Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Book three continues the conversation on the building of the city. It also continues the major theme of education, which in some ways becomes even more central to the Republic than finding a definition of justice.

Socrates proposes that the city engage significantly in censorship of the poets and music (I believe that he would include the media today, though there wasn’t a media as such in his day). He contends that the myths, stories, and songs that the young are exposed to must be restricted to those that are beneficial to the city.

Ah, the more things change! Isn’t this still a “hot button” issue today? Books in school libraries are being constantly challenged for content that some believe is not beneficial for the young to read. Some nations (China, North Korea come instantly to mind) engage actively in censorship, trying to eliminate content that appears to them to be harmful to the government in power. Some people in modern Western societies support some censorship under the concept, if not the term, of “political correctness;” others are adamant about the value of free speech. Movies are rated as to their appropriate audience, with some movies prohibiting access to those under 17. Whether rap music and video games which glorify violence and misogyny cause long term harm to the young is highly controversial.

Are Socrates’s arguments in favor of censorship, particularly when it comes to the impressionable young, persuasive? Should our schools practice censorship in the form Socrates advocates?

After the issue of censorship, Socrates then proceeds to offer a number of ideas for structuring his city that will, I think it’s safe to say, not find much support among readers here. But let’s not simply reject these ideas, but be willing to explore what Socrates is really about, what philosophical concepts underlie his ideas which we might not accept today, and whether in fact some of these ideas might indeed make for a more harmonious society, although at a price of reduced individual liberty and opportunity.

Socrates offers the concept of the “noble lie,” one such lie being one which separates the citizens into classes so that the whole society can function most efficiently and people will be content serving the city in the role best suited to them.

He eliminates the traditional family and holds women and children in common.

His guardians – rulers – are required to live a lifestyle that I doubt any modern head of state or would even consider living. Quite the contrary! Could we even imagine a candidate for head of any Western country who would be willing to live such a lifestyle? (Perhaps Gandhi comes closest to an example of a Platonic guardian lifestyle. And how many Gandhis has the world produced?)

Are there aspects of these ideas which would make modern societies better? And if so, at what cost?

On just one of the many issues which this book raises, personally I’m fascinated by the question whether, in a truly just city or nation, assuming one could exist, it would ever be appropriate for the leaders to lie to the people. I think it’s clear that governments telling lies is pretty much a staple of modern society. But does it need to be? Is it inevitable? Or is it only because no modern state is truly just, and if it were the lying could cease?

Who is going to do the censoring and supervising of poets and teachers?

Who is going to select the guardians?

Suggesting censoring Homer is pretty radical in Athens, don’t you think? Embodied in Homer, probably more than in any other Greek, is the great oral tradition and (mythical) history of Greece, and the Iliad and Odysssey were a primary source of education, I believe.

388 a: “So we would be right to remove the sad lamentations of famous men, and give them instead to women and not even women of the better sort, and the baser sort of men, in order that those whom we claim to be raising for guardianship of the land may disdain behavior like this." (R.E. Allen's translation)

Nothing like using the lower classes as guinea pigs and examples for the cream of the crop, and I think this is a glimpse into the aristocracy’s opinion of the lower classes and workers in ancient Greece. Although it appears that Plato is selecting the best and brightest from all the citizens, he’s really selecting from only the aristocracy. The average farmer or shopkeeper has no chance of being selected as a guardian trainee. I don’t see the kind of thinking present in the above quote much today, certainly not as part of public policy or as a suggestion that it should be, but I do see us all too often select our leaders from what I consider to be a de facto aristocracy.

388e: We're now at the point where we are censoring the wrong kind of laughter. It's becoming apparent, at least to me, that there is no end to what must be banished when one really gets into what's required to produce the perfect guardian. And then when you're done, all you really have is one person's or one group's version of the perfect guardian -- the person or group in power. I mention this because I see a real effort to censor improper thoughts when expressed publicly in the West.

I'm sure Plato expected his readers to compare his Guardians with the real-world Spartiates, the aristocratic warrior class of Sparta, which at the time the dialogue is set was at war with Athens, and would defeat her shortly afterwards. The Spartiates were indeed raised communally from childhood and trained to be fierce warriors. Their reputation as such was unequalled in the Greek world. The one big difference I can see is that the Spartiates received no training that I've heard of in music, which seems to be a big part of the education of the Guardians. Maybe Plato though that the resulting harmony in the soul would prevent the Guardians from becoming the brutal bumpkins that the Spartans were taken to be. As far as I know no Spartan made any contribution to the culture of the Golden Age of classical Greece.

Reading about Socrates' plans for censorship reminded me of 1984 and Brave New World. Specifically, the idea that an elite group would have access to all knowledge, in this case of literature and music, but then carefully decide what would be released to the people. Of course Socrates may think the end justifies the means, but maybe this whole exercise is demonstrating that the just society will be built on injustice - such as the ruling class being able to lie - and therefore there's no possibility of a truly just society. This is my third time reading the dialogue and I find that I'm disagreeing with Socrates more and more.

So my question here is, what age are the people that he is talking about educating? There is a legitimate kind of censorship for children. As a parent, there are certain things I'm going to try and keep my daughter from being exposed to until she is older, and there are certain things that I hope to instill in her that she should never want to see. Pictures of the Holocaust would be an example of the former category; 50 Shades of Grey in the latter. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Now, I've only read about half of Book III, but I'm thinking that Plato doesn't mean that, but that they should NEVER be exposed to the things he is talking about, but still, it is a legitimate concern. We may disagree with where the line is for what ages, and certainly all of us will disagree with Plato about what things should be censored, but I think we all agree that censorship for the young is appropriate in some degree, right? Are you going to show a 7 year old pictures of the unspeakable violence of our world? My daughter may be exposed to some of Canterbury Tales when she is a pre-teen, but she won't be reading the Miller's Tale until at least college if I can help it.

Jeremy wrote: "maybe this whole exercise is demonstrating that the just society will be built on injustice..."

It is, and more than that, it's an authoritarian and maybe robotic society. Guardians have total control and everyone has a single role -- somewhat like an ant colony.

The Guardians don't have total control--they must follow a strict training regimen, and their music and literature are strictly limited. By whom. I don't know.

Kenneth wrote: "Now, I've only read about half of Book III, but I'm thinking that Plato doesn't mean that, but that they should NEVER be exposed to the things he is talking about, but still, it is a legitimate concern. We may disagree with where the line is for what ages, and certainly all of us will disagree with Plato about what things should be censored, but I think we all agree that censorship for the young is appropriate in some degree, right?"

I haven't finished this book yet, but to this I agree. I definitely censor what my sons see and read at this young age. However, my problem with Socrates so far is that he takes censorship out of the hands of parents and puts it in the hands of the government (which part of the government I'm not yet sure. But that it is out of the hands of parents seems clear.)

Kenneth wrote: "Now, I've only read about half of Book III, but I'm thinking that Plato doesn't mean that, but that they should NEVER be exposed to the things he is talking about, but still, it is a legitimate concern. We may disagree with where the line is for what ages, and certainly all of us will disagree with Plato about what things should be censored, but I think we all agree that censorship for the young is appropriate in some degree, right?"

I haven't finished this book yet, but to this I agree. I definitely censor what my sons see and read at this young age. However, my problem with Socrates so far is that he takes censorship out of the hands of parents and puts it in the hands of the government (which part of the government I'm not yet sure. But that it is out of the hands of parents seems clear.)

And they can't own property. Guardians remind me a bit of the Ephors of Sparta, but those who oversee them -- I guess someone oversees them -- also remind me of the Ephors. Like you were saying, there are similarities between this city and Sparta.

Genni wrote: "my problem with Socrates so far is that he takes censorship out of the hands of parents and puts it in the hands of the government ..."

Another similarity with Sparta.

Would Socrates himself be banned from the city?

Doesn't censorship of the media generally tend to backfire, end up being a waste of time and resources to enforce, and only end up generating ill feelings towards the censors?

[If a book were] very innocent, and one which might be confided to the reason of any man; not likely to be much read if let alone, but if persecuted, it will be generally read. Every man in the United States will think it a duty to buy a copy, in vindication of his right to buy and to read what he pleases.
Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

Thomas wrote: "Would Socrates himself be banned from the city?"

No, but they might make him drink some all-natural hemlock.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "It is, and more than that, it's an authoritarian and maybe robotic society. Guardians have total control and everyone has a single role -- somewhat like an ant colony."

Where is the justice in this? Does an ant colony exhibit unqualified justice, or just ant-justice?

What happens to the ideas of truth and progress in a place like Socrates is describing?

It is at about this point in reading The Republic that I find myself asking why am I reading this? I am curious, do others of you ever ask the same and what is the response you give yourself?

In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.

I took the question about training children's minds to be part of the last section, so I replied in the Book 2 thread, but I'm copying part of my response to this thread.

Plato begins the building of the city with the guardians, and begins with the childhood of the Guardians (psyche or ego?) and how their thinking should be formed before they can develop into guardians.

I liked how S/P felt that knowledge came in the form of stories.
I thought it was interesting that children's thinking was understood to be literal (which it absolutely is til about the ages of about 5-7), and that was why allegorical tales by poets which displayed fear and violence as a norm were banned from children's stories. This is a type of censorship that all parents use with their children to some degree, tho' many fairy tales include very scary and violent acts but they usually exist in a realm of magic, which children believe to be real but still existing in a magical way as opposed to the mundanity of apparent ordinary life. Children also believe dreams are real because they exist in what seems to be the very real realm of dreamland, but dreamland is not the same as waking life.

I'm keeping Waterfield's introduction in mind because in the intro he says that Plato never intended for this to be a working city... it was an imaginary city that was intended as a metaphor for mind/soul/psyche of (hu)mankind. If we try to make this into a real city or place that operates externally from the individual, it is bound to fail (which Waterfield also points out).

It seems really easy to turn this into an urban/suburban political/economic treaty that full of flaws, but that would just make this a stupid book.

David wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Would Socrates himself be banned from the city?"

No, but they might make him drink some all-natural hemlock."

It's sort of like Groucho Marx not wanting to belong to any club that would have people like him as a member. Except worse. Socrates is building the city that would kill him.... as an illustration, of course.

S/P gets so full of himself with a desire to expurgate Homer. No respect for his own supreme classic. Who does he think he is? Utilitarian iconoclast? The point for him is to wield his culture's archetypal textbook – certainly not to have it understood it on its own terms. Thereby does a remaker "reason" expose its own tattered undergarments (or worse).

Lily wrote: "It is at about this point in reading The Republic that I find myself asking why am I reading this? I am curious, do others of you ever ask the same and what is the response you give yourself?"

I'm actually enjoying this reading much more. The first time I read it I was in my late teens or early twenties and didn't have much experience with Plato or philosophy in general. I was awed by the reputation of the book and ready to accept anything Socrates said. On my second reading seven or eight years ago I was a little more experienced and a little more skeptical. This time around I feel I'm much better prepared for the text. What I've realized is that you have to challenge Socrates point by point. He lays out his argument as though it's deductive and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. And of course there's usually someone like in Adeimantus in this section to say, "Yes, of course," or "certainly" to each statement and thereby seduce/lull you into agreement. But often I think Socrates' premises are shaky at best, which means his conclusions are far from certain. For example, Socrates says, "for when two species of imitation are nearly allied, the same persons cannot succeed in both, as for example, the writers of tragedy and comedy." Sadly, 90% of the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes are lost, which means that probably 99.9% of 5th century plays are lost, so we don't know if Sophocles could write a great comedy or not, not to mention someone whose works we don't have at all (though we know that all three contestants in the Festival Dionysus would submit a satyr play with their tragedies). But if you'll forgive the anachronism, we know Shakespeare can write comedy and tragedy equally well. So for me that's just one example of where Socrates' point is undermined.

But to answer your question more directly - I enjoy the book more each time I read it and more as I progress through it because I gain the confidence to argue back against Socrates.

Jeremy wrote: "I enjoy the book more each time I read it and more as I progress through it because I gain the confidence to argue back against Socrates.. ..."

And I still look for someone who doesn't take me off on so many trails that feel irrelevant, or of course its going to end that way, or what the ... is he really saying. I keep looking for the places where I don't want/need to argue back, but can move towards decisions to be acted upon with "common sense," which, yes, I know is often neither "common" nor "sense."

David wrote: "Where is the justice in this? Does an ant colony exhibit unqualified justice, or just ant-justice?

What happens to the ideas of truth and progress in a place like Socrates is describing? "

W..."

There isn't. To us justice has been turned on our head. But is this true for a 5th century BCE Athenian? I really like Jeremy's point made above: "... maybe this whole exercise is demonstrating that the just society will be built on injustice ..."

Jeremy wrote: "'m actually enjoying this reading much more...."

I agree with everything in Jeremy's post. It's important to push back on Socrates. Of course the real genius here may be that that is exactly what Plato is up to -- having Socrates make unsound arguments so that the reader notices something not quite right about his reasoning and then start thinking for themselves.

in 3.386a, Socrates sums up the utilitarian goals that his censorship/supervision policies are trying to achieve.
1) to raise citizens to honor the gods.
2) to raise citizens to honor their fathers and mothers
3) to raise citizens not to hold their friendships with one another in light esteem
4) Raise citizens to be brave and not fear death.

Are these worthwhile goals and do they have anything to do with justice?

If Socrates' plans for achieving these goals do not sit well, how else may they be achieved in a more agreeable manner? For example, there is the Epicurean solution to the fear of death as summarized in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura. If these are worthwhile objectives, what of other solutions are there for achieving them?

Also, a note at 3.368b of the Persus online edition states that For the idea that death is no evil Cf. Apology, in fine, Laws 727 D, 828 D, and 881 A, where, however, the fear of hell is approved as a deterrent. Is this a tool to be used on either side of the fence as needed, or just contradictory and confusing?

If Socrates's city is just a metaphor for the human person, what is the Noble Lie? Are we to lie to ourselves? Maybe entertain a moving story even though we don't literally believe it, like Santa Claus or Washington chopping down the cherry tree?

I keep going back and forth on whether the city is just a metaphor, or a thought experiment that Plato maybe thought worth exploring and maybe trying out somewhere if possible. That's why I enjoy reading this--it makes me think more every time I read it.

Entertain a moving story even though we don't literally believe it.

If S/P were to fix Homer as proposed, could Homer or any other story ever delight? Instruction junkies beware.

This is slightly beside the point, but as a musician I found the discussion of the modes interesting. I studied them in college, but it's been awhile. Anyway, if anyone is interested in hearing what it may have sounded like here is a link to a fragment of music to Euripides's play (possibly composed by Euripides himself).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cZyv...

Everyman wrote: "After the issue of censorship, Socrates then proceeds to offer a number of ideas for structuring his city that will, I think it’s safe to say, not find much support among readers here. But let’s not simply reject these ideas, but be willing to explore what Socrates is really about, what philosophical concepts underlie his ideas which we might not accept today, and whether in fact some of these ideas might indeed make for a more harmonious society, although at a price of reduced individual liberty and opportunity. "

I was thinking about this today as I read. What of the following?:

387b "It's not that they are not poetic and sweet for many to hear, but the more poetic they are, the less should they be heard by boys and men who must be free and accustomed to fearing slavery more than death."

I think one of the problems is that Socrates has a different idea of freedom than we do? I think in Western culture our idea of freedom is that everyone be as free as possible (without harming others) to do something. But Socrates's idea of freedom is to be free from something (i.e. vices such as fear). If you view vice as one of the causes of injustice in men, and if men were free from it, then more justice could be had?

I honestly don't like any of his ideas for how to achieve this (if this is really what he is saying). But I think we share the same concern. I think this is true also of myself and those on the opposite of the political fence. We have the same concerns, but how to achieve them?? That is where we clash. I wish we could listen to each other with more understanding of what we have in common.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "388e: We're now at the point where we are censoring the wrong kind of laughter. It's becoming apparent, at least to me, that there is no end to what must be banished when one really gets into what'..."

I agree. This is a huge concern.

Roger wrote: " Maybe Plato though that the resulting harmony in the soul would prevent the Guardians from becoming the brutal bumpkins that the Spartans were taken to be. As far as I know no Spartan made any contribution to the culture of the Golden Age of classical Greece. "

I love this point about the Spartans.

412a "Now I, for one, would assert that some god gave two arts [gymnastics and music] to human beings for these two things....in order that they might be harmonized with one another by being tuned to the proper degree of tension and relaxation"

386a he says, "such, it seems, are the things that should and should not be heard, from childhood on, by men who would honor gods and ancestors and not take lightly their friendship with each other."

Earlier the question was asked what age we would censor. It seems that Socrates wants to censor all the way through adulthood (though not sure what age the Greeks considered an individual to reach that age). But since he says "by men", I am assuming he wants to censor all ages??

From 412-413 Socrates describes watching them "at every age" to see if they hold "their" convictions or become "tainted". How can they become tainted unless exposed to the ideas that Socrates proposes banning?? He even describes competitions with which to test them? So he proposes "not censoring", but only under supervision?? What's this about?

Lily wrote: "It is at about this point in reading The Republic that I find myself asking why am I reading this? I am curious, do others of you ever ask the same and what is the response you give yourself?"

Um, yes. I am frustrated by the idea that he wrote all of this simply to get us to "think for ourselves". He could have made it a whole lot shorter. That makes me think that this cannot be the purpose of his meanderings?? Surely, somewhere in this, there must be legitimate offerings?

David wrote: "in 3.386a, Socrates sums up the utilitarian goals that his censorship/supervision policies are trying to achieve.
1) to raise citizens to honor the gods.
2) to raise citizens to honor their fathers and mothers
3) to raise citizens not to hold their friendships with one another in light esteem
4) Raise citizens to be brave and not fear death.

Are these worthwhile goals and do they have anything to do with justice?"

at 358e, this is offered about justice. It is a compact to "set among themselves neither to do injustice nor to suffer it".

Setting aside that this isn't an actual definition, but that justice "grows out of these sorts of things", then it seems that honoring gods, mothers and father and friends, would fulfill the goal of justice, for no one would harm another in honoring them and vice versa. So they do seem to have something to do with justice, in this sense.

I wonder if much of the city's design is due to the original metaphor of the "philosophical dog" that was used for the guardian. (376) Socrates argues that the dog "distinguishes a friendly from an unfriendly face on no other basis than having learned to know the one but not the other. And yet, if he can distinguish what is his own and what is alien on the basis of knowledge and ignorance, how would he not be a lover of learning?"

It's a terrible analogy, and all of its flaws are expanded as the city grows. The assumption that Socrates makes is that the guardians will have no human impulses, that they will be exactly as philosophical as dogs, which is not at all. They will be satisfied with complete ignorance of themselves. Their training is purely positive; the guardians will be good as long as they never suspect they have a choice. Nor will mistakes be allowed, because mistakes would reveal flaws that are not allowed to exist. The sick are not healed, they are left to die. Judges have no experience of injustice, they only know it theoretically.

Is this really the city of Socrates, the man who said that the unexamined life is not worth living? Is the love of wisdom just "recognizing what is familiar and what is alien"?

Genni wrote: "Um, yes. I am frustrated by the idea that he wrote all of this simply to get us to "think for ourselves". He could have made it a whole lot shorter."

He is getting to something more, so hang in there. I think we are meant to look on this as an honest attempt at the impossible, but that won't be evident until a bit later.

Genni wrote: "I think one of the problems is that Socrates has a different idea of freedom than we do?..."

No, he wouldn't. Nor would any other Greek in Athens, Sparta, or other polis in Greece, I think. Their main concern would have been commitment and responsibility to the state and the respect and adulation that would accrue from it. I don't believe individual freedom was a major concern in 5th century BCE Greece. Their idea of democracy had more to do with collective fairness and participation than in individual liberties or freedom.

405c: "But do you not think it even more shameful, I replied, when somebody not only spend most of his life in courtrooms as plaintiff and defendant, but out of vulgar pride actually congratulates himself on this very thing, thinking he is clever at the doing of injustice and up to every twist and turn, constantly backtracking and wiggling so that he is not punished..."

S/P is taking a shot at the unordered (unprincipled?) man, but he is also criticizing the role rhetoric plays in the law courts, assembly, and marketplace, I think. Rhetoric is the language of the politician. It's the art of convincing, and while facts and evidence are permitted, so are lies, exaggerations, and half-truths.

IIRC, Socrates thought rhetoric was a danger to a well run state, and, while not explicitly stated yet in the Republic, I see (imagine?) attempts to limit its use in this ideal city. If Socrates is right about rhetoric, then what about the modern world? Rhetoric seems to be the major tool/weapon of most politicians, pundits, and ideologues.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Genni wrote: "I think one of the problems is that Socrates has a different idea of freedom than we do?..."

No, he wouldn't. Nor would any other Greek in Athens, Sparta, or other polis in Greece, I..."

I understand that Greeks at large may not have, but I think Socrates is different. If I understand correctly (and I am thinking about Phaedo here), Socrates is concerned about the individual. He is concerned about the individual being free from the corruption of the body. I am thinking he associates injustice as what results from the corruption of the body.

In saying that, I do think he is also concerned, as you said with responsibility to the state, etc. But to achieve that he seems to offer censorship as a way to keep men free from the corruptions of the body (i.e. fear, etc).

So I just read the section (413-414) where he talks about how the guardians and rulers of the state should be chosen from children who have been raised by the state, but first they have to undergo a test to see who are the best and most temperate and courageous.

My first thought is that his test sounds like a modern dystopian teen novel. It sounds a lot like a Hunger Games or Maze Runner. Anyone else?

"We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or be deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected, and he who fails in the trial will be selected... And there should also be toils and pains and conflicts prescribed for them, in which they will be made to give further proof of the same qualities... And then, I said, we must try them with enchantments... and see what will be their behaviour... so must we take our youth amidst terrors of some kind, and again pass them into pleasures, and prove them more thoroughly than gold is proved in the furnace, that we may discover whether they are... of a noble bearing always... such as will be most serviceable to the individual and the state."

Thomas wrote: "....It's a terrible analogy....Is this really the city of Socrates, the man who said that the unexamined life is not worth living? Is the love of wisdom just "recognizing what is familiar and what is alien"?..."

Thomas -- your example is such an apt one of what oft frustrates me in reading the Republic. We face so many daily issues involving justice and injustice, from our immediate lives to global policies. I just am not facile in drawing parallels between those issues, which often interest me, with these cases Plato presents us.

So, I will keep reading, "listening" to the rest of you, and perhaps get some perspectives by those who have made at least a partial living out of studying and teaching Plato.

Lily wrote: "We face so many daily issues involving justice and injustice, from our immediate lives to global policies. I just am not facile in drawing parallels between those issues, which often interest me, with these cases Plato presents us. "

One parallel that might be worth considering is the myth of the metals at the end of Book 3. Socrates is hesitant to tell this myth and Glaucon finds it unbelievable, but I think it has some relevance to modern society. Rather than beginning with a notion of equality, it assumes that some people are born with better material than others.

It makes me think of magnet schools that have entrance exams or auditions that filter out students who don't have the requisite abilities. Or college entrance exams that measure abilities beyond what the student has demonstrated in high school. Aren't these tests to determine the students' "metal"?

Are people created unequal with respect to certain abilities? And if they are, does it follow that leaders of a city should be chosen with this in mind?

Thomas wrote: "...Rather than beginning with a notion of equality, it assumes that some people are born with better material than others. ..."

Well, Thomas, it seems to me that our American model of "freedom" provides different (competitive) sieves that lead to the selection of our leaders. Could we possibly design a priori selection criteria to direct our people towards or away from positions of leadership?

And I'm not even certain my response speaks to a point you are perhaps trying to make about making certain our "brightest and best" have a chance to be "brightest and best."

Then, there have been those who have argued against unshackling intellectual skill from cultural moorings, pointing out the need for retaining bell curves of ability throughout much of society, rather than migrating those skills to traditionally more "elite" pursuits. Not positions I can embrace, but can recognize the reasonableness. (Remember the arguments of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life ?)

Thomas wrote: "It makes me think of magnet schools that have entrance exams or auditions that filter out students who don't have the requisite abilities. Or college entrance exams that measure abilities beyond what the student has demonstrated in high school. Aren't these tests to determine the students' "metal"? ..."

Meritocracy has winners and losers, and losers are told they have to compete better. Winners and losers coalesce into factions and face off against one another. The losers feel they are victims of injustice, while the winners feel the losers are unjustly blaming them. Soon no one thinks there is justice.

A related point:

In R.E. Allen's introduction, he says that shortly after Cephalon's death his family was smashed by the 30 tyrants. Polemarchus is executed, and his other son flees, escaping his brother's fate. Nicias (sp?) is also executed. Looks like Plato had a reason for selecting Cephalon and his children for this dialogue.

The tyrants, placed in the seat of power by the victorious Spartans, are trying to maintain power and enforce their idea of justice, while their enemies are attempting to overthrow them and implement theirs. And when democracy ascends to power, it executes Socrates for impiety. Thrasymachus's point that justice goes to the stronger highlighted by recent Athenian history.

If evil is defined by Plato as the absence of good, then is injustice defined as the presence of factions and justice by the absence of them? Is this what S/P is attempting to do, create a society without factions?

Thomas wrote: "Lily wrote: "We face so many daily issues involving justice and injustice, from our immediate lives to global policies. I just am not facile in drawing parallels between those issues, which often i..."

People are certainly created unequal with respect to certain abilities, as is clear to anyone who's seen me play basketball.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Is this what S/P is attempting to do, create a society without factions?"

Plato certainly has utilitarian goals. It seems his primary goal may be avoiding civil war, as the recent swing from democracy to thirty tyrants and back again to democracy inside of 14 months would be foremost in his mind. If that is true, to Plato, the ends of political and social harmony justify the extreme means of censorship and social control; his recent experience has taught him to place a supreme value on a stable state and the means to it over individual freedoms.

David wrote: "....his recent experience has taught him to place a supreme value on a stable state and the means to it over individual freedoms...."

One of the ironies that is beginning to appear to me as I watch modern politics is that stability may arise as much from expressed differences as from suppressed ones, as if some value does exist of simply exposing divergent views to scrutiny, not driving them underground. I suspect people, and institutions, will continue to wrestle with such possibilities.

Roger wrote: "People are certainly created unequal with respect to certain abilities, as is clear to anyone who's seen me play basketball...."

Grin! And even become unequal to our selves at a different stages in our lives. I have abandoned both skiing and horseback riding -- and, yes, I understand others have not taken similar paths.