreement with you there. I believe plato hinted towards some amazing ideas, but he took them too far for my liking.

 

[derek]

I dont think its essential to know of those people if you are interested in philosophy - ive tried reading some of their shit and it makes no sense to me what so ever

C'mon now! Plato was one of the greats! His influence on early christian philosophy makes him hugely relevant in modern times! His philosophical thoughts have influenced thinkers for over two thousand years, and that makes him required reading.

 

[Demiurge]

I dont think its essential to know of those people if you are interested in philosophy - ive tried reading some of their shit and it makes no sense to me what so ever

I disagree. If you're too lazy or stupid to familiarize yourself with Plato's Republic, which is the introduction to philosophy text, then you're really not cut out for this sort of thing.

I believe he had dismissed a lot of what he had said, in later years.

The Laws is a discussion of a state that could be realized, The Republic describes the ideal state, which is better for Plato than the one in his later work. Even in the Laws, he is not opposed to the noble lie. For instance, The Athenian says that homosexuality, masturbation, and coitus interruptus should be hated by the Gods, as incest is, to prevent them.

The analysis of the decline of the state contained in The Republic still stands as one of the most insightful ever written.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Reading The Republic isn't exactly essential if you're not interested in political science. There are many branches of philosophy which don't touch it and for which Republic would be useless. In the class of essential reading i'd put works like Descartes' meditations, Kant's critique trilogy, and maybe a bit of Nietzsche.

Plato through Socrates has a number of dialogues with a variety of others, but mostly GLuacon, in which, he argues in dialectical fashion and convinces Glaucon or other characters, of the veracity and validity of his claims.

What annoyed me about this was Glaucon's passivity. It was more like Socrates' monologue than a dialogue. I view the socratic method as where there is actually a conversation - Crito etc, not just one-sided ranting. In the end it probably helped the flow of the text.

The Republic describes the ideal state, which is better for Plato than the one in his later work.

I haven't read The Laws yet but I thought the state in the Republic could be realised by training philosophers as Guardian rulers. Of course, Socrates says some concessions would need to be made.

I would have liked more discussion on the third class of workers and how the system of ownership could work when only workers can own property.

Other parts of Plato's state are fairly odd too. He argues that lying is wrong...except when a philosopher is lying. Example...eugenics. In Plato's ideal state, breeding would be selective. It would take part in the form of a random lottery, pairing up peope to breed (before their children were taken off to be educated and never know their parents...Plato really didn't like the idea of a 'family', it might get in the way of obedience to the state). Except...it wouldn't actually be a lottery. It would be fixed by philosophers to pick the best people to create the best child and let others die out. Early forms of Mein Campf really.

I'm not sure about this. In Ancient Greece there would have been Greeks, who were the only free citizens. I thought the eugenics Plato spoke of was designed to breed the best children suitable for a particular role (Auxiliary, Ruler or worker). It wasn't meant to breed a superior race. Anyway, it's clear Plato didn't understand genetics - he spoke of the best age for breeding which would produce the best children, a completely irrelevant factor.

I was also surprised at his relatively egalitarian treatment of women, by allowing them the same roles as men in war and civil life.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Nietzche is such a superior philosopher that he totally demolishes all other philosophers in my opinion. Nietzche sees idealism as being like a false wishful thinking, and in opposition to reality.

"Plato is a coward in the face of reality - consequently he flees into the ideal".

Nietzche prefers the ancient Roman philosophers to the ancient Greeks.
"The philosophers are the decadents of Hellenism, the counter-movement against the old, the noble taste". He says they are also against race and authority of tradition.

 

[Demiurge]

Reading The Republic isn't exactly essential if you're not interested in political science. There are many branches of philosophy which don't touch it and for which Republic would be useless.

The work in question is massively concerned with ethics and epistemology.

I haven't read The Laws yet but I thought the state in the Republic could be realised by training philosophers as Guardian rulers.

The relationship between the Laws and Republic is nebulous. I cannot say that I have the definitive answer. Some say that at the time he wrote The Republic, he had no intention of seeing it implemented. Others that his experiences with Dionysus II changed his ideas about what sort of state would be practical. A sticking point in the debate is the meaning of the line "Anyone who uses reason and experience will recognize that a second-best city is to be constructed" taken from The Laws. By the way, I doubt you'd like it from what you've said. It is his driest work and is basically a monologue. Far moreso than The Republic, even, which has sections of debate. It is strictly political.

Nietzche prefers the ancient Roman philosophers to the ancient Greeks.

Some of Nietzsche's favorite philosophers were Presocratics and the Roman tradition is highly dependent upon Hellenism, particularly the Stoics. Mainly, Nietzsche had a problem with Plato's idealism.

 

[speed]

The relationship between the Laws and Republic is nebulous. I cannot say that I have the definitive answer. Some say that at the time he wrote The Republic, he had no intention of seeing it implemented. Others that his experiences with Dionysus II changed his ideas about what sort of state would be practical. A sticking point in the debate is the meaning of the line "Anyone who uses reason and experience will recognize that a second-best city is to be constructed" taken from The Laws. By the way, I doubt you'd like it from what you've said. It is his driest work and is basically a monologue. Far moreso than The Republic, even, which has sections of debate. It is strictly political.

Some of Nietzsche's favorite philosophers were Presocratics and the Roman tradition is highly dependent upon Hellenism, particularly the Stoics. Mainly, Nietzsche had a problem with Plato's idealism.

I've read Plato wrote the Republic in response to the Athenian state's sham trial of Socrates. Although, Plato was not present during Socrates death, nor was requested by Socrates when he died. Socrates' own thoughts are apparently not in line with Plato's, as ancient commentators writing during the period and right after, commented at what a shame it was for Plato to be tarnishing Socrates' name as his mouthpiece.

And I thought Plato had written the Republic before he went to Syracuse, not after?

Norsemaiden, I do find it interesting that you refuse to read Plato due to the critical thoughts of one philosopher. Surely, even if you agree with him, it is better to know thy philosophical enemy?

However, as a great lover of Friedrich, I have found that this early and somewhat hard to find work by Nietszche explains much of his later writings, especially his views on Ancient Greek philosophy: It's called Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.htm

 

[Demiurge]

I've read Plato wrote the Republic in response to the Athenian state's sham trial of Socrates. Although, Plato was not present during Socrates death, nor was requested by Socrates when he died. Socrates' own thoughts are apparently not in line with Plato's, as ancient commentators writing during the period and right after, commented at what a shame it was for Plato to be tarnishing Socrates' name as his mouthpiece.

And I thought Plato had written the Republic before he went to Syracuse, not after?

Right. He went to Syracuse after he had written the Republic. I wasn't clear enough, but that was my point in that post. He wrote the Laws afterward, when he had soured a bit on human nature. That is one possibility.

 

[speed]

Right. He went to Syracuse after he had written the Republic. I wasn't clear enough, but that was my point in that post. He wrote the Laws afterward, when he had soured a bit on human nature. That is one possibility.

Ah, I took your comments to mean he wrote the Republic after Dionysus; upon rereading it, I can infer it you meant he had written it before, but changed his mind after getting his hands dirty with the tyrant who apparently was smarter than historians give him credit for (since he didnt listen to Plato on how to run a government).

I would also like to point out Norsemaiden (and I must say it is odd to find such a fan of Nietszche in such a comely lass as yourself), that most of Friedrich's philosophy was in response to the Platonic tradition--thus requiring you to understand why Friedrich was such an empassioned crusader against Platonic inspired philosophy. But do read the link to the work I posted.