Classics and the Western Canon discussion

There is still so much to discuss in Book 2 (and even in Book 1!) that in a way I hate to move forward to Book 3 already, but for the moment I'll stick with the schedule (but under the Reading Schedule thread we might want to discuss whether people want to slow things down a bit, or keep moving at a book a week).

Anyhow, onward.

So, you thought political correctness was a recent development, did you? Ha! Plato was talking about it 2,500 years ago. (Is there any significant concept of social order that he wasn't talking about? If so, I've missed it!)

There are some fascinating issues in Book III which are highly relevant today. On the surface, they are about what the government should or should not control. But underneath, I think they have a lot to do with what we view as the role and function of government generally.

Onward.

Susanna wrote: "Book III begins with a discussion about how children should not be taught that Hades is a bad place because that makes them afraid to grow up and die in battle(386b). So, Socrates/Plato is not only advocating a modern concept of God, but also a modern concept of heaven. "

Good point. The Greeks didn't have the same concept of heaven and hell that Christians (and Jews?) did. For them, everybody went to Hades, which was generally a boring place, but neither a place of joy nor a place of punishment. Homer, in the Odyssey, made the first mention of the Elysian Fields, where the most distinguished heroes went, but in general, almost everyone went to Hades (the name primarily of the god of the underworld, but also a shortcut name for the underworld itself), which Homer described as a "mirthless place." Socrates doesn't want Hades to be viewed negatively or as a place one doesn't want to go until death creeps up eventually on one.

It's interesting that at the end of Book 2 Socrates speaks of "the god" in the singular, and it is always in reference to the good. (379a - 381c) Then he returns to "the gods" in order to censor the poets' theology, making sure that stories of the gods lying or altering their appearances (which of course they do in the traditional mythology) are not told in the city. Then at 382 he returns to "the god" in the singular to say that the god is simple and true and never lies or deceives in any way.

The censorship of traditional theology must have seemed extraordinarily cavalier in his time, even in the thought experiment that is The Republic. I also have to wonder what his contemporaries thought of "the god."

It's interesting that music is such an integral part of Socrates' education program, to the point that certain modes are favored as promoting moderation and purity. For similar reasons, tragedy and comedy are to be shunned -- they inflame the emotions. We hear similar arguments today about music and movies and video games. Socrates' reasoning seems sound, but is censoring expression of emotions at all effective in curtailing them?

It seems to me that the experience of emotion happens before the expression; the expression through drama is a catharsis of the emotions that already exist. This is why recognition is such a key element of drama for Aristotle, and I think he's right about that.

But what Socrates suggests is not only troubling, it seems as unrealistic as the Cleaver family. Does Socrates really think that he can create a class of emotionally restrained people? Can he regulate human nature by playing us the right tunes?

Patrice & Thomas -- love your comments! Are we less sure of what it means to be human 2,000+ years later -- and more willing to admit that such is so? At least, "good" humans?

Patrice wrote: "Maybe Plato isn't really saying the Spartans are "better". Maybe he was just putting it out there for us to decide...."

As one commentator put it, we don't have Plato or Socrates, we only have the book, which is and will be with us "forever."

"Everyman wrote, "Neither children nor adults are to hear about the gods being anything but perfectly good. Which is a very modern concept of God."

What is a "very modern concept of God" -- that God is perfectly good? To which time period and thinkers do you relate whatever "modern" concept to which you allude?"

Patrice wrote: "Maybe Plato isn't really saying the Spartans are "better".
Maybe he was just putting it out there for us to decide.
Do you really want to live like them?
..."

Most of us hold individual freedom to be the highest political ideal, but that hasn't always been the case. How valuable is that freedom if it weakens the city and leaves it indefensible? The Athenians had the strength to defend themselves, but they squandered it with imperialistic desire, just the sort of thing that Socrates calls immoderation.

The city that Socrates is creating seems to be going to the opposite extreme, which may also be a bad thing. Because what good is strength if it steals away the beauty of life, leaving nothing worth defending? It seems like these two tendencies -- freedom and strength -- need to be harmonized with each other, like music and gymnastics are for the guardians at 410.
I think that is what Socrates is trying to achieve, but the strict regulation of the city still grates on our modern liberal sensibilities.

I have been a life-long advocate of free speech, but I'm going to suggest that Platonic censorship may indeed be preferable to free speech as a principle of a healthy society.

Plato would prohibit literature which suggests that violence against the state or the rulers is justified. I look at what is happening in England today, and have to ask myself, to what extent has the diminution of respect for authority and the social order among the largely young who are rioting occurred because it has seemed justified by some of the violence in video games, on television, and in modern, particularly rap, music? How can young men and women who absorb day after day lyrics advocating violence against the police and play video games where they massacre the forces of government not have an increased sense that such behavior is, if not socially acceptable, at the least exciting and rewarding?

This not, of course, new; in the 60s the police were called "pigs" and leftists railed against "the man," but even in Chicago in 1968 there was not the wholesale and almost random burning of police cars, attacks on police, looting of shops, torching of the cars of totally innocent people, and the like. Can we really argue that none of this behavior was in any way exacerbated by the great approval of violence in the music, video games, and even movies aimed at young people? Can young men who day after day are bombarded with rap music that extols violence against women, calls them hos and all sorts of other degrading names, not feel an increased sense that domestic violence is an acceptable form of social gender interaction?

Advocates of free speech argue that the solution to bad speech is not to ban it, but to overcome it with good speech. But that doesn't seem to be working in the worlds of modern music and computer gaming.

Perhaps Plato was wiser than we think?

Socrates also wants to control the very form of music, because music gets into the soul. Isn't he dead right about that? If you play martial music to one group and waltzes to another, isn't the first group more likely to become aggressive? Would the great spectacles of the Third Reich have been nearly as compelling without their music? In our own day, don't political campaigns pay a great deal of attention to the music they play at political rallies and conventions? Shouldn't the state which wants its citizens to be good civic people control the music and the form of music that they listen to? (What sort of mother play Mozart to their babies, and what sort play them country music or rap music?)

Plato advocates telling every citizen that they are not born of human parents but from the earth -- the first Noble Lie. Obviously, nobody will believe this -- they can watch children being born of mothers. It's preposterous. And certainly, Socrates knows this.

So, why does he advocate this Noble Lie? Why propose such an absurd idea? He's not stupid, he knows it won't fly, so why does he advocate it in the first place?

Patrice wrote: "I have a problem with the interpretation that Athens imperialism brought it down. "

Maybe I should restate. I think it's generally agreed that the cause of the war was Athenian imperialism. Sparta had no desire to war with Athens, but the constant expansion of the Athenian empire over a 50 year period threatened every independent state in the region. Now you may be right about why Athens lost the war -- the plague was certainly a factor (though it affected Sparta as well.) But I think the cause of the war is not in dispute.

Call me corny, I did grow up in the 50s and was indoctrinated, but when I think of Churchill's speeches or Pericles funeral oration, I think freedom IS strength!

Not corny at all -- but I think you have to differentiate between what soldiers fight for, and how they fight for it. Doesn't every soldier give up a large measure of individual freedom in order to fight as a unit? Soldiers who can't follow orders and insist on their individual freedoms aren't soldiers for long. I think Socrates has a similar thing in mind for his young guardians.

The problem I always encounter on censoring is who can we "trust" to do the censoring? Isn't that selection in itself pretty fundamental censoring?

Yet, certainly we do elements of "censoring" in almost all our human interactions -- from simple courtesies to considerations to gain advantage in negotiations.

Everyman wrote: "Plato advocates telling every citizen that they are not born of human parents but from the earth -- the first Noble Lie. Obviously, nobody will believe this -- they can watch children being born o..."

There actually was a belief that Athenians were autochthonous, so it might not be as absurd as it sounds. This may be another instance of Socrates making use of popular mythology for his own ends. Though in this case he find it useful, so he promotes it instead of censoring it.

The word that Socrates uses for his Noble Lie is mechane, meaning a device or instrument. It is the same word used for the crane in Greek theatre that carries gods into or out of the scene on stage. It does seem quite arrogant for him to believe that the citizens will believe this absurdity, and he is appropriately embarrassed by it, but maybe he thinks that if they are persuaded by the popular theater, why not this as well?

Patrice wrote: "The problem i have with his censorship is that it is government censorship. Political censorship, I don't trust the government to decide what I can and cannot see."

I have been thinking a lot about why some of what Plato says, particularly censorship, strike us wrong.

One possibility I've come up with is that I think his whole approach to government and those who govern is totally different from the American particularly, and to some degree western generally, view of government.

Plato wasn't dealing with a large national government such as ours. He was dealing with city-states, and not even large cities but perhaps 40,000 male citizens (women and slaves weren't politically significant) who were the decision makers, and a much smaller number of the more wealthy and educated citizens (of whom Plato was one) who would have held positions of authority. Political discussion was widespread (no TV or Internet or radio or even newspapers to get between the politicians and the people); go to the Agora and you could meet and hear and talk with the people who ran the city. Also, since every citizen was obligated to go into military service, these would have been men you would have known as fellow soldiers, who would have been trained next to you and undergone the same hardships you did. (Heinlein approved this in his book Starship Troopers in which he limited the franchise to men and women who had completed military service.) So I think Plato's readers, as Plato, would have been much more trusting of the rulers of the city, those making the decisions as to what to censor, as we are of the folks in Washington, D.C.

Also, I think the whole concept of government was different. We tend to think of government as a separate power, a third leg to the stool of the people and business, and the role of government to be an external governing force. But I think Plato and the Athenians saw government and the role of the state more in the mode of an extended family. In the US, we tend to put jobs and business as the most important non-family relationship in our lives. They believed that every citizen (again, males) should be involved in politics; that, as Aristotle said, man is by nature a political animal (we would I think more likely say that every man is by nature an economic animal). Certainly within our families we have no sense that when we limit what our children are exposed to, we don't see ourselves as hostile censors but as careful custodians of our children's welfare. I do think that Plato, to at least a certain degree, saw the political power more in this sense than in the sense of a distant, impersonal governing power.

If I'm right, or at least partly right, doesn't that significantly change whether at least some of Plato's ideas make more sense than they seem to in today's political climate?

Patrice wrote: "Still, I can't help loving Athens! ;-) "

You aren't alone. But while we tend to look to Athens these days, for many centuries Sparta was considered the better example of how to organize a state (after all, they, a much smaller city-state, defeated Athens!), and our forefathers looked more to Rome than to either Sparta or Athens for their example of government.

Lily wrote: "The problem I always encounter on censoring is who can we "trust" to do the censoring? Isn't that selection in itself pretty fundamental censoring?"

Do you trust yourself to "censor" what your children (if you have children; if not, imagine that you do!) read and view? When your friends send their children over to your house to watch a movie, do you think they trust you to choose what they see wisely (i.e., to censor appropriately)?

Thomas wrote: "There actually was a belief that Athenians were autochthonous, so it might not be as absurd as it sounds. "

Ah ha. So you think he was talking about "born of" in a psychological rather than a physical sense?

Everyman wrote: "and our forefathers looked more to Rome than to either Sparta or Athens for their example of government.
"

I stumbled across this a few months ago and remembered it after reading your post. From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814:

I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my other home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato’s Republic. I am wrong, however, in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been, that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? How the soi-disant Christian world, indeed, should have done it, is a piece of historical curiosity. But how could the Roman good sense do it? And particularly, how could Cicero bestow such eulogies on Plato!

The rest of the letter can be found here.

I don't think Jefferson was a particularly good reader of Plato, but he evidently had his opinions.

Patrice wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I have been a life-long advocate of free speech, but I'm going to suggest that Platonic censorship may indeed be preferable to free speech as a principle of a healthy society.

P..."


Much of Book 3 is about education and Plato’s instructions for what should be the purpose of education. Plato says he is only making “general” not exact proposals for choosing the rulers and guardians in 414b: “I speak generally and not with any pretensions to exactness” (Jowett). Nothing is said about educating the farmers, merchants, artisans, and others. Karl Marx may not have been the first to ask the big question “Who is going to educate the educators?” It is too soon to look for an answer to that question but my guess is it’s probably going to be Socrates.

Everyman wrote: "Ah ha. So you think he was talking about "born of" in a psychological rather than a physical sense?
"

The only way the story makes any sense is symbolically. I think it's interesting though that Socrates will not extend the same courtesy of interpretation to Homer or Hesiod or any of other poets. Socrates sets himself up as an authority for the "city in speech" and sanctions the lie, which only the ruler can do. Socrates, the man who knows nothing!

Thomas wrote: "I don't think Jefferson was a particularly good reader of Plato, but he evidently had his opinions. ..."

Reminds me of the saying "Genius has its limitations".

Galicius wrote: "Karl Marx may not have been the first to ask the big question “Who is going to educate the educators?” It is too soon to look for an answer to that question but my guess is it’s probably going to be Socrates...."

LOL, your guess is very close to mine. :)

Everyman wrote: "Plato advocates telling every citizen that they are not born of human parents but from the earth -- the first Noble Lie. Obviously, nobody will believe this -- they can watch children being born o..."

As the risk of going off on a tangent, this makes me think of the origin of life. If we trace life form to its origin, wasn't it "born" from the earth/ocean, at least according to the primordial soup theory?

Patrice mentioned the Genesis story. I also recall that in the Greek mythology, the Earth (Gaia) was one of the primordial gods from whom the sky and everything else were born.

Thomas wrote: "I stumbled across this a few months ago and remembered it after reading your post. From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814:"

Great find!

Galicius wrote: "Karl Marx may not have been the first to ask the big question “Who is going to educate the educators?” It is too soon to look for an answer to that question but my guess is it’s probably going to be Socrates. "

I think we'll find that Socrates was a sufficient believer in objective truth that he would say that if an educator was a true philosopher he could come to only one conclusion; that all else is false learning, but that the true philosopher will find and recognize the true learning, and that he will be able to bring other true philosophers to recognize it. There won't need to be a dogmatic teacher, just (see Meno) correct recollection.

Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "The problem I always encounter on censoring is who can we "trust" to do the censoring? Isn't that selection in itself pretty fundamental censoring?"

Do you trust yourself to "censor"..."

So what is "trust" in this context? Do I trust myself to even appropriately "censor" what I read or view myself -- there are things that I "stay away from", but occasionally I ask myself, am I hindering understanding of the world and allowing myself to be naive by avoiding those areas?

Since I worked, others, including my husband after he retired, created an environment that was generally considered "safe" in our community for kids to play and study. But "tight censorship" was never a part of either my own upbringing or in our home. Yet, I know that there was something about the environment of both that has lent itself to "self-censorship". Some of that is probably discipline, some of it may be avoidance. Certainly values instilled have had a play in it all. (I guess I consider that process of developing values more crucial than censorship.)

(I write this tonight as I have been reading Half of a Yellow Sun and realizing once again how ignorant I am of African history.)

Thomas -- thank you for the quotation from the Thomas Jefferson correspondence. Would be interested in your (and Nemo's) comments on the "limitations" you perceive.

Patrice wrote: "I looked up "autochthonous" but I'm still not sure of the meaning, Could you explain?
"

It just means "born from the earth itself". The Athenian legend apparently comes from Homer (uh oh).

Later, Erechtheus was born from the soil of Athens itself, the son of Hephaestus and the foster son of Athena. Athena had approached Hephaestus about providing her some weapons. Hephaestus fell into a passion for Athena and began to pursue her. She fled, but he eventually caught her and tried to have intercourse with her. She resisted, his semen fell on her leg, and she wiped it off and threw it to the ground. From it was conceived Erechtheus. Thus Erechtheus was born from the earth itself. The virgin Athena adopted Erechtheus as her foster son, installed him in her temple on the Acropolis, and he eventually became king of Athens. Erechtheus for his part erected the wooden statue of Athena in her temple and founded the Panathenaea, Athena's major festival in Athens.

https://umdrive.memphis.edu/mhooker/c...

Based on how difficult Socrates thinks it will be to persuade people of his "noble lie", it couldn't have been a widely held belief. On the other hand, it might have rung a bell.

Thomas wrote: "...She resisted, his semen fell on her leg, and she wiped it off and threw it to the ground. From it was conceived Erechtheus. Thus Erechtheus was born from the earth itself...."

This story reminds me once again how many years passed before it was understood that the woman, as well the man, contributed to the formation of a child. Prior to that, the woman was considered more of a vessel than an active participant in creation. (Does anyone have a reliable source on when the union of egg and sperm was understood -- I remember being surprised how late in history it was in something I read this past year, don't remember that date now, nor have I ever cross-checked for reliable information.)

Patrice wrote: "They obviously knew how human babies were born, Maybe it was a symbolic story?
"

It seems that way to me. Socrates wants to create guardians who are loyal to the city above their own private interests. This makes sense on a certain level, but he creates a myth that is every bit as strange as the one about Erectheus or the one about Cadmus planting the dragon's teeth, and he expects the citizens to believe it. I suppose we have to ask ourselves if Socrates thinks the truth really matters for the guardians, or if it only matters for the rulers. And where does that leave the majority of citizens?

And to add to your earlier comment about Sparta, the "sown men" who are born from the earth in the Cadmus legend are called "spartoi."

Another point about the Noble Lie about children of the earth is that, taking it allegorically, it jibes right in with the concept of calling one's home city or country the Motherland or Fatherland, which is common usage. We also talk of Mother Earth, don't we? I don't know whether the Greeks used that phrase, don't recall it specifically from my reading, but Plato has certainly struck a common chord, hasn't he?

Everyman wrote: "...We also talk of Mother Earth, don't we?..."

From the Wikipedia entry for Demeter: "In Greek mythology, Demeter (Attic Δημήτηρ Dēmētēr. Doric Δαμάτηρ Dāmātēr) is the goddess of the harvest, who presided over grains, the fertility of the earth, and the seasons (personified by the Hours). Her common surnames are Sito (σίτος: wheat) as the giver of food or corn/grain and Thesmophoros (θεσμός, thesmos: divine order, unwritten law) as a mark of the civilized existence of agricultural society. Though Demeter is often described simply as the goddess of the harvest, she presided also over the sanctity of marriage, the sacred law, and the cycle of life and death. She and her daughter Persephone were the central figures of the Eleusinian Mysteries that predated the Olympian pantheon. In the Linear B Mycenean Greek tablets of circa 1400-1200 BC found at Pylos, the 'two mistresses and the king' are identified with Demeter, Persephone and Poseidon. Her Roman equivalent is Ceres."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeter

Patrice wrote: "...Have you found yourself getting used to a lowering of general standards?..."

I don't know, Patrice. In some ways, I think my and particularly my son's standards for intolerance are far higher than those of even the 50's. We often did not even recognize our biases or faux pas. I think we are evolving higher standards for safety-consider just seat belt usage (in a world that ironically is probably far less safe) and for environmental care. Has making areas available for feminine endeavor increased abuse or simply made us more willing to recognize and name it? Still, are we being "reasonable" in many of those areas? Are there others where we have "loosened" our standards? Why? What does that imply for ourselves, our families, our communities?

Patrice wrote: "A class of emotionally restrained people? How about the British? Stiff upper lip and all that. ;-)
I've often seen a parallel between the British and Sparta, or the Republic. "


I think the changes we see over time are primarily caused by the changes in technology (and the effects of those changes on culture) not essential changes in human nature. I think this is why we can still appreciate plays that were written two thousand years ago, and why we can read a book like The Republic and learn something about human nature even today. Cultures are constantly changing, but we always seem to run up against the same problems.

Your comment about the British made me think of the riots in London -- some of those people are not keeping a stiff upper lip! Socrates might say their spiritedness has gained the upper hand and they are sorely wanting in moderation. And we can see how the auxiliaries are dealing with this problem, directed by the rulers.

Of course things have changed -- think about what the internet was like only ten or fifteen years ago -- but I think we're still expressing the same things. Just doing it in a different way. (And much more openly.)

Thomas wrote: "I think we're still expressing the same things. Just doing it in a different way...."

You express the wisdom of Ecclesiastes ("there is nothing new under the sun"). But I wish I could remember the author who questioned this view -- the one who was the most articulate on the issue that I have encountered. But, that was many months ago and I doubt I can scratch up the recall.

I suppose it boils down to what is "same", what is "difference," what is "technology", ... But I am not convinced but what Luther and Jefferson and Galileo and Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Darwin and explorers after Columbus and landing on the moon didn't express "different" things -- or at least that now some of the "same things" didn't mean substantially different things -- e.g., slavery.

Yet who has read the lines of Hector leaving his infant son and not been touched by the timelessness of the sentiments expressed?

We haven't yet talked about Socrates's view of illness and medical ethics. His ideas are so incredibly different from ours! Medical science should not treat those whose bodies are diseased through and through, or who have a permanent illness (diabetics? Epileptics?) These people should be allowed to die without the benefit of medical attention.

For Socrates, medical care is not a right, and there is no universal access to medical care. Both ideas that are anathema to the modern Western state and particularly to our current administration.

Yet, isn't he right that as a society becomes more and more dependent on doctors and spends more and more on the seriously ill, it diverts resources that could be used for the general public benefit?

Yet isn't there also a gradual trend toward accepting his view that the goal isn't merely a life, but that the quality of life matters? Up to perhaps 20 years ago, doing everything possible in medicine was the accepted premise, and any doctor who advocated any less than that was unprofessional, if not inhuman. But we are now much more accepting of DNR orders (for non-Americans, those are Do Not Resuscitate -- that is, if a terminally ill person stops breathing or their heart stops beating, you do not use heroic measures to restart their breathing or heart, but let them die), and some states are even making provisions for legal suicide for terminally ill people. So maybe there's a bit of an acceptance of Plato's idea that there is a difference between a life and a good life.

But still, overall I think most modern Westerners would reject most of Plato's thoughts on the proper role of medicine in the city-state, wouldn't they?

Everyman wrote: "We haven't yet talked about Socrates's view of illness and medical ethics. His ideas are so incredibly different from ours! Medical science should not treat those whose bodies are diseased throu..."

At this point I don't think Socrates is concerned with the good life of the individual. He is only concerned with the good life of the city. Socrates does not really value individual souls, he only values them for the role they play in the city. A sick soul who cannot perform his function for the city is of no value whatsoever. The arete of the city, the excellence and good functioning of the city is the only concern.

Aside from the rebarbative notion that individuals have no value in themselves, this shows up the limits of the city-man analogy. Which part of the soul can be left to die when it no longer functions?

(Have we gotten to the parts of the soul yet? ...sorry if this is premature. This afternoon my copy of Bloom's translation broke in half and is currently under care of the book doctor, Elmers M.D.)

Everyman wrote: "But still, overall I think most modern Westerners would reject most of Plato's thoughts on the proper role of medicine in the city-state, wouldn't they? ...."

Not clear where the vast majority of the U.S. stands on health and medical care. My impression is that it is widely and deeply divided.

Plato could have had no, or at least little, conception of what humankind would eventually learn about the human body and be able to do with medicines and surgery and treatment. I am not sure comparisons are fair.

I do think that there is considerable acceptance of the "right to die," however, not clear how many want it for themselves or their immediate loved ones. It is well that most of us who make wills on the subject usually do so when we are somewhat removed from the actuality. I do see evidence that medical training is changing, but liability as evoked in the U.S. remains an issue. Palliative and hospice care remain sticky ethical and quality of life and financial issues.

In general, the studies I have seen have indicated that an economy benefits by health care, even to the seriously ill -- caretakers can do more productive work if they can spend less time caring for elderly family members, days of productivity lost to simple illnesses like colds consume unreasonable resources, parents can continue to care for children, ..., the arguments of that ilk. On the other hand, despite President Kennedy's efforts, there is no question that we are not getting a handle on obesity and fitness. (In the early seventies, I was aware of a medical group that had identified obesity as the major problem of its practice! It has taken us another 40 years and we are still in denial.)

Thomas wrote: "At this point I don't think Socrates is concerned with the good life of the individual. He is only concerned with the good life of the city. Socrates does not really value individual souls, he only values them for the role they play in the city. A sick soul who cannot perform his function for the city is of no value whatsoever. The arete of the city, the excellence and good functioning of the city is the only concern."

I'm not sure that's quite fair. After all, the point of the good life in the city is to create a good life for its citizens, isn't it? The city isn't an external, abstract thing; isn't it simply the vehicle through which citizens come together to make a better life for each of them?

It's true, I think, that when one person's life interferes with the good of the city, the city comes first; in that you're absolutely right. But it seems to me that that's because allowing allowing any individual to harm the city means harming all the other people that the city is intended to serve. Definitely the good of the many is more important than the good of the one. But while that conflicts with much modern Western thinking, are we sure that our society is better as a whole for replacing the Platonic principle with the principle that every life is precious even when it reduces the quality of life of the community and its other members?

Everyman wrote: "I'm not sure that's quite fair. After all, the point of the good life in the city is to create a good life for its citizens, isn't it? The city isn't an external, abstract thing; isn't it simply the vehicle through which citizens come together to make a better life for each of them?
"

Does Socrates have any interest in the good life for the lowest class of citizens? It seems to me that they are at best the beneficiaries of the "trickle-down" effect of the well-run city, and at worst they are serfs. They receive no education and they have no freedom to choose what they do for a living (or at least to change what they do, or to do more than one thing at a time.) They are designated the "money-makers" and as such are expected by nature to be immoderate, so the guardians are set over them to keep them in line. Why is it that there is no education for the lowest class?

The reason for this, I think, is that Socrates is more concerned with the soul than he is with the city. The lowest class represents desire, the appetitive part of the soul, which must be controlled by a higher power. I think this works with the soul, but it doesn't translate well to the city, because the city is composed of individual souls who have all of those parts, appetitive, spiritedness, and rational, not just one of them.

Patrice wrote: "Wouldn't Plato say that the lower classes are by nature happy not being educated?"

I think you're right -- the workers are described as having gold "hung on them" and working the earth "at their pleasure" and engaging in drinking competitions. It's highly unlikely that farmers and potters really lived such lives of luxury, but that is how Socrates portrays them. Is this happiness then? He certainly doesn't believe this life is happy for guardians, and it is far from being the philosophical life. It makes me want to grab Socrates by his himation and ask him, "Is happiness one thing, or many things?" One thing for the farmer, and another for the philosopher?

He might say it doesn't matter. That seems to be his response to Adimantus' charge that the guardians are not happy -- happiness is not for any particular person or class. It's for the city.

Thomas wrote: "...happiness is not for any particular person or class. It's for the city..."

And just when do cities have emotions? Or is Socrates anthropomorphizing?

Patrice wrote: "Wouldn't Plato say that the lower classes are by nature happy not being educated?"

I think that's right. The bronze people need to be trained in the skills needed to perform the functions for which they are destined, and to earn enough money to live on but not enough for luxuries that would spoil them (and hurt the city), but the sort of education that is provided for the guardians would just confuse them and make them unhappy.

@66 Thomas wrote: "Why is it that there is no education for the lowest class..."

I'm supposing because there was no particular need for much education for the lowest class. Also, education would be an encumbrance, wouldn't it? Just as there is no need for the farmer to learn to make shoes, or for the tanner to learn how to trim trees. Each citizen is to focus on their own given task.

Remember how Socractes looks first to the purpose, and then works his way back? Why is there a city? Because people can't do everything for themselves. And experts do their tasks better than non-experts. So once a determination as to who will make the best Guardians, why, educate them, and then have them do all the deep thinking and planning for the city.

If the lower classes were somewhat educated, they might start to offer suggestions, or it might very well undermine the authority of the Guardians.

In order for the city to run smoothly, each must attend to his own task. The expert ship captain directs the ship, the expert medical man dispenses medical advice, and the expert government governs. According to Xenophon, Socrates basic premise was 'that it is the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey."

Socrates, supposedly, was not pro-democracy.

@67 Lily wrote: And just when do cities have emotions? Or is Socrates anthropomorphizing?"

He does seem to refer to the city as an entity. I noticed that too. But then...I've started reading side material....interested in the Athens/Spartan Greeks now...so I've started Song of Wrath: The Pelopnesian War Begins by J. E. Lendon.

Lendon had a couple of lines that seemed to address that: "The Greeks had the habit of regarding their cities as gigantic conglomerate personalities..." (9),

"Regarded as humans and ranked against each other...Greek states [cities] were naturally offended by hybris, became consumed with wrath and sought revenge. Exactly how a collectivity could feel emotion was never a theoretical problem for the Greeks. 'The Lacedaemonians [Spartans] were angry' and so went to war, writes a historian;" (10).

Song of Wrath: The Peloponnesian War Begins

Patrice wrote: "But in a way he does seem to be saying that happiness is doing what is "fitting" for each person. People are not the same. Not equal. But that does seem to conflict with the idea of a "universal" truth, doesn't it?

..."

If I'm reading you rightly...

Not equal is no problem. Just as there is a general concept of "chairness," so too there is a general, "universal," person-ness. And yet, some chairs are blue, and some are well-constructed, and some are falling apart...yet all are chairs. People, too, have varying abilities and varying moral worthiness.

IF that is along the lines you were musing on.

(But again, I just don't think "happiness" is a consideration.)

@ 74 Patrice wrote: "Well, i guess I was struggling with my own ideas vs Plato's. I think that everyone should be educated. Mortimer Adler had a program called "The Paideia Proposal". His idea was that every citizen..."

We happen to be very individual oriented. We live post-Enlightenment. Humanism. Thinking, "If I only have one life to live, let me live it as a blonde...And if I can't live it as a blonde, then at least I want florish as an individual." And we don't generally believe that our country is going to be defeated by another....with huge swathes of the population killed or sold into slavery.

But Plato....as seen through Aristotle:

If experts are the best at what they do;
And if philosphers are the experts at pondering the basic questions of life;
Then philosphers are the best choice to ponder and decide the basic questions of life...like how to run the city.

I wouldn't want to live there either. But I'm trying to see it from Plato's perspective. (Trying to listen.)

The president...Buckley's line...(good line, btw)...is not comparable...or so it seems to me. The president wasn't chosen as a child and educated properly to govern. The president was influenced by political considerations...by personal ambition...by a lifetime of focusing on other tasks than the job of being president....So he's not an expert president.

["I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." lol. I had to google it.}

And you're right, Plato was not proposing a free country... or free city...he was proposing what he thought would be the most harmonious, and hence the most just, city. Yes? No? {Reason...trying to weigh and balance the needs of the various aspects of a person.}

But Plato's Ideal City can't exist, right? Because ideally...all the people accept their roles and positions...the rulers ruling, the ruled obeying. And in real life...someone's going to object.

Isn't this supposed to be simply a way for us to look at justice in the City...so we can compare it with justice in the individual??

The Taliban rule through cohersion. (spelling???). If we were to transfer the analogy to the individual...Maybe the analogy would be something like, "Right hand, do as I say, or I will cut you off." Threats such as this have no effect on the left hand. The threat would have to be processed and analysed through reason, right? Which, translated back to the city analogy, would be the Guardians, yes?

Properly chosen, properly trained Guardians wouldn't be much like the Taliban. Well, they would be...authoritative, yes...but the Taliban ciy would not have harmony between the various parts...therefore, it wouldn't have justice...therefore, they would not be proper Guardians.

(Like Thomas, I at times find it difficult to find the city/soul analogy entirely representational.)

Some of this discussion about the class system seems to anticipate Adam Smith's ideas on specialization and division of labor. I recently read a book called The Rational Optimist, by Matt Ridley which argued that beginning in prehistoric times this practice, along with the development of markets, has led to continuous progress for humanity.

Of course, Karl Marx takes issue. And I don't think one needs to be a Marxist to note that there are significant losers in such a system.

I wonder what Plato would have thought of John Rawles' twentieth century concept of the "veil of ignorance." As I understand it, Rawles asks us to make decisions about what is just without knowing whether we will be on the giving or receiving side. Kind of like a parent having one child slice the cake and the other choose the piece she wants.

But then, as others have noted perhaps Plato's concepts about "the good" has little to do with justice.