Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: The Republic

  1. #1

    Default

    For those who have read Plato's "The Republic" what do you think about it? I would like to start a discussion about it.

    There are somethings I don't understand clearly. There are other things that I thought were quite interesting to discuss, like the following;

    In one part Plato says that rulers should not be look upon only for wealth, because that would be like giving the drive seat of a ship to someone that is rich but doesn't know how to sail the ship.

    You understand what I mean?

    So I start thinking... the country is the ship? Who is the sailor driving the ship (country)? Now days the admiral is not really he who sails the ship but who commands the ship. The admiral, as far as I know, tells the driver where to go and he does it. So what does that say about Plato's opinion?

    I hope I'm making sense.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  2. #2

    Default

    :blink :8 :crying :wack
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  3. #3
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    In The Republic Plato talks about an ideal society, bulit in the form of a perfect city. The King - Philosopher (or Philospher - King) would be the ruler, who is the captain of the ship, your admiral, the one who sees what is Good and how Good, a form, an idea, can be translated into this world of imperfection. The soldier class and the people, subdivided into various groups based on their skills, would be the ones to turn into reality the ideas of the King. They would be what you call the driver. The ship is the city, the perfect city, which can only sail right if both the admiral, the Philosopher - King, and the rest of the body of the citizens, mutimple drivers, if you will, can work toghether.


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  4. #4
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default

    Two excellent topics in two days, that's 100% Jesus... :happy

    Well, first of all Plato's system does not accept movement or for that evolution. So when he refers to a ship, never imagine something like a trip. For Plato there is no choice of course. There is one course or no course;since the ships sails on the "ideal" course or...or there is no ship but a distorted resemblance of one(the imperfect city) As MoROmeTe the Dacian very well says, the King is the ruler. He is the interpreter of the reflection of the Idea and the one qualified and entrusted to steer the ship on the only course. I have then to disagree with MoROmeTe the Dacian, on the "working together" part. The ierarchy is pre-defined, and the only form of co-operation is the conformity to the command of the ruler.

    To answer your question I think it would be a disservice to your attempt to understand Plato if you simply dismiss him as authoritarian. Change in Plato is not bad or "should be avoided". Since the world is a reflection of a perfect order, change is impossible. This is the self imposed constrain of Plato and in this frame he should be approached.

  5. #5
    Nihil's Avatar Annihilationist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    2,221

    Default

    I think you probably should have called this thread "Plato's Republic", so that people won't overlook it. There are quite a few people around who would probably be interested in discussing the book here, myself included.

    However, if you haven't finished it yet, I don't want to influence your interpretation with what I might have to say...

    Why don't you bring up the subjects you would like to discuss with us as you encounter them? I think MoROmeTe the Dacian and Garbarsardar explained the ship analogy pretty well.
    Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit.
    Acting Paterfamilias of House Rububula
    Former Patron of the retired Atheist Peace
    Current Lineup: Jesus The Inane, PacSubCom, Last Roman, Evariste, I Have a Clever Name, Gabriella26, Markas and Katrina

  6. #6
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    It is a sort of working toghether, although in a fashion that does not imply much else than obeying the King. Fact is that all those involved in the city, in fact, all the citizens, as women and slaves were not counted among the citizens, were in a position to do something about the well being of the city. Good, as an idea, could only be transformed into good, as a reality, be it a political reality, through the concerted actions of the whole corps of the citizens, albeit under the control or supervision of the Philosopher - King. In fact the King was always right, cause he had an intimate knowledge of the Ideas, so it was not a question of obeying him. He was evidently right, so no one needed to disagree. We have to remember that this is an utopinan scenario, the first, actually.


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  7. #7

    Default

    Ok, let me see if I got it right; Admiral; King (or kings, couldn't there be many philosophers?), driver; Army, police, law enforcers. Ship; Country, city, state...

    But then he said that the king needed to be educated, but really didn't need to be rich. So, how could the admiral of the ship provide for the crew, if he wasn't rich? How could he give food etc etc to the crew? just realize that he could do it by fishing (farming)... ehm, now I understand. But how can we take this in this days? I mean, all the senators and presidents are rich... does being rich mean that you have the necessary education to be a president?

    Lets say a poor guy has a lot of education and knowledge and knows a lot about philosophy -- could he be president? If not, why not?

    "However, if you haven't finished it yet, I don't want to influence your interpretation with what I might have to say..."

    Well, just finished reading the book. However, its not my book, its my teacher's book, so I don't know for how long I'll have it with me, maybe one more week, in which time I'll look somethings up and ask questions about it.

    "I think you probably should have called this thread 'Plato's Republic'"

    Too bad I can't do anything about it now...

    "Well, first of all Plato's system does not accept movement or for that evolution. So when he refers to a ship, never imagine something like a trip. For Plato there is no choice of course. There is one course or no course;since the ships sails on the "ideal" course or...or there is no ship but a distorted resemblance of one(the imperfect city)"

    Ah, I understand Plato better now. So everything we have is the result from the corruption of the Perfect everything? Like things got worse... ? So by looking at how things are now, we can come up with how the "ideal" world should be? Interesting. that makes sense, thats why he starts talking about the other types of States in his book... so he thought the Spartans were the second best? Interesting.

    "To answer your question I think it would be a disservice to your attempt to understand Plato if you simply dismiss him as authoritarian. Change in Plato is not bad or "should be avoided". Since the world is a reflection of a perfect order, change is impossible. This is the self imposed constrain of Plato and in this frame he should be approached."

    So the ideal state can't never be in this world? If change is impossible, how can democracy change to tyranny? or you mean that the ideal state can't never change and so we can hold that as an Eternal Truth?

    As for being authoritarian, his arguments are quite good. Being an authoritarian maybe its not that bad... even all that about killing the babies or abolishing the family makes sense and seems good.

    Another question I got is this, I had the impression that Plato put the State (country) as, how to say?, number one? meaning that being patriotic could not be a bad thing? Meaning that that is the meaning of life? to work for the country and put the country above yourself?
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  8. #8
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Let's put some things in perspective...
    Ideas, or Forms, are perfect. The most important of them all is Good. They do not exist in what we would call reality, but rather are ideals that only a philosopher can know and understand. Reality is corrupt copy of the Forms or Ideas. Reality cannot be perfect, but it can approach perfection. What The Republic is describing is a perfect state, a perfect city, that is an Idea, a Form, one which has no correpondent on Earth.
    In reality he distinguishes 4 political systems. Aristocracy, oligarchy, tyrrany, democracy. That's the order of their value. Democracies are the worst in Plato's view, and he gives very compellling reasons for it. Aristocracies, by his definition, are the best system that actually exists. Evolution is improbable, devolution is very much probable. That is to say that one can go from oligarchy to tyrrany, but one is unlikely to go from oligarchy to aristocracy. Sparta was looked upon as a model by Plato, but a model not an Idea.
    Change is only possible in reality. In the perfect state/city change would not be necesarry. After all, we are talking about the perfect city or state. Why would such a city need to change?
    About richeness... The Philosopher - King does not provide for the masses. The massses provinde for themselves. What the King does, he only says what is do be done and his voice is law, because he is the one in contact with the Ideas. Plato says only one King can exist. And being rich or knowing philosophy does not have anything to do with being King. The Philospher _king is more than a philosopher and more than a leader, he is a connection to the Ideas, he is a connection to perfection in a human form and as such he has the natural right to lead the city.
    Hope this clears things up a little... Anymore questions/ideas feel free to post...


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  9. #9

    Default

    "Ideas, or Forms, are perfect. The most important of them all is Good. They do not exist in what we would call reality,"
    Why would Good be the most important?

    rather are ideals that only a philosopher can know and understand.
    why only a philosopher? the idea of the perfect desk could dwell in a low life peasant... ?

    "Reality cannot be perfect"

    IF reality became perfect it would no longer be reality right?

    So the king could be describe as some kind of demi-god? or having supernatural powers? How could he come to be? And when he died, who would take over?

    I am kind of confuse but I'm slowly understanding.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  10. #10
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    No demi god, he was just better from birth than other people at understanding the Ideas. When he died it is considered, although I believe Plato never explicitly sais so, that he would have named a succesor. One of similar capacities and training.
    Plato divides man into three categories (uf, let's see if I get it right): Men of gold, whose souls are close to the Ideas and who can become Kings and can lead men, Men of silver, with souls better suited for practical purposes, from warfare to trade and other useful enterprises, and Men of copper, those that could only be citizens of low rank. No amount of education could chance the condition given by birth. So, only men of gold trained by others like them could become King.
    No supernatural powers, no other tricks, just a better understanding of the Ideas.
    IF I getting alog this wrong plase someone correct me...


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  11. #11
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default

    MoROmeTe the Dacian: you are .doing fine, although I'm not familiar with the English terms, I do not see any discrepancy from what I remember. Let me just say that the "understanding" of the ideas, is a matter of similtude, since understanding, involves a kind of progress towards the idea. which in Plato is not possible.

  12. #12
    smack's Avatar Complaints Department
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,535

    Default


    "Reality cannot be perfect"

    IF reality became perfect it would no longer be reality right?
    This is why I think "The Republic" should really be read after a few other works by Plato. I remember thinking something similar like: "Is this guy for real? What half-baked Utopian Fool!"

    One must understand that for Plato, the most real things are the perfect forms. They do not exist in physical reality. For instance, a man. Even the most Good man still isn't the perfect man. Its not achievable for an individual, by Plato's reasoning.

    The perfect city-state isn't achievable either. If somehow one did achieve it, it would still be separate from it's metaphysical Form, or ideal.

    I still think "The Republic" is bunk, but there are thought-provoking ideas in it, which is perhaps Plato's intention, rather than setting down anything more absolute.... My advice? Move on from Plato as quickly as possible! The next few philosophers offer up quite a feast compared with that nutter Plato.

    In patronicum svb: Spartan
    Patronum celcum quo: teecee, Old Celt, SigniferOne
    If you dare: My Journal or If you care: The Price Tag

  13. #13
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default

    Please, don't bash poor good ol' harmless Plato.
    He was a nutter of sorts, but a honest one at that. And I think you need to go through Plato if you want to understand the reactions of the sophists, and the Aristoteleian positions.
    Plus he had his very good moments:

    "I will amend this defect; and first of all I would tell you which Love is deserving of praise, and then try to hymn the praiseworthy one in a manner worthy of him. For we all know that Love is inseparable from Aphrodite, and if there were only one Aphrodite there would be only one Love; but as there are two goddesses there must be two Loves. And am I not right in asserting that there are two goddesses? The elder one, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite-she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione-her we call common; and the Love who is her fellow-worker is rightly named common, as the other love is called heavenly. All the gods ought to have praise given to them, but not without distinction of their natures; and therefore I must try to distinguish the characters of the two Loves. Now actions vary according to the manner of their performance. Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise."

    I mean, have you heard a better argument for a rawdy night out with the mates?

    and especially when he refered to Socrates:

    "I may touch you," he said, "and have the benefit of that wise thought which came into your mind in the portico, and is now in your possession; for I am certain that you would not have come away until you had found what you sought." How I wish, said Socrates, taking his place as he was desired, that wisdom could be infused by touch, out of the fuller the emptier man, as water runs through wool out of a fuller cup into an emptier one; if that were so, how greatly should I value the privilege of reclining at your side! For you would have filled me full with a stream of wisdom plenteous and fair; whereas my own is of a very mean and questionable sort, no better than a dream.

  14. #14

    Default

    Plato describe the ideal society as being run/ruled by philosophers, perhaps he should have come to ancient Britain where he would have found a society run by philosophers i.e. the druids! Shame they were warlike though – but perhaps that was necessary for the time. The thing is - would not philosophers give us less straight answers to what we get now?
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  15. #15

    Default

    Plato listed a heirarchy of Forms. His system of forms works in a very interesting way.

    A simplified version is; if you look at an Alsation and then at a Jack Russel then you will see two completely different creatures, yet there is something about them that lets us know that they're both dogs. If you compare a willow to an oak, they're very different but there's something that makes them both trees.

    Plato wrote that somewhere there must be the Form, a tree in its ultimate state of perfection (as you mentioned before) and that the trees we see are just based off that template. Not identical, and not perfect.

    Plato didn't just stop at physical objects though. He looked at abstract things as well. There are many beautiful women, but they do not all look alike. There must then be an ultimate beauty, a perfection that these women imitate but do not achieve.

    Plato looked at the word 'good' and at what it could mean. Good can be used to describe a knife, or a cat. But if used to describe a knife, good would mean sharp, strong, stainless steel and so on. None of these attributes make for a good cat however. Plato then theorised that there must be a Form of Good, an ultimate and perfect good from which all other forms are achieved; beauty, trees, cats and so on.

    Good was at the top of this heirarchy and (I'm pretty sure this is right. Bear in mind I haven't studied Plato in a [I]long[/I} time) was treated almost like a deity.

    Hope thats a little handy
    Humble on Appearance

  16. #16
    smack's Avatar Complaints Department
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Originally posted by Garbarsardar@May 22 2005, 01:01 AM
    "... and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise."
    Plato, that sweet talking rogue :><

    I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don&#39;t find much to love in Plato, but others certainly do. I just don&#39;t find him that interesting for asking and answering the &#39;existence&#39; types of questions Jesus the Inane is after.

    In patronicum svb: Spartan
    Patronum celcum quo: teecee, Old Celt, SigniferOne
    If you dare: My Journal or If you care: The Price Tag

  17. #17

    Default

    Well I think I understand now... (quick ask me a question to see if I really do understand him)

    What are the differences in beliefs between Plato and Aristotle? Who do you fancy more?
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  18. #18
    smack's Avatar Complaints Department
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Plato vs. Aristotle: Aristotle wins. But of course they are both valuable, and many of their groundbreaking topics are in different areas.
    Free Essay
    The History of Epistemological Warfare: Plato vs. Aristotle
    etc.. etc.. :8

    In patronicum svb: Spartan
    Patronum celcum quo: teecee, Old Celt, SigniferOne
    If you dare: My Journal or If you care: The Price Tag

  19. #19
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Aristotle vs. Plato? It is odd to pit two philosophers against another, but let me say Plato all the way. Aristotle is just a reality oriented little pragmatic (all right, don;t jump on me, I&#39;n vilgarizing) while Plato tries to deal with the absolute (Forms and Ideas). Even though for that age I think Heraclit and Parmenides rule, especially the latter.


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  20. #20

    Default

    Thanks for the links Smack. :grin
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •