So I've been on a philosophy kick lately, and I've realized that it is fruitful to read several works of philosophy in a row like this, because it helps you make connections between different thinkers and even eras in order to see the influences and developments of the form over time. And perhaps there is no philosopher more influential than Plato.

I had recently read Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," for example, and could appreciate how his understanding of Plato informed his concept of the State. "The Republic" is perhaps where Plato's analysis of the ideal State is most concentrated.

Now, if you are not already familiar with "The Republic," you may start reading this and think to yourself, "Wait! Socrates wrote this? I thought it was Plato!" Well that's because Plato conceived this as a dialogue between his mentor Socrates and a group of Athenians at a festival. The setup is that Socrates is hanging out drinking with some buddies and everyone starts pressing him with intellectual questions.

Not cool! One Mardi Gras, I ended up hanging out with Trent Reznor on Magazine Street during the Thoth parade, and the last thing I wanted to do was aggravate him by talking shop when the guy is just trying to have a good time. Similarly, I would not have wanted HIM to start asking me questions about the mole on his back or whether his "friend" was on the right antidepressants. And certainly, neither of us were in any shape to engage in critical analysis of the nature of justice.

But Socrates takes it in stride, because Socrates will do what Socrates does! And at every party, there's always some ass who is an obnoxious drunk. Enter Thrasymachus. I don't know what his problem was. Perhaps he had too much retsina or something, but he is flat out rude to Socrates and seems hell bent on busting his balls. It's actually quite fun reading how Socrates playfully dances around his insults and denegrates himself to to make Thrasymachus think that he is actually educating Socrates. In fact, if you get anything out of reading "The Republic," it will be how to avoid getting in a bar fight.

Seriously, Plato's masterful depiction of the Socratic method is a prototype for what we psychiatrists use to deescalate dangerous situations and also for motivational interviewing. You essentially accept where a person is, then by asking them questions, you have them find their own answers and solutions. Now, the entire content of "The Republic" is pretty much entirely consistent with this kind of dialogue exchange. If I was at a party and some know-it-all was answering every question with a question, I'd be tempted to find some excuse to send him out on a run for more ice or cigarettes--anything to get him to stop with the incessant questions!

At this party, though, there was no Pictionary or Twister, so everyone was perfectly content with playing with Socrates, so that this had to be the most intellectual party in history that didn't involve burning an effigy in front of the statue of some owl god. Topics were quite diverse, including the role of the philosopher and the poet in society. This is where we get Allegory of the Cave, which explains Plato's theory of forms. And being that this was a party, of course the conversation steered to topics like love. But what this book is most known for is its analysis of what the ultimate city-state would look like, concluding with the depiction of the idealized utopia Kallipolis, ruled by philosopher-kings.

Sometimes Plato seems to get a little carried away when building his ideal State. He appears to love censorship, at least among the warrior class, who he calls "guardians," though I think he really meant that term to represent bureaucracy, or the ruling class that has put aside personal feelings for the good of the state. Poetry must follow strict standards to uphold virtues. So poems would not be allowed that depicted heroes being scared of death. And music would equally be required to be uplifting, decent, and military. For some reason, that equates to only lyres and harps being allowed in the City. Flutes would only be okay if they were played by solo shepherds in the fields where nobody could hear them. Geez! What about triangles? I love the triangle! He even goes so far as to say that the Dorian and Phrygian are the only decent musical harmonies, and that the Lydian scale, which is "soft and relaxed," should be banished. But that's my favorite scale! Well, I guess I kind of understand not wanting my entire police force spending all their time putting tears in their beers, but c'mon, Plato! Lighten up!

Therein lies my main problem with "The Republic". It doesn't seem like a utopia to me, but rather totalitarian. Though Socrates believed in social mobility, and that all people are brothers and sisters, Plato has him advocating for strict class systems each doing their particular part for the health of the State organism. Any kind of dishonesty would be strictly punished, except of course for the ruling class, who are allowed to lie if it is for the benefit of the State. And chronically ill people who cannot fulfill the obligations of their occupation should not be kept alive by physicians, because they are of no use to the State and thus should be removed from the gene pool lest they live on to breed sickly kids. And so on and so forth.

Some scholars have claimed that Plato was trying to be ironic here, but even if that was the case, it is apparent that Plato's tendencies have infiltrated political thought throughout the centuries, at least among elites who think they know better getting together at conferences and think-tanks and having these very kinds of discussions. Supposedly, Plato's depiction of Socrates and his teachings are not representative of his old teacher, who was much more humanitarian.

So no, I would not want to live in Plato's Republic, but perhaps Socrates himself really was a genuinely nice guy, the kind I would gladly have over at my place for a drink any day. Minus the hemlock, of couse.

But you'll just have to check it out for yourself to see what you think. Even if you weren't already assigned it in school, I still say it's required reading.

SCORE: 4 philosopher-kings out of 5

WORD OF THE DAY: Valetudinarian

Sophrosyne and Ataraxia

A seminal work consisting of several dialogues all about the definition of the just, and, more especially, the just City (πολιτεία).

Buddy-read with Matthew Ted - thanks, pal!


Quotes:

HOBBES-LIKE:

'celui qui est en mesure de commettre l'injustice et qui est réellement un homme ne s'engagerait jamais dans une convention pour empêcher de connaître l'injustice et de la subir. Il serait bien fou de le faire.'

'mis à part ceux qu'un naturel divin dégoûte de l'injustice ou encore que l'emprise d'un savoir tient éloignés d'elle, il ne se trouve personne parmi les autres qui soit juste de son plein gré ; et si on blâme l'injustice, c'est que le manque de courage, la vieillesse, ou quelque autre faiblesse rend impuissant à la commettre.'



CONTROL AND CENSORSHIP OF ART:

'— il nous faut donc commencer, semble-t-il, par contrôler les fabricateurs d'histoires. Lorsqu'il en fabrique de bonnes, il faut les retenir, et celles qui ne le sont pas, il faut les rejeter. Nous exhorterons ensuite les nourrices et les mères à raconter aux enfants les histoires que nous aurons choisies et à façonner leurs âmes avec ces histoires.'


RIFTS WITHIN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES/CITIES:

'Chacune d'elles constitue en effet une multiplicité de cités, et non pas une seule cité, selon l'expression des joueurs. Il y en a d'abord deux, quelle que soit la cité, en guerre l'une contre l'autre, la cité des pauvres et la cité des riches. Dans chacune de ces deux cités, il s'en trouve par ailleurs une multiplicité ; si tu les considérais comme une seule, tu te tromperais complètement [...].

'existe-t-il pour la cité un mal plus grand que celui qui la déchire et la morcelle au lieu de l'unifier ? Existe-t-il un plus grand bien que ce qui en assure le lien et l'unité ?

[...] Or, la communauté du plaisir et de la peine lie ensemble, lorsque tous les citoyens se réjouissent ou s'affligent autant que possible de la même manière de leurs gains ou de leurs pertes'


DIVISION OF WORK/SPECIALISATION:

'quand il s'agit de contribuer à l'excellence de la cité, un compétiteur qui entre en rivalité avec sa sagesse, sa modération et son courage, c'est la capacité pour chacun de ceux qui résident dans la cité de s'occuper de sa tâche propre.'

'que l'homme juste n'autorise aucune partie de lui-même à réaliser des tâches qui lui sont étrangères, [...] qu'il se dirige lui-même et s'ordonne lui-même, qu'il devienne ami pour lui-même, [...] qu'il lie ensemble tous ces principes de manière à devenir, lui qui a une constitution plurielle, un être entièrement unifié, modéré et en harmonie.'

'tu as oublié qu'il n'importe pas à la loi qu'une classe particulière de la cité atteigne au bonheur de manière distinctive, mais que la loi veut mettre en œuvre les choses de telle manière que cela se produise dans la cité tout entière, en mettant les citoyens en harmonie par la persuasion et la nécessité, et en faisant en sorte que tous offrent les uns aux autres les services dont chacun est capable [...].'


EDUCATIONAL POLICIES:

'affirmons-nous donc également que les âmes douées des meilleurs naturels, si elles subissent une mauvaise éducation, deviendront particulièrement mauvaises ? Ou alors crois-tu que les grandes injustices et la perversité pure soient le fait d'une âme médiocre, et non pas d'une âme vigoureuse gâtée par les conditions de son milieu de croissance ?'

'Ils prendraient la cité et les caractères des êtres humains comme une tablette à esquisser, dis-je, et en premier lieu, ils la nettoyeraient, ce qui déjà n'est pas facile. Mais tu vois dès lors qu'ils seraient, ce faisant, très différents des autres, du simple fait de refuser de s'engager à rédiger des lois pour une cité [...] avant de l'avoir reçue propre, ou d'avoir opéré ce nettoyage eux-mêmes.'

'Ceux qui dans la cité, dis-je, auront de fait dépassé l'âge de dix ans, [les vrais philosophes] les enverront tous à la campagne, et ils protègeront leurs propres enfants des mœurs de l'époque actuelle, qui sont justement les mœurs de leurs parents, et ils les élèveront selon leurs propres conceptions et selon leurs lois.'
[ce qui n'est pas sans rappeler la Révolution culturelle chinoise par certains côtés]


TYRANY:

'ils vivent toute leur vie sans jamais être les amis de personne, ils sont toujours les maîtres ou les esclaves de quelqu'un d'autre. Car pour ce qui est de la liberté et de l'amitié véritables, la nature tyrannique ne les goûtera jamais.'


Controversial themes:

- Unvoluntary evil thesis

- Eugenics

'[Asclépios] n'a pas pensé qu'il fallait soigner celui qui n'était pas en mesure de vivre une vie d'une durée normale, parce que cela ne présente aucun intérêt ni pour lui ni pour la cité.'

'Quant à ceux qui ne sont pas bien dotés, dans le cas de ceux qui ne disposent pas d'une bonne constitution physique, on leur permettra de mourir, et dans le cas de ceux qui sont dans leur âme d'un naturel vicié et qui sont inguérissables, ces magistrats les feront mourir eux-mêmes.'


- Equation of right, just and beauty:

'Cela montre combien sot est celui qui trouve ridicule autre chose que ce qui est mal, également celui qui entreprend de faire rire en tournant en ridicule tout autre spectacle que ce qui est insensé et mauvais, et de la même manière, pour ce qui est de la vision du beau, également sot celui qui tend tous ses efforts en se déterminant vers tout autre but que le bien.'

'posons que tous les experts en poésie, à commencer par Homère, sont des imitateurs des simulacres de la vertu et de tous les autres simulacres qui inspirent leurs compositions poétiques, et qu'ils n'atteignent pas la vérité.'

Cf Nietzsche
'The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life- preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live--that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.'

[F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.]

---
Suggestions:

Ancient Greece (fiction):
Lysistrata
The Symposium

History of Ancient Greece:
Sparte - Histoire politique et sociale jusqu'à la conquête romaine
L'univers, les dieux, les hommes

Modern and contemporary politics:
La rebelión de las masas
Capital and Ideology
Interventionism: An Economic Analysis

Essays:
Race et histoire
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals

Other fictions:
The Martian Chronicles

n  Is the attempt to determine the way of man’s life so small a matter in your eyes—to determine how life may be passed by each one of us to the greatest advantage? (1.344d)


I propose therefore that we inquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them. (2.368e—369a)n

n  The Republic: An Apologyn

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” 

~ Alfred North Whitehead

The Famous Republic

'The Republic' is either reverenced, reviled or just plain ignored. Though it keeps resurfacing, it has been pushed back often, being accused of bigotry, racism, elitism, casteism, anti-democratic nature, the list is endless. But it is beyond doubt, one of the preeminent philosophical works and has been quoted, referenced or adapted by almost all of the major thinkers since.

The ideas of Socrates have had an afterlife that is as long and varied as the thousand year journey envisioned for souls in the famous Story of Er. It is impossible to catalogue the full list of impacts but Whitehead's quote (introductory to this review) gives adequate flavor. The practical influence of Republic is more difficult to gauge than its impact on the theorizing of later thinkers - over the centuries, individuals have discovered in Plato’s works the inspiration for undertaking political or social or educational reform and have used it as the springboard for much revolutionary thought, and deeds.

Republic has inspired in addition to all the expository analysis, also countless creative interpretations, which have shaped our vision of future possibilities, limits and of extremities. Many depictions of both utopian societies and their dystopian counterparts, ranging from Thomas More’s Utopia to Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver's Travels to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World to George Orwell’s 1984, have their roots in the ideal city brought to life by Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. Contemporary films such as Gattaca and The Matrix may not owe direct inspiration to Republic, but they participate in a long tradition of artistic works that ultimately trace their concerns back to the political, social, and metaphysical issues raised in Republic.

But in spite of all this, the original work retains a reputation for being difficult and hard to penetrate. This has meant that the scholars have more or less appropriated this brilliantly composed treatise, and that is a pity. There is great suspense in every page as you eagerly try to work your way through Socrates’ arguments… anticipating now, guessing now, failing now, but always on the edge of your seats at the sparkle of his wit and wisdom. The dialogues are constructed with an almost unbelievable care and subtlety. The drama is breathtaking and all-pervading, even in the stock responses to theoretical or rhetorical questions. One is never allowed to sit and absorb passively, but is forced to constantly interact with the dialogue. It is as much fun to read as a Shakespearean drama.

The Offensive Republic

Now, to examine some of the reasons why The Republic offends modern sensibilities:

Much of the contemporary discomfort with Plato’s state arises from his countenancing of censorship, a rigid caste system, etc. But these are in a way unfortunate misunderstandings. A close reading of the text would make clear that these catch-all descriptions of Plato’s state are not as representative as they are made out to be. For example, the caste system that is first to get blamed is hardly a rigid hereditary system, but a strict meritocratic system that is much more equal than anything that we have seen till date. It involves a strict battery of tests (similar to the aptitude tests of today) based on which every individual is to be judged (and opponents of IQ tests may relax - these are meant to be much more practical examinations).

Also, the popular rendering of the title as “The Republic” itself is unfortunate, giving it an obvious political and ideological overtone. In the manuscripts and ancient citations, the title of Republic is given as Politeia (“Constitution”) or Politeiai (“Constitutions”); Peri dikaiou (literally, “concerning that which is just”) is sometimes listed as an alternative title.

The Misunderstood Republic

I had planned on giving a blow by blow defense of the most reviled aspects of The Republic, but that is not the point I wish to make here. The primary mistake in criticizing The Republic is to assume that it was meant to be a political treatise in the first place. It is not. The whole argument begins from a question of identifying what ‘Justice’ is and whether it is beneficial to live a ‘Just Life’. This is the crux. ‘Why’ and ‘How’ to be Just and ‘What’ is this “Justice’ anyway? That is what Socrates wants to explore. He takes detours in this exploration. He uses metaphors - of State (as larger manifestation), of Caves, etc. But they all lead us back to the same basic question.

To identify this basic concern, we need only look at the complex structure of the dialogue itself. Republic’s “narrative” is structured in an almost circular pattern. This circular pattern is complex, evoking the narrative patterns of epic poems such as Iliad and Odyssey. Most basically, the dialogue’s two main concerns (defining justice and ascertaining its relationship to happiness) are treated in two corresponding sections (books 2-4 and books 8-9) that are interrupted by what is nominally a series of digressions in books 5-7, and 10. These nominal digressions, of course, create the dialogue’s most memorable metaphors, but they are meant to be digressions that add to the core. Not the other way around.

At its most basic level, Republic is an effort to forge a consistent and meaningful redefinition of “Justice”. The aretê that is explored lies in nothing outward, but rests solely in the mature reason and regard for what is beneficial to the soul. Not all the details in these allegories stand up to logical analysis, but they are not meant to.

This is made clear by the fact that The Republic’s interlocutors repeatedly draw attention to the incomplete, provisional, and at times unsatisfactory nature of their treatment of justice, happiness, the ideal political community, the theory of the ideas, the cognitive faculties of human beings, etc. The inadequacy of “the method we are employing” is acknowledged at 4.435c-d, at 6.504b-d and in many other places.



The Personal Constitution: A Constitution of the Perfect Life

The Perfect State sketched out (which is the stub of almost all criticism) is only an approximation devised to arrive at the Perfect Man, and that is why the so called bad aspects can be deemed acceptable. The mistake, as stated already, is to see it as a purely political treatise while it is in fact a treatise on justice and how to live the perfect life - the ‘Constitution’ of a perfect life.

n  

"He will look at the city which is within him, and take heed that no disorder occur in it, such as might arise either from superfluity or from want; and upon this principle he will regulate his property and gain or spend according to his means."

n
In the end, the state is not fleshed out enough to really form a complete constitution for any state that can exist in reality (and not just as an idea). But the psychological part (it is curious how this part has generated so much less criticism, in comparison) is - we return in the end (and all the way in between) to the original question of how an individual should order his life - what his virtues should be. It is a political critique piggy-backing on a  personal enquiry and hence any commentary of it cannot treat them differently. Censorship, slaves, aristocracy are all wonderful aspects in an individual but not palatable in a state (to modern eyes). Hence, we can only criticize that the greater to smaller equality is not well realized (i.e. from state => individual). But then Socrates, as above, is always eager to make the point about the provisional nature of his metaphor which is only meant to incite thinking and not as an answer - that is just not the way to deal with true lovers of truth, with true philosophers.

[Cheeky counterproposal by the reviewer's alter-ego: “Or all the personal stuff is just a convenient cloak for the political criticism that is the real purpose! After all, we cannot forget the historical milieu in which Plato composed it. He had enough axes to grind!”]

Indeed, the more we approach certain aspects of the text from analytic and conceptual standpoints, the more we find that Socrates and his companions make innumerable assumptions and leaps of logic that is not satisfactory or fully justified. Each of these can be fairly scrutinized and contested, and have been. We may raise any number of questions about its relevance to our experiences and value systems. Much of Republic, especially its political philosophy, argument for Censorship and Social structuring, is at odds with modern ideals; some readers will doubtless be dissatisfied with, among other things, its unapologetic elitism and naive (almost laughable) confidence in the integrity of “philosopher-rulers.” Some, however, may find that its critique of ancient Athenian society opens the door to meaningful questions about contemporary cultural practices and priorities. And even more meaningful questions on how to organize our inner impulses and constitution.

Philosopher, Be Thyself

We need to understand that the Platonic Dialogues, in principle, are not meant to represent a simple doctrine that can be followed, they instead are meant to prepare the way for philosophizing. They are not easy guide books to follow. They require work from the reader, above and beyond the ideas presented. That is one of the reasons for the dialogue nature in which they are structured. Plato’s overarching purpose in writing the Republic was to effect a change in his readers similar to the change that Glaucon and Adeimantus undergo at Socrates’ hands in the fictional world of the dialogue. This purpose can be summed up in the word protreptic, from the Greek protrepein, which means “turn (someone) forward,” hence “propel,” “urge on,” “exhort.” Plato uses literary art, which in his case includes but is not limited to philosophical argument, to move his reader toward a greater readiness to adopt a just way of life.

The dialogues are thus intended to perform the function of a living teacher who makes his students think. One must philosophize to understand them. One must look at the microcosm of the dialogues as well as the macrocosm of the world that we inhabit simultaneously to understand them. It is in this process that the dialogues assist, insist and themselves provide a training in.

We can only conclude by asking questions, in the true spirit of the dialectic method:

n  Can we then say that we are convinced, that justice, as defined by Socrates, is something intrinsically valuable? Are we convinced that the just man can be “happy” even if he does not enjoy a reputation for justice, nor any other material benefit, in this life or after?n

OR

n  Have Socrates and his companions persuaded us that the ideal city-state they describe in Republic is truly the best political community possible? Do we believe that Socrates himself thinks so? Is that what we take away from such a deep examination of how to live our lives? Or do we let the Story of Er guide us back to the truer motives of the interlocutors?n

n  "I really do not know as yet, but whither the argument may blow, thither we go."n

4,5 ⭐️

Platons Der Staat ist ein fundamentales Werk der westlichen Philosophie, das in seiner Komplexität und Weitsicht weit über seine Entstehungszeit hinausgeht. Durch die Dialogform – primär zwischen Sokrates und verschiedenen Gesprächspartnern – entfaltet Platon eine umfassende und tiefgehende Analyse der Gerechtigkeit, der idealen Gesellschaft und des Verhältnisses zwischen Individuum und Staat.

Ein zentrales Thema des Werkes ist die Frage nach der Gerechtigkeit, die Platon nicht nur als individuelle Tugend sondern als Prinzip einer gerechten Gesellschaft betrachtet. Diese gesellschaftliche Gerechtigkeit erreicht er durch die Idee einer klaren sozialen Ordnung, in der jede Klasse ihre spezifische Rolle erfüllt – die Herrscher, die Wächter und die Produzenten. Diese Aufteilung wird durch den Gedanken getragen, dass der Staat nur dann gerecht ists wenn jeder Einzelne nach seiner Begabung und seinem Wissensstand handelt. Die Vision einer idealen Gesellschaft ist dabei stark an das Konzept der Tugend und der Erziehung gebunden.

Das berühmt gewordene Höhlengleichnis, eines der philosophischen Meisterwerke des antiken Denkens, illustriert Platon’s Verständnis von Erkenntnis und Wahrheit. In der Höhle gefangene Menschen, die nur die Schatten der Realität sehen, stellen eine Metapher für die menschliche Wahrnehmung dar, die von Unwissenheit und Täuschung geprägt ist. Der befreite Gefangene, der das wahre Licht der Sonne – das Wissen – erblickt, verkörpert den Philosophen, der in der Lage ist, die wahren Ideen zu erkennen und sie mit der Gesellschaft zu teilen.

Trotz seiner tiefgründigen Überlegungen hat Der Staat aus heutiger Sicht einige problematische Aspekte. Platons Vision eines Philosophenkönigs, der als unumschränkter Herrscher über den Staat wacht, ist autoritär und steht in krassem Gegensatz zu modernen Vorstellungen von Demokratie und politischer Freiheit. Auch seine Ablehnung der Demokratie, die er als eine Form der Regierung ansieht, die von Unwissenheit und dem Streben nach persönlichem Gewinn geprägt ist, lässt ihn als antidemokratischen Denker erscheinen. Zudem ist seine Gesellschaftsordnung ausgesprochen rigide: Die Strenge in der sozialen Mobilität und die Zensur von Kunst und Literatur, die er vorschlägt, wirken für den modernen Leser verstörend und undemokratisch.

Die anspruchsvolle Struktur und die philosophische Dichte der Dialoge können ö eine Herausforderung darstellen. Platon argumentiert manchmal mit Wiederholungen und Überbetonung, was den Dialog teils langatmig erscheinen lässt. Dennoch bleibt das Werk trotz dieser stilistischen Eigenheiten eine der bedeutendsten philosophischen Abhandlungen aller Zeiten, deren Einfluss auf die politische Theorie und die westliche Philosophie nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden kann.

Abschließend lässt sich sagen, dass Der Staat ein faszinierendes, aber auch kontroverses Werk ist. Es fordert zu einer intensiven Auseinandersetzung mit grundlegenden Fragen der Gerechtigkeit und der politischen Ordnung heraus. Trotz der antidemokratischen Tendenzen und der problematischen gesellschaftlichen Strukturen bleibt es ein unverzichtbares Werk, das durch seine intellektuelle Tiefe und seine Fähigkeit, grundlegende Fragen der Menschheit zu adressieren, auch heute noch von enormer Relevanz ist.

I’ve gotten into the habit of dividing up the books I’ve read by whether I read them before or after Plato’s Republic. Before The Republic, reading was a disorganized activity—much the same as wading through a sea of jumbled thoughts and opinions. I had no basis from which to select books, except by how much they appealed to my naïve tastes. But after reading The Republic, it was as if the entire intellectual landscape was put into perspective. Reading became a focused activity, meant to engage with certain questions.

“Question” is the key word here because, in the end, that’s what Plato is all about: asking the right questions, the important questions. All academic disciplines are organized around a few basic questions—“what is the nature of human cognition?” “what are the fundamental laws of the universe?”—and in The Republic, Plato touches on almost every one of them. That’s why shelving the book in the philosophy section doesn’t quite do it justice. An exhaustive list of the disciplines touched upon in this dialogue would be massive—epistemology, metaphysics, psychology, eschatology, political science, economics, art, literature, music. In fact, it would be easier naming disciplines that aren’t touched upon.

That’s how Plato lit up the intellectual landscape for me. By posing these questions in their most basic forms, and attempting answers, he makes it clear which questions are the important ones in life, and how difficult they are to answer. And that’s why Plato’s Republic is the quintessential classic. It has everything a classic should have—a unique perspective, brilliant ideas, engagement with perennial issues, and a charming writing style. It is the greatest book of perhaps the Western tradition’s greatest thinker. I don’t care who you are—you should read it.

Nevertheless, there are some perplexing and frustrating things about Plato. For one, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out where Plato stands in relation to his work. Unlike almost every later philosopher, Plato didn’t write didactic works. He puts his ideas—sometimes conflicting ideas—into the mouths of the people of his day. The result is a kind of double confusion. To what extent are the ideas expressed by Socrates actually Socrates’s? To what extent are they Plato’s? To what extent are they anyone’s? Perhaps Plato was just fond of playing intellectual games and creating philosophical pocket dramas.

Added to this is a kind of subtle irony that creeps up in several of his dialogues. In Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates complain about the evils of writing; yet Plato obviously loved to write. One of Plato’s most influential ideas is his theory of forms; yet one of the most influential arguments against the theory was put forward by Plato himself. In The Republic, as well as elsewhere, Plato repeatedly equates knowledge with goodness, and falsity with evil; yet he proposes to found his entire utopia on a massive lie. And again, in this book Plato puts forward one of the most famous arguments in history against poetry and the arts; yet Plato was one of the most artistic of all writers. Plato proposes to banish the myths of Homer and Hesiod; then Plato ends his magnum opus with his own myth. You see these contradictions again and again, which leads you to wonder: how many of his arguments are meant to be taken seriously?

What’s more, some of the arguments put forward in his dialogues are—it must be said—frustratingly stupid, relying on false analogies and several other types of fallacies. This would be no mystery if he was a halfwit. But the quality of his writing and the originality of his ideas make it clear that he was a genius. This again makes you wonder if he is putting forth his ideas in earnest.

There are many complaints commonly lodged at Plato (and his pupil Aristotle). Liberals criticize his hatred of democracy and freedom. Moralists complain that he embraced slavery. (A friend of mine once told me that his philosophy professor called Aristotle the “father of racism.”) Scientists—such as Carl Sagan—disparage Plato’s anti-empirical and mystical tendencies. Nietzsche and his followers condemn Plato for dividing up the world into self-evident good and bad. The list of complaints can be extended almost endlessly. And, it should be said, there is some justice in all of these criticisms. (But just you try and found an entire intellectual tradition spanning thousands of years, and see if you do any better!)

In Plato, I find something so valuable that it could outweigh every one of those criticisms: Plato's celebration of thinking for its own sake—argument for the sake of argument, debate for the sake of debate. Too often, we consider intellectual activity as merely a means to some desirable end; how rarely we consider that thinking is its own reward. Vigorous thought is one the keenest joys in life. And that is why Plato is so valuable, why he still has so much to offer our world—perhaps now more than ever.



[A note on justice. Even though Plato spills much ink in trying to prove that justice is more desirable than injustice, I think the real solution is in Glaucon’s speech in Book 2, where Plato manages to hit upon the solution provided by game theory. It’s worth quoting at length.

[Many have believed] that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. [I.e. The evil suffered from injustice is greater than the good gained from acting unjustly.] And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of the men to do injustice.

This view—purportedly the common view of justice—is game theory in a nutshell. Cheating your neighbor is (for you) the biggest positive, since you get their resources without having to work. But being cheated is the biggest negative, since you lose both your resources and the work you invested in procuring them. Creating laws to abolish cheating is a sort of compromise—avoiding the pain of being cheated at the expense of the gain from cheating. That, to me, seems like the most logical explanation of justice.

This is just one example of why it's rewarding to read Plato, because even when he's wrong, he's right.]

plato invented mansplaining and that’s my hot take

Update: My Dad gave me this book nearly 20 years ago. In it, Plato explains that the danger to democracies is that they are susceptible to being taken over by demagogues. Fast forward to 2024. We all saw the rally in Madison Square Garden last weekend. There has not been a rally like that there since 1939. America for Americans. It’s the same old thing all over again.

Let’s not replay the 1930s, please. That was not a good time for the world.

Vote.

********(

The man is clearly crazy, but in a fun loving, non-serious way, otherwise one would have mistaken him as a pre-cursor of fascism. Sort of a Nietzschean buffoon, but with some interesting points to make. Good men need no law.

سوفسطایی ها
در یونان باستان، گروهی معلم دوره گرد بودن که فلسفه و وکالت به جوان ها یاد میدادن، به این ها "سوفیست" یا "سوفسطایی" یعنی "حکیم" می گفتن. معروفه که این گروه دو خصوصیت مهم داشتن: اول، شکاکیت در همه چیز. دوم: استفاده از مغالطه برای رسیدن به نتیجه.

افلاطون
معروفه که سقراط و افلاطون علیه این دو خصوصیت سوفسطایی ها موضع گرفتن و نتیجه ی مقابله با شکاکیت، ایجاد فلسفه و نتیجه ی مقابله با مغالطه، ایجاد منطق بود.

افلاطون این طوری توی کتاب های دیگران معرفی شده. مشکل اینجاست که توی کتاب های خودش ابدا این طور نیست. افلاطون توی کتاب هاش، شدیداً شکّاکه. توی بیشتر بحث هاش، فقط ایجاد سؤال میکنه و جواب های ممکن رو طرح و رد می کنه و آخرش، بدون رسیدن به جواب، مسئله رو رها میکنه.
ثانیاً مکرراً از استدلال های مغالطی استفاده میکنه. بعضی از استدلال هاش به قدری آشکارا مغالطی هستن که آدم مردد می مونه که آیا این ها جدی هستن یا شوخی.

این کتاب
اولین کتابی بود که از افلاطون خوندم. بعد از این کتاب، یه سری از کتاب های دیگه ش رو خوندم و بعضی هاش (مثل دفاعیات سقراط) خیلی عالی هستن. مسئله ای اخلاقی-فلسفی رو مطرح میکنن و راجع بهش بحث میکنن و ذهن آدم رو به کار می گیرن.

کتاب تماماً شرح یه مباحثه است که یه طرفش سقراط (استاد افلاطون) و طرف دیگه ش یکی از سوفسطایی هاست و یه سری تماشاچی هم داره. بحث سر اینه که آیا چیزی به نام عدالت حقیقی وجود داره یا نه. این بحث منتهی میشه به تعریف انسان عادل و جامعه ی عدل محور و بعد، مدینه ی فاضله ی افلاطونی.
بخش مفصلی از کتاب هم به شرح نظریه ی "مُثُل" می پردازه و تمثیل "غار" معروف هم بخشی از همین کتابه.

مهم ترین مشکل کتاب، تک صدایی بودنشه. یعنی سوفسطایی ای که طرف دیگه ی بحثه، پس از چند صفحه ی اول، عقب نشینی می کنه و تا پونصد صفحه ی بعد، فقط سقراط حرف میزنه و تماشاچی ها تأیید میکنن.

Theorising the Perfect State
21 October 2013

tSometimes I wonder if people give this book five stars because it is either a) written by Plato, or b) if you don't give it five stars then you are afraid that people will think that you are some semi-literate mindless cretin whose reading capacity tends to extend little beyond the Harry Potter and Twilight Series. Yes, I realise that I have given it five stars, but I have given it five stars because I actually enjoyed the argument that this book outlines. Basically it is a very logical argument that examines the nature of the human soul and of justice and the structure of the argument is of the sort that you could only expect to see from a master. Mind you, some of the points that Plato makes, such as physicians role being only to maintain the health of society and not to heal or care for the sick or injured (thus simply letting them die) would be repugnant not only to us (to an extent) but also to the people of his day. However it is the way that the argument flows, and the way that Plato explores concepts that are relevant even to us today that makes me think highly of this work of literature.

tFirst of all, let us consider the context of the book. This was written after the death of Socrates which meant that the democratic model that Athens had been based upon had failed, and this it was quite clear to Plato and his contemporaries that democracy had failed. As such, when writing about the perfect society, one could not write about a democracy, and if one did, one needed to outline how the previous experiment failed and how it could be improved. This is the case today with socialists examining how the Russian experiment failed, but seeking to build upon its ideals to create a government that will avoid those mistakes. However, in Plato's mind, this could not happen simply because he knew that the basic foundations of the democratic state could not support a functioning ideal government. The main reason for that is that, like our democratic system, the power brokers not only tended to be rich, but also very well spoken, meaning that the populace could easily be swayed and end up supporting the power-brokers flawed, and in many cases self-centered, policies.

tHowever, while many consider that the Republic is about an idea of how to construct a perfect state, the treatise itself goes far beyond that because what it is actually looking at is the idea of perfect justice. Near the end of the treatise Plato once again outlines his theory of forms, which is that everything in this world his a pale reflection of the object's perfect form. For instance, all tables that we see are a reflection of a perfect table, and as tables can only be created by people who make tables, and because all table makers are different, it is thus impossible to create the perfect form of a table. However to help us understand this concept further, Plato brings out the idea of art. A painting of a table is a mere reflection of the table that is painted, and every painting of that table will be different and no painter is able to paint that table as it truly is – the painter is basically restrained by the medium of which the painter creates the table. The same goes with poetry, because the poet is only able to create a pale reflection of the event that the poet is writing the poem about, and no poet, through the medium of poetry, is able to create a perfect reflection of that event.



tThus, what Plato is doing is he is applying his theory to that of government. Thus every government is a reflection of the perfect government, and no government can replicate the perfect form of government. Further still, being a philosopher, Plato is restrained from being able to describe exactly what that perfect government is because he is restrained by the medium of which is uses to outline what he believes the perfect form of government is. That, by the way, is very important - what he believes the perfect form of government to be. The major restraint that Plato faces in outlining the perfect form is that it is his opinion, and his opinion is quite possibly wrong.

tHowever, let us consider what this government is. First of all, it is not a democracy, and has no democratic institutions. The government is a oligarchic state which is ruled by philosophers, with the philosopher king at the top of the chain. It is also a very stratified form of government, with three castes, namely the ruling caste, the warrior caste (known as the Guardians), and the working caste. We must remember also that there is no room for anybody who cannot fit into any of these castes, thus the sick, injured, or disabled, have no part in this society because they are not able to fulfil any meaningful role within the state. However your caste his not determined by your birth, which means that just because you are born to working class parents does not mean you are automatically a part of the working class, and as such, just because you are born among the ruling class does not mean you are automatically members of the ruling class.

tA few further points that I note is that Plato endorses religion in his state, but this is not surprising considering the Greeks were very religious people. However, Plato does not see a need to comment on religion, and while it is the case that there were philosophers who were atheists, Plato, nor his teacher Socrates, were one of them. Plato also does not support the idea of family, and actually believes that it should be abolished (though he does support monogamous marriage). I suspect that is this because the family unit tends to be a very tight unit, and if allowed in such a stratified society, having a family unit would mean that the idea of a person being a member of a specific class based on skill would fall apart as the members of a family in a specific class would not allow their children to fall down to a lower class.

tPlato also believes in the abolition of wealth and property, which means that his state is a socialist state. Once again this is not surprising considering that most dictatorships tend to have the wealth concentrated at the top, with the rulers effectively being the progenitors of a kelptocracy. However, it is also the case in the democracies where wealth creates privilege, and privilege creates power. Just as it is today, the wealthy of fifth century Athens were able to buy the best minds to write their arguments and promote their policies to the detriment of the poorer classes. A democracy could quite well also be considered a form of kleptocracy.

tFinally, Plato advocates censorship, particularly in education. He indicates that there are some things that should not be taught to our young for fear that our young may not understand what is being taught. This is very much the case today because there is a form of censorship that is basically accepted, and that is the rating systems for our movies, and now for our computer games. One cannot release a movie in an advanced democracy without getting the approval of the ratings agency. Further, studios will purposely self censor a movie so that it will receive a certain rating so that more people will go and see it and will be willing to see it.

"Sva zapadna filozifija je serija fusnota Platonu," rekao je neko. Neko drugi "treba ga čitati ceo život". Šta ja da dodam? Više za sebe, da se setim kasnije svog razmišljanja nakon prvog čitanja.

Ovaj mega-dijalog o organizaciji i strukturama društva, politici i državi, ali pre svega o pravičnosti i o tome kako treba živeti (ukratko: bolje, mada ne uvek i unosnije, je biti pravičan), jednostavan je za čitanje.

Obično slušaoci pred Sokrata postavljaju neko mišljenje (npr. "Nepravičnost je dobra za onog ko je počini, loša za sve ostale. Pravičnost je dobra za ostale, loša za onog ko je čini."), koje on onda preokreće, lomi, kontra-argumentuje... Dijalozi su ponekad literarno odlično napisani, drugi put opet prosti, kad mu učenici odgovaraju kao da su bez mozga, klimaju i potvrđuju njegove reči, tek toliko da se uključe... Na trenutke ni argumentacija nije najoštrija, ponekad toliko da mi se čini da to radi namerno, kako bi se kasnije vraćao na iste teme ili te uključio da se usprotiviš.

Ima tu dosta argumenata sa kojima se ne slažem, ma koliko se potrudio da ih uspostavi. Cenzura, na primer. Razlike među polovima, vaspitavanje dece ili odnos prema robovima. Kao i pojedini delovi o organizaciji države, pored kojih mogu da zamislim Musolinija kako ih podvlači i koristi u argumentaciji. Ima i konkretnih predloga kako organizovati državu ili grad koji zvuče naivno i zastarelo. Nisam siguran da su ti predlozi ikad bili zamišljeni realno. Toliko su daleko od stvarnih društava, da su možda tu kao neka ironija. Ima i segmenata kad započne na jednu temu, pa stane i ne vrati joj se sledećih pedesetak strana. Nervirao me je kako je jedno vreme mlako branio pravičnost. Ali, i pored toga, ovo je vrhunski unutrašnji doživljaj, misaona vežba koja se čita odlično. Staromodna izgradnja argumentacije, polako, strpljivo, uz postavljanje temelja i primere koji na prvi pogled nemaju veze sa tim što argumentuje.

Tu su, naravno, i dve poznate priče koje koristi da poentira: Pećina i Gigov prsten. Državu treba pročitati samo zbog njih, ako ništa drugo.

Od dijaloga, čitao sam zasad još samo Odbranu Sokratovu, koja je direktnija i jednostavnija. Država je idealna za podvlačenje, komentare na marginama... (pišem: 'Prva knjiga je bila vožnja u prvoj, sad je prebacio u petu!'). Moje Deretino izdanje je masakrirano, biće interesantno čitati ga ponovo i čuditi se kako sam neke stvari shvatio potpuno pogrešno.

Although The Republic isn’t particularly enjoyable to read, it is truly incredible how insightful and salient the included arguments are (even if some are wrong), given when it was written. From the distinctions (and hierarchy) between knowledge, opinion, and ignorance; to the different forms of government; to the idea of social pathology (the concept of disorder/disease in the collective body, which would influence the subsequent positivist movement); to the argument that education is key to keeping guards from brutalizing civilians; to the recognition of the benefits of a complex division of labor; to the consideration of why people condemn injustice and whether injustice or justice results in happiness (forging the intellectual foundation of the subsequent utilitarianism movement)—it is remarkable for its time, to say the least.

Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"

The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.