Week VII: Plato/Averroes
You know the deal guys! Write some insightful thoughts on philosophy, try to make connections to your own life or other classes, or just discuss something that isn't repetitive of other students or your professor. Be sure to read the submissions of other students before posting, a repetition will not be qualified as well as an original thought! Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Plato introduces the visual and the intelligible realm in the allegory of the cave, where only the philosopher kings with their years of education are able to reach the higher intelligible realm. The idea that very select people would be able to reach a higher level of intelligence and understanding is interesting to me. Plato argues that the ability to be a philosopher is something you are born with. Based on certain key characteristics, people are put into this 'golden' class of society where they will be expected to study for many, many years in order to be considered a philosopher. The notion that this realm is simply unavailable to people of other classes is interesting to me. We live in a world now where education is available to many people, but being able to attain that education, especially higher education, can often be difficult for some people. Certain people have a greater chance of experiencing higher levels of education not based on intelligence alone, but on societal factors and influences. The proportion of people who are able to move on to higher education is different from the number of people who would want to move on to higher education. There are many different reasons why people are not always able to stay in school for many, many years, and this can ultimately put them at a disadvantage. Ultimately, people in Plato's Republic were put in classes in which they would best succeed, so the idea of a member of another class having the skill set to become a philosopher are much more slim. But it is still possible that some of them could have, because while they may have specialized in the characteristics of one class, they may also possess other characteristics of the higher class.
ReplyDeleteI also find interesting Plato's argument of nature versus nurture in terms of raising children in certain classes. Plato believes that children who are born to one class of society may actually be specialized in the characteristics of another class. This is the idea of nature, that a person's true characteristics and true destiny are determined by their genes, and that genetics play a huge role in how people develop. Plato argues that nurture may actually have a larger impact over how children grow up. This is shown in the fact that children who show specialties of a different class than they are born into will be sent away to the class in which they would thrive. Plato believed that being in a household with parents of a different class would be detrimental to the child's development, and that the child would do better in a class of society where their specialties are best fit. This displays Plato's belief that nurture can have a very large impact over how a child turns out, and that one must be surrounded by others of the same class in order to achieve their most potential.
I think it is interesting that you mention that Plato feels that nurture may have a larger role than nature in the way that children grow up; he believes that children should be sorted into different classes based on the characteristics they display in early childhood. I think this can be compared to the education system today in that young students are placed on certain academic tracks based on their performance at levels as low as first or second grade. Young children perform at different levels at this age due to a plethora of different environmental and genetic factors such as physiological development rate and parental involvement, neither of which can really be measured or controlled. By putting these children on “higher” or “lower” tracks we allow them to believe that they are better or worse than their peers, and this can lead them to act according to the label they have been given.
DeleteThat being said, I also believe that it is impossible for the specialization that Plato calls for in his utopian city to exist if the members of each role do not truly understand why they are fulfilling certain roles. For example, if an assigned warrior is only given the standard education that Plato calls for, the three years of math, music and physical training, then we cannot really expect this citizen to understand the deeper intricacies of politics/society and the reasoning behind why he has been assigned this role. Might this citizen revolt or question his role? I think this idea can be connected to your first paragraph in which you acknowledge that certain people in our society cannot receive the education they want to because they have not been given the resources to. Figuring out how to create equal opportunity for the lower classes of American society is one of the most significant problems of our time period. And although there is no money in Plato’s Republic, that is not to say that some individuals may not be pleased with the role they have been assigned within this republic. Thinking about all of this reminds me of the novel, The Giver, in which a similar utopian society exists, and the boy who is given the most important role within this society does not want his role, and runs away.
I also agree with you that the idea that only a few people are able to reach a higher intelligence and can become philosopher kings. I believe Plato was trying to say that because e of some of their characteristics and how strong those specific characteristics are, they are unable to accomplish a complete higher level of intellect. When you speak of today’s society, there definitely is a disadvantage for some people to achieve higher levels of education. Although this true, intelligence does not only come from schooling, from what we read intelligence also comes from questioning (such as what Plato often does in the Republic). By questioning we are able to achieve reasoning in a way because we end up asking questions such as what is justice. These questions lead us to a higher level of thinking that Plato describes. Having closes-minded thoughts that are more inclined to spirit and appetite, leaving little room for reason makes it more difficult for someone to achieve a higher state of intelligence.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Plato’s philosophy on political structure directly affects the personal lives of “his” citizens. All political structures have some affect on civilian life but non as much as Plato’s just and perfect society. Bringing his ideas into a modern context, it must be seen as authoritarian. Although it is not one leader like most authoritarian regimes freedoms are limited greatly to benefit the city, which is indicative of a repressive authoritarian state. I do agree with Plato’s idea of specialization, most progressive societies would, it allows for increased productivity and efficiency. What I do not agree with is the idea of classes from birth. Instead of allowing for growth and creativity, classes are formed at a young age dictating citizen’s professions. This brings to mind for me a centralized regime that is controlling the job market.
Plato’s grand idea is to create a just society that is perfect and successful. In a modern context a repressive regime is not just. Citizens that are subjected to a repressive regime often revolt to gain political and social freedoms. The only example of a successful authoritarian regime I can think of is China. China has a poor record of human rights and political freedoms but citizens are content because of the economic legitimacy. Although citizens are repressed the free market system and increased standard of living allows for the system to work. Plato does not touch on any market system or economic policy for his city. This makes me think that he feels that the governing system will inevitable bring about economic success.
Final point that is interesting to bring up is that Plato knows the inevitable failure of his society. He have not yet read or discussed Plato’s true meaning of justice and I am curious to find out what he means. Does he know that his template of a society is unfair and will cause discontent? Or does he feel that all men and women are unjust in nature and that is why his perfect society will never be a reality?
I liked your point in beginning of your entry about bringing Plato’s ideas into a modern society today. I think most people would agree with you about the amount of rights and freedoms lost in his society. All those rights in exchange for the “utopian” society that as you mentioned doesn’t quite seem possible to achieve.
DeleteIf we all woke up tomorrow and found we were living under the laws of a philosopher king who ruled by Plato’s guidelines, I would imagine each and every one of us would want to do something about it or rebel in one way or another. Knowing we would have no choice in our future jobs or say in what our kids want to do with their lives. Granted the idea behind Plato’s Republic is ideal. That is finding the perfect balance between giving one individual power and authority while being able to provide an entire city with everything they need to thrive, The problem is that idea, in my opinion, sits on a very fine line between a utopia and repression freedom.
You bring up a good point. It is ironic that Plato’s utopian society has the ability to fail. Although, I think he knows that his template of a society is unfair because he says that the ideal city can serve as a model whether or not it could come into existence. I think his reasoning behind this is that it is hard process for philosophers to gain power and become rulers. One most have appetite, spirit and reason in order to be just and be visible in higher truth. So in short, I think he stressing that a utopian society can fail because it is unlikely to have the best rulers, partly because there are different perceptions of wise and everyone else.
DeleteI agree with your point on how Plato's ideas are rather politically ideological and authoritarian. Compared to the democratic nation we live in, Plato's republic is alot more authoritative and rigid. I agree with you on the fact that in a progressive and expanding society there needs to be harmony within specialized classes. Though a society may be expanding and progressing, if it is under repression I believe that it automatically negates it's positivity. I agree with the above comment that it is hard for a philosopher to gain power and rule over a large mass of people, due to philosophers quiet nature and reasonable nature. Nowadays politicians are mainly mobile or able to rule over people due to the funding that they gain from various industries lobbyists, a just philosopher king would never be able to function in our democratic nation.
DeletePlato’s The Republic Book VIII must be read with great discrepancy, for it is in this Book in particular that I believe he starts to lose my respect as being logical and true. In this book, he is trying to prove that true philosophers should rule the government and no one else is eligible. But, the way in which he tries to prove his point made me start to second guess as to how right his argumentations and experiment really are. He tries to prove his point by making society seem flawed and makes cities take a loop through aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. He makes each one evolve from the other, which he did not explain to my liking and definitely did not convince me. Also, how can Plato distinguish so easily between aristocracy and tyranny, for as he said philosophers are very wise and couldn’t that result in a tyrannical leader? In addition, how can an individual be described by describing these constitutions, because there are many offices that are held in these societies and it is impossible for an individual to express all of the pieces necessary for one of these societies to function.
ReplyDeleteAristocracy, in Plato’s eyes is the most pure society, because philosophers rule. Philosopher’s are said to be the wisest people in all the city, but who is to say that they will not use their wisdom for evil. Then he states that timocracy comes out of aristocracy due to civil war and the like, but isn’t this contradicting what he said earlier that an aristocracy was a perfect society? In a sense, Plato is actually contradicting himself with this idea. Not only this but then he assumes that classes will intermix and the offspring will not have the proper qualifications to be a philosopher. But, didn’t Plato himself state that a child born of silver parents could be gold and vice versa? Then he says that a timocracy disintegrates into an oligarchy, where the people are corrupted even further which desire of money. Next comes democracy, where the commoners would rule themselves. According to Plato’s specialization this would be unacceptable, but didn’t his wisest men, philosopher’s just become corrupt in his experiment? Therefore, the commoners are in reality no less fit to rule the city as the fallen philosopher’s, because they both make mistakes. Finally he says that a tyranny comes out of democracy, which almost brings this whole experiment full circle, but with a negative outlook on the ruler, who could in reality really be a philosopher!
The conclusion that this discussion has brought me to is that Plato’s entire experiment is flawed. There is no way that he could have the controls that he needs for the entire situation to be accurate, which weakens his argument. Also, Plato dances around certain questions and leaves much unanswered and open ended. Consequently, by the end of The Republic, the reader loses faith in Plato and his arguments.
I agree with you when you say that Plato's "experiment" of a "just" society being flawed. There were a lot situations while reading the book where I questioned a lot of things Plato did not answer. Starting from the "birth" and how individuals should live based on their socialization, and not making offsprings with those who aren't in the same "speicalization" as you are.
DeletePlato very much seemed to leave a lot of holes, not thinking about the specifics and the "future". He was concerned with the "present" and how things should be "now" but there were no answers or plans about how things will turn out years from when he thought about it (if the city were real). It frustrated me that till the end, I had no idea what his definition of justice really was. It was very unclear just as most if not all his ideas, except that he made up a very.. unrealistic society that he believed would work but later also explains that it is flawed.
In the Republic Plato mentions several different allegories including the allegory of the cave and the allegory of the divided line.
ReplyDeleteI think that the allegory of the cave is very interesting. I think that it can definitely still be used today. In the allegory of the cave it starts with three men being restrained and only being able to look straight ahead at the wall in front of them. Behind them are statues or puppets on a wall and behind that is a fire. These are making a shadow on the wall in front of the men. This is all the men have known all their life. This is what they know to be real. Then one man is unbound and he sees the statues and the fire and he then thinks this is what is real. He is then led out of the cave and he sees the sun and it is extremely bright. Once he adjusts he looks around and realizes that the sun is the only reason he can see these things. In the Republic Plato says that only philosophers really get to that understanding and that is why they should be the ones to rule. I think this is a great allegory that Plato speaks about. He also says that if philosophers don’t rule then we will not be rid of evil. Basically we will be stuck in that cave staring at the wall for all of our lives.
Another of the allegories is the one about the divided line. It starts with a line. You are to split that line into two segments. These two segments are two worlds, the visible world and the intelligible world. Then, you split each of these segments in half again so there are four segments. The visible world consists of physical things themselves and things such as shadows and reflections. The intelligible world includes mathematical reasoning and philosophical understanding. Really he is talking about all the different levels of knowledge. The highest level being philosophical understanding. It is yet another way for him to say that philosophers should be the ones to rule.
Plato simply thinks that Aristocratic form of government is the best way to go. He says in several different ways that philosophers should rule.
I think that the class discussion about the allegory of the cave relates well to your entry. In class we discussed how there are definite parallels between modern day politics and the allegory of the cave. The people in the cave staring at the wall and seeing the shadows as the realest things in life are similar to some Americans today. The people in the cave got very angry when the person came back inside and tried to share their knowledge. This is similar to Americans in that often times they reject new ideas or when more educated people speak down to them. I also agree with the class discussion how Plato would think very highly of Obama and how professorial and thoughtful he is when participating in presidential debate.
DeleteBrittany, I also think the allegory of the cave is very interesting. I would also equate the philosopher-kings' coming out of the caving and seeing how bright the sun is as "seeing the light," after learning about wisdom, reason, and attaining the education of the philosopher-king. I would also go into a little bit more depth about comparing the cave to the living room in contemporary Western society. Like Leah had mentioned, the people staring at the wall got angry when a person of reason told them that what they're seeing are reflections of images, instead of actual images. That's equivalent to American society in our political system. During Obama's first term, he mentioned the need to reform our healthcare system through Obamacare. Many people got angry because he shared his observation, and disliked his professorial tone in the way he shared his reasoning. Because of this, many of these people reacted by electing politicians "just like those who elected them," in an effort to push back against the apparent voice of reason that President Obama seems to be. In the big picture, Plato says that philosopher-kings who've had many years of education are the best rulers since they use reason and logic, and not emotions in their decision-making processes.
DeletePlato’s perfect society is incredibly interesting to me, mostly because in my opinion, it could never work. I think that at our current state of knowledge, most people would say that no utopia could ever exist; they always turn into the complete opposite: dystopias. Perhaps Plato did not know this, or perhaps he knew this and was just using the kallipolis to make a point. Either way, his “perfect society” could never truly be carried out.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer amount of control that Plato’s kallipolis would require is unfathomable. Who decides which children are suited for what purpose? What if that person makes a mistake? What if one person is unhappy with what he does and starts being very vocal about it? Is he simply killed? Is that justice? Is it justice to kill any “deformed” children at birth as Plato implies? Plato suggests that there will be no murder or crime in the kallipolis because of the morals taught to children at a young age, but couldn’t there be a child born with a genetic predisposition to antisocial personality disorder (colloquially known as psychopathy)? That child could very potentially grow up to be a murderer or criminal, regardless of what he or she is taught in the way of morality.
I also find fault with the idea that the only way the world will be completely just is if philosophers rule. Who is to say that philosophers cannot be corrupt? In the kallipolis, a corrupt person could very potentially hide his corruption and become a philosopher-king. Plato places much too much trust in his system of tests that will supposedly weed out those who are not fit to be philosopher-kings. No one can read minds, and many people are extremely adept at hiding their corruption (just take a look at our politics in America!).
Plato’s ideal of a perfectly just society sounds good when he argues it. But when you really think about the pure logistics of it, it turns out to be completely impossible. And his assertion that only philosophers are fit to rule is small-minded and naïve. Being a philosopher doesn’t give you a free pass into good-personhood. A philosopher can be corrupt as easily as any other person.
I agree with you 100% on this. The entire time that we have been discussing this "just" city and the perfectly "just" people who reside within it I have been wondering who gets to decide everything? The idea of having a philosopher king rule is already flawed because in order to appoint one person as the philosopher king wouldn't you need a perfectly just person to appoint them? And who is going to decide if that person is perfectly just? It is an overall flawed circle of life. I like how you brought up the point of children who do not fit into the social norm. If a child is born who is not capable of fitting into any of the classes and becomes a burden to the city, what will happen to them? Also, the idea of putting the children into their classes when they are so young is a naive idea as well. How can one look at a child and see that they will be a good ruler? Maybe one day they show promising aspects of eventually being fit to rule but the next day they could do something that shows they are fit to be a warrior.
DeleteAnother issue that has been bothering me is that when we compared today's politics to the allegory of the cave we left out one of (if not the) biggest factor in politics. Money! The people who run for politics today are the people who can afford to. We don't see someone who has no money to their name attempt to hold some kind of office and be successful with it. Compared to wealth. education is not the deciding factor in who gets to represent us.
I also agree with this post, especially what you said in the beginning regarding how close a so-called utopia is to an actual dystopia, which I think is what the Plato actually describes. A dystopia is really the only way to describe a society that would impose this level of control over it’s citizens’ lives and revoke free will in this way. I completely agree with all of the questions you pose, most of which I wondered myself, particularly how the “nature” of a child is chosen. Although presumably the guardians are charged with the education of children and, by extension, selecting which class they are best suited to, but this would likely be extremely subjective, and completely disregards human capacity to change.
DeleteThe concept of a person hiding their corruption and becoming a philosopher-king also crossed my mind while reading the Republic. Especially given the fact that a person placed in the guardian class who has withstood this rigorous education would likely view themselves as “golden,” and above the other classes, thereby making corruption very likely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Plato’s philosophies is his interpretation of family. It simply does not exist according to Plato. It was odd to hear that a man and woman are only considered husband and wife during the designated times they were allowed to have sex. Then, to hear that the children that were produced were taken away and their fate was determined by the parents’ class was surprising. When I read this, I was confused as to how this contributed to the “just” society Plato created. I did not agree with his view since, in my opinion, family is essential to life.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to compare the idea of a family to the Bible. Family relationships are very important to the Lord. Family was first introduced in Genesis; the Lord created man and woman so they could be married and have children to form a family, who will eventually expand and “fill the Earth.” Cain and Able were the first children that portrayed the first example of a family in the Bible. Another example of a family relationship in the Bible is the story of Noah and his family. God did not just save Noah from the flood; he saved Noah, his wife and his sons. The Ten Commandments also provide a way to maintain the closeness of a family. The fifth commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” protects God’s view and encourages a strong unity among families. Plato, on the other hand, does not seem to care about family relationships whatsoever. He emphasizes when a man and woman can/can’t have sex and what happens to the child after they are born, but he does not seem to discuss the relationship between the parent and child, if there is one at all.
It is very interesting to compare these two works of literature and see how vastly different they can be.
I agree with you that it was strange to have no structured families and keeping everyone in common, however I would disagree that it prevents the city from being just. He adds this ideal of keeping families in common to make sure there would be less possession and feuds. With no structured families there is no adultery and no “stealing of one’s possession” or wife. Also with scheduled sex there is no overpopulation, interbreeding of metals, and no rapes. It is relative to his idea of the metals (gold, silver, and bronze.) In the idea that by keeping families in common no one will have a richer offspring than the others.This is important when looking at the idea that he didn’t want anyone to be rich or poor. One could look at having a large family and a beautiful wife as being rich and being single being poor. Also it gives a “guaranteed” production of these metals by having the elite mate with the elite and the inferior with the inferior. So it makes sure that by using natural selection, his city will be the “fittest” because he breed them to be so. However, when comparing it to the Bible’s view on families it does make Plato’s ideal seem unjust, but you have to look at his ideal through a difference lense because his is a utopia, while God’s world in the Bible is filled with corruption.
DeleteIn book 8, Socrates goes through the qualities of a timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, and then he goes on to build assumptions about why each government becomes corrupted to a lesser form. I found it intriguing how specific he was in each example, from the honor loving spirit that thrives in a timocracy to the frugal money hoarders of the oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bernadette above, it almost seemed like he was trying to prove his point, then he thought up some political scenarios that could possibly transpire to prove his theories on how governments evolve. Overall, his argument feels as ideal and theoretical as the kallipolis. They just aren’t very convincing.
That being said, maybe one of the most appealing things I’ve found regarding Plato’s Republic is its dialectic approach. I think it’s rather remarkable that these philosophers started with such a broad set of conjectures, ranging from justice to city management to personality archetypes, and then managed to narrow them down to their conclusions.
The symbols Socrates used to describe all of his ideas are, in my opinion, quite creative as well. Namely, unproductive citizens who hinder the functioning of any kallipolis getting portrayed as ‘drones.’ I also think using metallic alloys like gold and bronze gave a somewhat fair analogy in describing how talent and natural aptitude are indications of the class to which one belongs. Finally, the symbolism of the allegory of the cave also resonated for me. It emphasized that truth and knowledge fall within a larger picture of absolute truth, in much the same way that the fire represents only a small light in comparison to the overwhelming sun. I suppose a philosopher king could never obtain knowledge in its most absolute form, so in a way, his view of the world is like a sun obscured by clouds. Rays of light may still cascade through to the ground, illuminating him with knowledge, but the shadows of the unknown still linger as an inherent part of his perception of the world.
Also, one final point: as Dr. Akman talked about in lecture, the ‘auxiliary’ class refers to the warrior class in Plato’s Republic. For those who are curious, historically, the early years of the Roman Empire saw a use of volunteer soldiers were called ‘Auxilia.’ Traditionally, they were not citizens of the Roman Empire, but apparently they constituted over three fifths of the Roman Army at that time! I just felt it was a cool fact that has helped me in remembering that the ‘Auxiliary’ class in Plato’s Republic refers soldiers. It also serves to highlight the customs shared in common between the Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks.
I just want to say that your interpretation of the sun within the allegory of the cave is really succinct. It provides a much more reasonable explanation of how we learn and on the nature of subjectivity within knowledge. It especially resonated with me on the fact that I view knowledge in a sense similar to that. I think that it is revealed slowly over time through education and contemplation. Good job Mike, keep up the powerful thinking!
DeleteWhile the kallipolis sounds like a smoothly functioning, safe place, I myself think it sounds far from utopian. Order and organization are essential to any city’s survival, but Socrates systemizes and the structure of the kallipolis to a nearly inhuman level. In the name of justice and good he proposes many communistic and tyrannical ideas such as censorship/propaganda, taking children away from their parents to be raised by the state, and a breeder-like approach to reproduction.
ReplyDeleteI find Socrates’ prepositions on “marriage”, the reproduction of children, and their rearing to be preposterous. His ideas to use “sophisticate lotteries” (line 460) to decide which of the most superior males and females are permitted to marry and reproduce treats men and women like animals. I personally believe a scheme as detailed as this (which goes on to explain how the city will raise all the children as “common property” as well as how to avoid mothers sleeping with sons and fathers with daughters) is simply too complex and would never be agreed on by the people. I think two people in love with each other would not separate themselves from each other simply because one is “inferior” to the other by the standards of the kallipolis. This rule would most likely just lead to many people sneaking around breaking the law. I also feel mothers would be extremely reluctant to give up their children and many would attempt to keep them from the kallipolis or even try to run away with them to prevent them from being taken. While the kallipolis would certainly be orderly and structured, its policies to achieve this are so scientific I think much of the population would resist them. These policies would likely make the people feel stripped of the very things that they consider to make them human, such as love and family. I think it would be near impossible to convert a population that was not born into this system and knew another way of live into accepting it.
This is much more romantic than Plato's ideas apparently. He thinks in a robotic sense when it comes to his society. He wants everyone to believe what he believes and he is determined to make everyone submit to this Kallipollis. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the romantics of your argument, but I think Plato would belittle your opinion and try to brainwash all of the love out of you. Just keep his tone in mind when you are contemplating how his society would come to fruition.
DeleteIn “The Decisive Treatise,” I found it interesting the way each different kind of person’s way of agreeing to and believing in the scriptures. In this reading, there was a relationship to understanding art, people, and religion — and how knowing these are all important when one is trying to understand God and all of His creations. The relatedness of each topic may not seem obvious to everyone, but in understanding people, a product of art, and reflecting on it can aid in our understanding of ourselves, the Artisans and creations of God. To understand each subject fully, one must seek help from others who can help pave the way to one’s learning and understanding of a topic, because it is impossible for one to learn all about a particular subject on their own.
ReplyDeleteIt is said that understanding religion and the scriptures are different for different types of people. The categories of people described are the following: those who come to accept religion through demonstration, one who comes to accept it through dialectical arguments, and others through rhetorical arguments. These types of people are categorized this way for a reason — those who require demonstration can learn that way and that way only; if they are bombarded with the dialectical or rhetorical arguments of others, it will taint the knowledge they had previously believed to be true, and they will no longer have their own full understanding of the scriptures, thus creating non-believers.
This concept is true in various areas of life. For example, you would not teach a first grader calculus because they would not understand any of it without learning basic math first, and even then after years of practice, the child may not understand math well or be good enough at it in the future to learn more complicated forms of math. Some are more inclined in some areas than others, and some may never fully understand a topic. If you taught a child math above their level of understanding, they may become frustrated with it and never want to bother with any type of math again, just like those who learn the scriptures through demonstrative methods may not want to bother with the scriptures anymore after being introduced to dialectical and rhetorical arguments. If something was presented to me in a difficult manner or in a way I could not understand it, I would not want to continue to learning about that particular subject. Different types of people have different ways of learning and understanding and it is important for us to be able to know and distinguish each type for each person’s benefit. This way, people can learn in their own way. I found this concept of different types of learning to be interesting and valid.
Personally, I found Plato’s allegories to be quite interesting concepts. I particularly liked reading about the cave and the line. The way Plato chose to use this allegory was pretty clever if you ask me. The idea that a single line could be the barrier between entire thought processes or ways of life or views on politics is fascinating to me. If you think about it, he’s either 100% right or completely wrong. On one hand, everyone thinks differently about things. There are groups of belief with different beliefs about anything and everything we could possibly think of. There are belief groups about animals, belief groups about education, belief groups in politics, etc. etc. and every group feels differently which would make Plato’s theory correct. But on the other hand two people might be in different “segments” but also have some beliefs or thoughts that are the same. They may look at things in a slightly different way but essentially feel the same about it. In this instance, in my opinion, Plato’s allegory does not hold true because belief groups cross. There is no definitive line that separates me from the next person in my beliefs or views. Nothing is black and white about it. This is the side I have to take on Plato’s line allegory. I don’t think things are as black and white as he makes them seem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that the line is crossed when it comes to belief groups. Throughout Republic, Plato is trying to make everything a definitive answer, there is no grey area in his ideas. In the real world, it is not like that at all. I also liked the allegory of the cave. I think that one holds more true than the line. The idea that only true philosophers can understand certain things because they have the ultimate knowledge is very interesting. As we saw in class, that allegory of the cave can be applied today as well. Instead of a cave, though, it is a tv.
DeleteThe "Dialogue of Civilizations" is a very informative as well as eye opening piece of writing. It first brings up the fact that the European civilization will push the Islamic civilization away as having a minimal part in where the western civilization is today. As I was reading this, I realized that this is true. Although I do not think it is done purposely, I feel as though many people, including myself, are blind to just how much Islamic culture has influenced our society's beliefs. Until this class, I never thought of Islam having such huge connections to American culture. I guess you can say I am somewhat guilty of exoticism. It is just something people do not casually think about.
ReplyDeleteThe reading then goes on to speak of Ibn Rushd who's works had great influence on the European Renaissance and Reformation. What is puzzling to me is how Western scholars could take ideas directly from Ibn Rushd and treat them as their own. The reading states that some even took ideas from him word for word and did not give him the credit for it. I believe this was so easy for these people because citizens of the Western civilization who most likely had no knowledge of Ibn Rushd probably had an easy time believing that these ideas were original. The scholars who had followers could easily use and idea and make their followers believe it was the first time such a thing had ever been said. It is sad to admit that if I was in the position of a follower, I would probably believe what I hear from the Scholar rather then questioning the idea's originality. Because of this, one can see how the Islamic's influence is pushed aside. I believe for the most part it is not disrespect of the other culture, it is simply a lack of knowledge.
I too was shocked at all of this new information. I never knew or learned about any of these Islamic scholars and how much of an impact they have on modern society. It is funny how we know so little about the dark ages other than the crusades because of what we learned in school and how much detail was put in when learning about the Renaissance when these Islamic scholars were a big part in the reason it even came to be. It was crazy how Ibn Rushd ideas were used and stolen by the person who had the complete opposite views of him. It was very wrong of people to steal his ideas like you mentioned especially St. Thomas Aquinas. It is crazy to think that someone considered "the great commentator" would get so little attention especially with all that is known about him and the other philosophers. All in all I agree that it was wrong of people to steal Ibn Rushd's work and call it their own and then tell everyone about how he i wrong. Hopefully one day more people will hear his name in the classroom when learning about the Middle Ages and what really happened to lead up to the Renaissance.
DeletePlato’s description of family structure and marital status in his imaginary construction of Kallipolis in my eyes is irrational and misogynistic. His idea of marriage is that it only lasts as long as sexual intercourse between the chosen couple lasts and no longer. These couples do not choose who they marry, but instead there is a lottery to decide and match up the strong people.
ReplyDeleteMany people argue that this idea of matching up the strongest people is actually a proto-feminist view, where these women are being chosen to birth children based on their skills and strengths. However, the way I see it is that these women are chosen to have sex with a man they probably do not love. Then these women are forced to carry a child for nine months without the help of the father or any support from them. In my eyes, this is more like using the women to try to create the perfect and just race, which I don’t believe is possible.
Plato goes on to say that these children are then taken away from the mother right after birth and given to parents which the philosopher king seems fit to raise them. This is just another example of women being treated horribly in his society. Most mothers describe their children as the greatest thing that ever happened to them. How then, does it seem right to take away a mother’s child after they have carried them for so long? Even if the philosopher kings believe the mother may not be able to teach them the necessary skills like being a guardian or being a producer, who are they to decide what happens to a child which is not theirs.
He uses the analogy of golden children going to golden families, silver to silver, and bronze to bronze. It is very judgmental in my eyes and I don’t see how you can decide where a child belongs and what his future will be that early on.
This argument of whether Plato is trying to show a proto-feminist view or a misogynistic one is a similar debate to that which we saw in the play Medea. In the play, Medea was mistreated by her husband and by the rest of society. She then was looked at by many as a strong woman who stood up or what she believed in. She killed her husband’s new lover, the king, and even her own children. I think this is very similar to Plato explaining that the women in Kallipolis are chosen to reproduce with the strong men because of their strength and that it is an honor. I think they are both covering up the fact that it is in fact sexist. Medea earns the reputation of a murderer of many including her own children. It’s hard for me to find this as proto-feminist in any way. I think that misogynistic views greatly outweigh the proto-feminist ones in both examples.
I completely agree with your ideas. Not only does it seem like there is a lack of respect for women in his society but it concurs with the idea from centuries ago, that females are just in society to bear children. This misogynistic view can even be seen when Plato says that sexual intercourse is only allowed during fixed times, the mating festival, which is on a lottery idea. Going off your topic of how the women are probably not in love, even if the women had sex with the man she loved, if it happened at an undesignated time and a child results, that child is at risk of dying. People have said that it should be an honor for that woman to be chosen for this task but I think is the complete opposite. In my opinion the whole lottery selection is treating the people like pawns or even animals that need to be bred just to achieve Plato’s ideal society. Sexual intercourse should be between a man and women that love each other, and the child they have should be raised in that loving relationship. In Plato’s society, the children are taken away right after birth so no one knows which children descended from which adults. It is understandable that Plato is trying to create a just race but even if children are classified and sent away it does not mean they will never stray away from a path that was chosen for them. To conclude, there is no way of knowing what that child will grow up like, just because he is the offspring of a guardian class, does not mean he will have such qualities.
DeleteMany people when they think of Ancient Greece, and especially Plato’s “Republic”, think of democracy and a romanticized view of philosophers. From the time I was in elementary school, I was taught the importance of the Greeks and how they pioneered democracy. I have since learned the falsehoods of this assumption, but upon reading Plato’s “Republic” it is scary to see that while that idea is wrong. While the first four books of “Republic” preach more of justice than of an ideal society, the later books outline Plato’s ideal society and it is shocking to learn how little regard for democracy Plato has, but also how his radical and seemingly cruel ideals follow us into the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteA reoccurring point throughout the books is the idea of a class that should have complete control over the masses. One passage that stands out in regards to this falls on line 488a-e, the simile of the ship. In this simile Socrates points out the stupidity of the masses if they were allowed to vote for their ruler. He points out that if the masses were allowed to choose, the ruler could be someone who is good at the art of persuasion rather than someone fit for the job. Throughout this passage, Socrates shows little faith in humanity and reiterates the contempt he has for those he believes to be lesser than himself. Furthermore, going back to book V, Socrates make a statement regarding those who are “inferior.” In line 460c Socrates says, “I think they’ll take the children of the good parents to the nurses in charge of the rearing pen situated in a separate part of the city, but the children of inferior parents, or any child of the others that is born defective, they’ll hide in a secret and unknown place, as is appropriate.” While readers may look at this passage and realize the unfairness of it, I believe that some aspects of it are seen in today’s society.
I brought up the above passages because I see aspects of them in today’s society that are utterly unacceptable. While America is a democratic society, it is disheartening how quickly people with lesser opportunities are made to believe that they are inferior to people born into better life situations. In this quickness to judge others because they may not necessarily have the same standard of education, society is playing into the second passage from “Republic”. While we preach America to be the land of opportunity and of the American Dream, we hide the parts of society that are not so wholesome and in doing so create a much bigger problem. I believe it is safe to say that many people would not agree with the points Socrates makes in putting down the average human and those who are less fortunate, yet these practices are still very much prevalent in what we consider to be a “better” and more “progressive” society.
That is a truly spooky set of lines you quoted, you can see more of these injustices if you take a closer look into those inconsistencies, it can be disconcerting. Being quite a bit older than most students in our class, I can honestly say that I'm actually sickened at what I've seen so far in the book. I'm reading he e-book....... I hate to see such egotistical self involvement in what i have heard in passing throughout my life as a peace of enlightened material. Yet I'm dying to read more of this material as translated. As little sense as it makes, and as much "pumping up" as it does of the philosophic nature, it scares me in this book, and I'm not one to be closed off from new ideas. It reminds me of Mein Komf, with its nonsensical figure pointing.
DeleteWhats interesting, is that, having read a great number of books, I detect different writing styles within the text, especially when references to Socrates are made, but not always when it is supposedly him. After some passages, those other characters are wayy more reverent towards the speaker, and I find myself gelling with the author much more, who speaks in terms of "friend" and takes you through more of a journey than a grinding lecture.
Socrates was executed by the state for expressing his powerful opinion, Plato doesn't seem to have been feared. Socrates says "I know that I know nothing." Plato says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A
If I remember correctly, an Athenian naval vessel left some of its crew over board and ditched them, and Athens was going to execute the survivors for treachery, and Socrates hotly contested the policy, and so was poisoned. i believe they would have found something to execute him for eventually anyways; he attracted that perfect storm that eventually strikes hard and fast.