Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Socrates has now created the just city. If it has been properly created, it should be perfectly good; wisse, moderate, courageous, and just. The three classes of citizens -- gold-souled, silver-souled, and bronze-souled -- are all happy fulfilling their individual roles to create a harmonious and happy city.

So we all want to get together on an island and create this city and live there together happily, right? (I, of course, am a gold-souled citizen; we can work out which of the rest of you are silver and bronze!)

Everyman wrote: "Socrates has now created the just city. If it has been properly created, it should be perfectly good; wisse, moderate, courageous, and just. The three classes of citizens -- gold-souled, silver-..."

Jefferson, Plato, Jesus ... gold souls?

Everyman wrote: "So we all want to get together on an island and create this city and live there together happily, right? (I, of course, am a gold-souled citizen; we can work out which of the rest of you are silver and bronze!) ..."

But why would you want to have a gold soul? That seems to be Adeimantus' question right at the start: "What would your defense be, Socrates, if someone were to say you aren't making these men happy?"

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "So we all want to get together on an island and create this city and live there together happily, right? (I, of course, am a gold-souled citizen; we can work out which of the rest ..."

The gold-souled citizen aren't unhappy...Their eudaimonia (their success and their personal satisfaction) for Socrates is in doing their duty. These men would be happy because the polis isn't founded to make happy a single ethnos (group, class) , but to make happy the city as a whole (hole).
A community is legitimate only if it makes possible -or at least respect- the happiness of individuals, while the rights of the individual are justified only if they benefit - or at least respect - the interests of the polis.

Cassandra wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "So we all want to get together on an island and create this city and live there together happily, right? (I, of course, am a gold-souled citizen; we can work out whi..."

Cassandra -- welcome to the discussion!

Cassandra wrote: "These men would be happy because the polis isn't founded to make happy a single ethnos (group, class) , but to make happy the city as a whole (hole).
"

Well put, and I think you're right that the polis is founded for the "happiness" of the polis. The trouble I'm having is that cities aren't happy, people are. The guardians aren't necessarily unhappy, assuming that their education has sufficiently indoctrinated them so they don't want things like private property or families of their own, but their happiness is dependent on the happiness of the whole. Socrates has de-eroticized them (if I can use that term) and turned them from human beings into citizens. They are no longer individuals. Isn't something lost there?

Thomas wrote: "...Isn't something lost there? ..."

LOL! A bit of an understatement?

Lily wrote: "Thomas wrote: "...Isn't something lost there? ..."

LOL! A bit of an understatement?"

You are right!We can say that the city is theirs, but the guardians don't have any benefit from their office, and their personal eudaimonia for Socrates is a minor problem.
For the philosopher, and for the men of his time, who ruled the polis had to be a citizen, not an individual with personal needs, which otherwise would take him to mind his own business, ignoring the good of the polis...something virtually impossible for us to practice or even think!

Cassandra wrote: "For the philosopher, and for the men of his time, who ruled the polis had to be a citizen, not an individual with personal needs, which otherwise would take him to mind his own business, ignoring the good of the polis...something virtually impossible for us to practice or even think! "

Well that is really interesting. Socrates finally defines justice as "minding your own business," but the happiness of the city is a result of the guardians minding everyone else's business, in order to ensure the health and happiness of the city. Is that a contradiction, or can we say that minding other people's business is the guardians' business? (I'm not sure how that cannot be a contradiction, unless justice only applies to the worker class...but then it's not a universal definition.) Or is there just something wrong with Socrates' definition?

Thomas wrote: "Or is there just something wrong with Socrates' definition? ..."

Do we begin to develop at least some sympathy for Jefferson's assessment of The Republic?

Do we begin to develop at least some sympathy for Jefferson's assessment of The Republic?"

I think Jefferson dismisses Plato too quickly. It's possible that there is something of value behind the faults in the Republic. Platonic dialogues often culminate in failure, but I think Plato believes we learn more from failing to achieve something, from the process of trying, than we do from being spoon-fed "knowledge." I think he expects us to see the problems with Socrates' arguments and examine them. Which we're still doing, two thousand years later!

Lily wrote: "Do we begin to develop at least some sympathy for Jefferson's assessment of The Republic?"

Frankly, I was a little surprised and disappointed by Jefferson's invectives against The Republic, I would have liked to see a more thoughtful and well-reasoned review.

By coincidence, I had just finished Cicero's The Republic and The Laws, and therein lies the answer to Jefferson's rhetorical question: "How could Cicero bestow such eulogies on Plato!" Cicero was a man of reason and "Roman good sense", as Jefferson put it, and a lawyer like himself. If a person with average intelligence like me can learn and understand Cicero's arguments in support of Plato, surely a genius like Jefferson should have known better.

Thomas wrote: "can we say that minding other people's business is the guardians' business?..."

I'm reminded of Dickens' A Christmas Carol:

"But you were always a good man of business,
Jacob," faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this
to himself.

"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands
again. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings
of my trade were but a drop of water in the
comprehensive ocean of my business!"

Socrates says that, on closer examination, justice has already been discussed, when it was said that everyone must play in the polis, a single task, the one for which the physis has shaped him, and that each must do his task without polypragmonein (ie take care of many things). Justice, in other words, is the principle for which the wise (philosophers) and brave (guardians) of the city, playing the role that suits them, reverberate their particular virtues on the whole polis.
I think that a polis founded on justice, for Socrates isn't based on an organic harmony, but on a division of tasks, the achievement of wich is also a moral duty.

Cassandra wrote: "Justice, in other words, is the principle for which the wise (philosophers) and brave (guardians) of the city, playing the role that suits them, reverberate their particular virtues on the whole polis.
I think that a polis founded on justice, for Socrates isn't based on an organic harmony, but on a division of tasks, the achievement of wich is also a moral duty. "

It might be helpful to think of the city as a machine. Socrates describes the parts of the machine, what they do and how they function, and then he shows how all the parts work together in harmony as a whole. The parts can't interfere with each other or the machine doesn't work right, but they must work together according to the design of the machine or it also doesn't work right. The parts must be independent (which he calls justice) and harmonize at the same time (which is the philia, the "friendship" of the parts with the overall design, which he calls moderation at 442d.) So more than justice is required for this machine to function well.

I bet a lot of us have had the experience of leading a team of people and have tried to implement these principles. We want everyone to do their jobs and not interfere with their co-workers, but at the same time to see the overall objective set by the leader and work together to achieve it. (My experience has been that minding your own business and working together as a team is not something that everyone does very well.)

Thomas wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Justice, in other words, is the principle for which the wise (philosophers) and brave (guardians) of the city, playing the role that suits them, reverberate their particular virtu..."

I think that for Socrates the justice is the principle that sets the boundaries of the essential virtue "of relation" which is the sophrosyne (the ability to control the appetites and pleasures). The Socratic equation between virtue and knowledge is structured with a principle of coordination: justice becomes the virtue that gives to knowledge the dominant role that characterizes the virtuous person.

This polis is like the human body:it's made up of many parts all coordinated by reason, but it's a utopian city, impossible to achieve...and this also applies to my experience!

Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Socrates has now created the just city. If it has been properly created, it should be perfectly good; wisse, moderate, courageous, and just. The three classes of citizens --

Jefferson, Plato, Jesus ... gold souls?..."

Oh, not that Jefferson guy! Statesman, farmer, educator, inventor, interested in science AND politics...There's a man who's doing more than one thing. Plus, he did so like the finer things in life, even when he couldn't properly afford them.

Cassandra wrote: "The gold-souled citizen aren't unhappy...Their eudaimonia (their success and their personal satisfaction) for Socrates is in doing their duty. ..."

I agree. Plato may be tring to prove that a just man should be just even if others believe him to be unjust...but in the real world, there would be honor or dishonor attached to one's actions. And the honor is of great value.

Remember, Plato will take the children from their natural families at a very young age. Those who ultimately become Guardians are educated to that.

Thomas wrote: "... their happiness is dependent on the happiness of the whole. Socrates has de-eroticized them (if I can use that term) and turned them from human beings into citizens. They are no longer individuals. Isn't something lost there?



..."

I didn't read it as their happiness being dependent on the happiness of the whole. I didn't get the impression that "happiness" as such was a consideration for anyone. [Perhaps the stress on happiness is a modern concept.] I'm thinking Plato is looking to construe a city that functions smoothly.

If everyone is acceptingly focused on the task assigned to him...so that there's no jealousy or striving to have what another in the city has...then the city will run smoothly...People will have food to eat...roofs over their heads...safety in the city. Is enough.

Look at Sparta. (Plato obviously looked at Sparta.)

The men COMPETED to be in the elite. A physically tough life. But they strove to live up to the ideal of who they were supposed to be. That brought them personal satisfaction.

"Witness Thermopylae, in 480 BC, where three hundred Spartans stood and died rather than retreat before the myriads of Xerxes, the Great King of Persia. The words on the barrow of the fallen asked the passerby to tell the Spartans, 'We lie here in obedience to their orders,' because no one worthy survived to carry home the news" (J.E. Lendon, Song of Wrath, 32).

If Plato can obtain obedience such as that in his citizens, then his ideal city has a much greater chance of success.

Plato's right, he has to educate the children while they are young. Indoctrinate them with the "right" beliefs.

{"Evita" Che: "Get them while they're young, Evita, get them while they're young."}

I was quite struck by Plato's analogy...his comparing a proper education to wool that's been properly dyed. Neither will ever wash out. \

So.... it would seem that once Plato has determined the proper beliefs for his citizens to hold, he would have them hold those beliefs tenaciously... His citizens would, in fact, be the kind of people Polymarchus referenced...the kind of people who WON'T listen.

Fabulous sentence at 430d: "I wonder if we could find justice without having to bother further aout self-discipline?"

I most sincerely wish that Plato had provided a more convincing argument for what justice is. In fact, I wish he had provided any kind of argument at all. Or did I miss it???

At 433a: "We laid down...we have often repeated..." But just because something is repeated and repeated, it does not necessarily make it so.

And again, 433c: "And we agreed that it would be justice that was left over if we found the other three" "It must be."

But that would only be true if there were only 4 "virtues" in the city and the Justice WAS one of them.

Is there a more substantiated element to Plato's position on justice here that I'm just not seeing?

Patrice wrote: "Sounds like Voltaire's "tend your own garden". The question is, how big is your garden? ..."

And is the irrigation for your garden drawn from "someone else's" water, whether as owned, like underground streams with water rights, or as common property of "all," like an river with no dams (dams only complicate the issues of "ownership" or "rights to access").

Patrice wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Socrates says that, on closer examination, justice has already been discussed, when it was said that everyone must play in the polis, a single task, the one for which the physis h..."

Yes, it's repugnant, but often his idea of polis was compared with totalitarianism,or even with Indian's castes...I'm not the first to say that,but I'm sorry if it has offended you...

I think that Plato want to say the doxa,or maybe the other virtues can be corrupted, or as Socretes says,they can fade if they comes in contact with the detergent of passions!

Cassandra wrote: "I think that for Socrates the justice is the principle that sets the boundaries of the essential virtue "of relation" which is the sophrosyne (the ability to control the appetites and pleasures). The Socratic equation between virtue and knowledge is structured with a principle of coordination: justice becomes the virtue that gives to knowledge the dominant role that characterizes the virtuous person. "

Justice as a structural principle... I think I like that! Justice seems to have a lot in common with moderation (sophrosyne) -- I'm not sure I can tell them apart at times. Maybe we can think of justice as the structural principle of the city, making sure that the each worker does its one job, while moderation is the structural principle of the soul, making sure that the desiring and spirited parts of the soul observe the rule of reason. Does that work? Or am I getting mixed up in the city-soul analogy?

Adelle wrote: "His citizens would, in fact, be the kind of people Polymarchus referenced...the kind of people who WON'T listen. ..."

Great observation. I am concerned for those people. I'm worried that not only will they not listen, they won't think either. (But then, they don't have to. All they have to do is follow orders... like the dead Spartans.)

Patrice wrote: "Yes, that's what i said about Glaucon. He's kind of a foil. Every time he says "Oh yes Socrates" we have to think 'really?"
It's impossible to read this and not think really long and hard about what is being said. Which is why I have only begun book IV! lol "

Most of the time this is true, as it is with nearly all of Socrates' interlocutors. But Glaucon objects to the True city, the "city of pigs," which Socrates and Adeimantus seemed perfectly happy with. So Socrates posits the the city of luxuries, and the purge begins. So he's not a total "yes man." Just mostly :)

My copy of the Republic is so battered and bashed and coffee-stained and marked up from readings over three decades that I ought to feel comfortable with it, but I'm not. Every time I read it I realize how much I've missed. It's easy to see how a scholar could turn Plato into a career.

Patrice wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Socrates says that, on closer examination, justice has already been discussed, when it was said that everyone must play in the polis, a single ta..."

I don't know about India, but after the death of Socrates, he went -as his biographers say- in Egypt and Cyrene. We know nothing of these trips, but the trip to Egypt can be considered probable for the frequent allusions to the Egyptian culture that we found in his dialogues.

I think that his idea of ​​the polis depends on the fact that Plato descended from a noble family, and the newly restored democracy in Athens had shown many times, also with the killing of Socrates, its weaknesses, its limits and its contrasts. For Plato the democratic society is seen as a reality in which freedom reigns for all citizens to do what they want with the consequent loss of those values ​​that are the foundation of a healthy society.
Since the death of Socrates, Plato never ceased to think about how men could improve the condition of political life and the whole constitution of the polis.
In his letters (especially Letter VII) he says that from the political experiences of his youth (the experiences of a viewer, not an actor) Plato has drawn the thought that had inspired his whole work : only philosophy can make a human community based on justice.

@ 24 Patrice wrote: I also wanted to ask what people think the function of Glaucon is? His kneejerk acceptance of everything makes me think "wait a minute, not so fast". Is that the point?

..."

I found Glaucon is to be rather more impusive than Adeimantus. And he wants things.

He wanted to stay for the carnival and dinner and visiting...and interjected, "It looks as though we shall have to [stay]".

He wanted Socrates to argue with Thrasymachus and put up the money.

He wanted more material goods (better food and furnishings) than was in that first-described "true city"...which he referred to as a "city of pigs."

He may want more material goods period...It is Glaucon who introduces the story of the ring...

Glaucon, I think, is not gold material. But lots of people are like him... Will Socrates be able to convince him of the value of justice?

@ 29 Patrice wrote: ".
How can this city, which provides no freedom, be any kind of ideal to Socrates who lived a free life? Who was killed because he would not conform his thoughts to the majority. He was accused of corrupting the young. He corrupted them by encouraging free thought.


....there have been years and years and years of warfare and death...vis-a-vis other cities and within Athens itself...that's where the wanting of more than than one's share has gotten the people... that's what has come of letting amateurs (ie, citizens)(Ie, not properly trained Guardians) make decisions for the city.

I don't know... maybe Plato (who also was no pro-democracy advocate), in thinking about his idealized city, wanted a city that wouldn't be constantly at war with others and with themselves....if everyone knew his place...accepted his place..."where the rulers ruled and the ruled obeyed"...






Sometimes I almost think that he's putting this spartan fascist government out there as a false utopia. He might be saying, "OK Athens blew it. Let's be like the winners, Sparta. " Knowing full well that that prospect would repulse any thinking person.

..."

Sparta seemingly held some attraction:

Xenophon, who had been a student of Socrates, spent the remainder of his life in Sparta after he was exiled from Athens.

Alcibiades, who had been a student of Socrates, spent time there.

@ 36 Cassandra wrote: ".For Plato the democratic society is seen as a reality in which freedom reigns for all citizens to do what they want with the consequent loss of those values ​​that are the foundation of a healthy society.
."

Yes.

Patrice wrote: "What is "wanting more than one's share"? Who decides what one's share is? The implication is that there is a fixed amount and it must be divided. When one has, it means another doesn't.

I ten..."

Mmm, I would suppose that would be The Guardians...rather like the Supreme Court of the Republic...The Deciders...because somebody has to decide...and everybody has to accept their decisions...IF you want the ideal city to function ideally.

oh, but only so much land is available on the outskirts of the city....after that...if more land is needed/wanted...for cows, crops, cottages... then you are going to have to acquire the neighboring city's land.


(You do have to think though, don't you, that Socrates would not be welcome in The Ideal City....he would be undermining authority there like he did in Athens....If authority-undermining poets weren't allowed there, it seems unlikely that Socrates would be allowed there.)

The only thought I have on that...is that maybe Plato thought that in Ideal City there would never be a NEED for someone like Socrates.

First, get an Ideal City...

Reminds me of that Steve Martin routine:

How do you get a million dollars and never pay taxes?
First, get a million dollars...

And you can forget the rest of the proposition, because the first part is never going to happen.

I do like your analogy to the Church. Candidates for leadership chosen young. (Ideally, chosen well.) Educated for the possible positions they might hold. Dedicated to the true purpose. Not swayed by the material goods of this world. Looking out for the interests of their flock. (Again, ideally.) (And the flock makes the shoes and farms the land and goes to the Guardians for guidance.)

Adelle wrote: "maybe Plato thought that in Ideal City there would never be a NEED for someone like Socrates.

First, get an Ideal City..."

The premise of the Republic is that the Guardians have wisdom and true knowledge of statesmanship. Socrates would be welcome here, because he too is a lover of wisdom. Ignorant folks are embarrassed by Socrates, but the guardians would be able to answer all his questions and challenges, and in doing so, demonstrate their preeminence. This reminds me of the Old Testament story of King Solomon and Queen of Sheba, who "heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to Jerusalem to test Solomon with hard questions".

Re: Are the Guardians happy?

The Latin word for happiness is felicitas, and felix means “happy, fortunate”, from the root fe-, “to suck, suckle, produce, yield”. How do we make sense of the etymology? What does “to suckle, produce” have to do with happiness?

I think it means that happiness is derived from being fruitful or productive. In this sense, the Guardians are the happiest because they are the most productive in the Republic. The fruit of their travail is a well-governed state where order and harmony are established. Just as an artist stands back from his painting and derives satisfaction from a masterpiece, so the Guardians can also derive happiness from their statesmanship.

Nemo wrote: "Re: Are the Guardians happy?

The Latin word for happiness is felicitas, and felix means “happy, fortunate”, from the root fe-, “to suck, suckle, produce, yield”. How do we make sense of the etymol..."

You're right ... the Latin word "felicitas" means success, prosperity. I agree also on what you said about the happiness of the Guardians!

Patrice wrote: "I have to read that letter!

yes, the Athenian democracy was mob rule and Plato was an aristocrat. Makes sense that he'd think philosopher kings would be the way to go. I just have a hard time re..."

Patrice wrote: "I have to read that letter!

yes, the Athenian democracy was mob rule and Plato was an aristocrat. Makes sense that he'd think philosopher kings would be the way to go. I just have a hard time re..."

That letter is very interesting: I think it's the political testament of Plato, mainly addressed to the Athenians to justify his attitude towards the city.

I don't believe that Plato was against the lower classes...I think that the killing of Socrates has impressed him so much that he lost faith in the Athenian democratic system.

I've gone through all of the references to happiness in the first four books, and it's interesting that Socrates never brings up the subject himself. When he talks about happiness it's always in response to someone else's concern. It's also odd that happiness is usually associated with either injustice or with mere appearance or "seeming."

In Book 1 the discussion of happiness is in response to Thrasymachus, because Thrasymachus associates injustice with happiness. We know how that turns out. Then in Book 2, it's in response to Adeimantus' argument that what really matters is to appear just, because "seeming overpowers even the truth and is the master of happiness." In between these and in Book 3, the incidental uses of the word are almost always in reference to "reputed" happiness, usually of someone who appears to be just when he is not.

In Book 4 the discussion of happiness is in response to Adeimantus' concerns about the guardians' happiness, and Socrates concludes that as long as each person is doing his job, then nature will assign happiness appropriately.

My conclusion from this is that Socrates doesn't have much regard for happiness, but he understands that it is important to other people. Probably too important, and misleading when it is a primary motivation. It may be an incidental good, but it doesn't seem to be the goal or purpose of the city.

What if the city is just but for reasons beyond the city's and citizens' control, very unhappy? Perhaps because of a food shortage or plague or war?

Patrice wrote: "But I'm still not convinced that the rulers should be of one class."

If memory serves, the guardianship in the Republic is not fixed for life, nor exclusive to one class. If the guardians conduct themselves unworthily, they're demoted, and if people of the other classes are worthy, they are promoted.

Here is a link to the Seventh Letter of Plato that Cassandra and Patrice mentioned. It's included in the Western Canon by Britannica. Judging by the ideas expressed, I'd say it is Platonic. Well worth the read.

Patrice wrote: "I looked up the letter and the wiki article said that many doubt it's authenticity. Have you heard of that?

The more I read the more I see why Jefferson was not thrilled with Plato. Jefferson wa..."


There are thirteen letters of Plato, and there are many doubts about their authenticity, but the only one that could be considered authentic is the seventh.

Plato believed that everyone could be a philosopher, even people of lower classes and even women (he also had the example of Socrates!),but I think you have grasped the sense of Jefferson's opinion about Plato.

Cassandra wrote: "
I don't believe that Plato was against the lower classes..."


Oh, it wasn't so much that he was "against" them...he recognized the city's need for shoemakers and farmers, after all. He just wanted them in their place...and that place wasn't voting in the assembly.

Frankly, since I hadn't read much Plato before...I just vaguely knew of his Theory of Forms...I was surprised to read that Plato was anti-democratic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-dem...

And, perhaps Socrates, too. I was shocked to read that. I had always supposed Socrates to be a man of the people. But "in Xenophon [a student of Socrates'], Socrates defended his advocacy of absolute rule"((The Trial of Socrates, I. F. Stone, 12).

Stone goes on to point out that of Socrates' students, Xenophon's ideal "was monarchy under law,"

"Antisthese, the oldest disciple of Socrates [especially cynical about democracy], considered monarchy the ideal form of government and agreed with Xenophon that Cyrus was the ideal monarch,"

"Plato sketched several utopias. All but one of them, the Laws, was based on one form or another of monarchy" (pp14-15)

"...the two most famous of Socrates' pupils--the future dictator Critias and the brilliant but unreliable Alcibiades--turned out very badly and did Athens much harm
[both were tools for Sparta}" (Stone, 62).

And then also, the fact that Athens put him on trial for corrupting the youth.

Unlike most democracy supporters, Socrates did not leave Athens during the reign of the Thirty.

Now, I was less than impressed with some of Stone's writing...specifically when he was writing of the conclusions that he had drawn... But he seemed to know his facts and his Greek... so when he was simply stating facts [which could have been challenged had they been wrong] I was quite willing to believe him.


If there is evidence to show Plato or Socrates as pro-democracy, I would be most happy to read it.



Oh, sadly...Stone wrote, Lysias, a son of Cephalus, who presided "as the host over the discussions in Plato's Republic...saved his life by fleeing from Athens but his brother Polemarchus, an interlocutor of Socrates in the Republic, was executed" (154).

Thomas wrote: "I've gone through all of the references to happiness in the first four books...My conclusion from this is that Socrates doesn't have much regard for happiness, but he understands that it is important to other people. Probably too important, and misleading when it is a primary motivation.

It may be an incidental good, but it doesn't seem to be the goal or purpose of the city.
.."

Yes! I hadn't been able, myself, to pin down his position on happiness, but reading your post, I think you've pretty well captured it. Especially that line: 'It may be an incidental ood, but it doesn't seem to be the goal or purpose of the city.'

Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "But I'm still not convinced that the rulers should be of one class."

If memory serves, the guardianship in the Republic is not fixed for life, nor exclusive to one class. If the gu..."

I may be mistaken...but I don't think the lower classer get promoted up...'though you are right that people from the lower classes might become Guardians....should they be recognized as Guardian material when they are young, then they would moved to the "correct" class and properly educated. Anyway, that's the part I remember.

Thomas wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I think that for Socrates the justice is the principle that sets the boundaries of the essential virtue "of relation" which is the sophrosyne (the ability to control the appetites..."

Cassandra wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Justice, in other words, is the principle for which the wise (philosophers) and brave (guardians) of the city, playing the role that suits them, reverberate their p..."

Socrates tells the curious story of Leontius at the walls to illustrate the duality about the notion of thumos (θυμός) translated as “spiritedness” which our human nature can express in a positive way even altruistically and heroically or in a bad way such as in a desire to dominate others. Leontius struggles to control his desire to walk away from the gruesome sight of dead bodies and a temptation to see them (439c). I don’t know what to make of this. I don’t have any desire to see an accident by the road and concentrate on avoiding the traffic of the curious “rubber neckers” who I suppose want to see the blood. What do we make of this?

@47Nemo wrote: "...What does “to suckle, produce” have to do with happiness?..."

LOL! I presume most mothers who have ever nursed a child have a sense of an answer to your question! (Although probably not just one "answer" exists, a la your suggestions about the happiness or content available through being productive.)

http://www.art-reproductions.net/imag...

Lily wrote: "@47Nemo wrote: "...What does “to suckle, produce” have to do with happiness?..."

LOL! I presume most mothers who have ever nursed a child have a sense of an answer to your question! (Although pro..."

Yeah, I think the happiness of a nursing mother is similar to that of the guardian, but, not being a parent myself, I couldn't speak from experience, so I left it for the mothers among us to fill in the blank. :)

Galicius wrote: "Socrates tells the curious story of Leontius at the walls to illustrate the duality about the notion of thumos (θυμός) translated as “spiritedness” which our human nature can express in a positive way even altruistically and heroically or in a bad way such as in a desire to dominate others. Leontius struggles to control his desire to walk away from the gruesome sight of dead bodies and a temptation to see them (439c). I don’t know what to make of this."

This is a tough section, or at least it was for me. I think what Socrates is trying to prove is that the three parts of the soul are separate and distinct. It is easier to see the city as divided into classes, because cities and communities tend to shake out that way naturally. It's more difficult to see the soul as divided into three distinct parts, so he uses the example of a person doing what he does not want to do. One part of the soul is fighting against the other and in the end one part wins out.

Does his argument work? I'm not so sure.

Adelle wrote: "If there is evidence to show Plato or Socrates as pro-democracy, I would be most happy to read it."

The closest Plato came to "endorse" democracy is in Statesman. To paraphrase, when there is no true knowledge of statesmanship, democracy is the best type of government, because it does the least amount of damage; when there is knowledge, however, democracy is the worst, because it does the least amount of good.

Galicius wrote: "Socrates tells the curious story of Leontius at the walls to illustrate the duality about the notion of thumos (θυμός) ..."

In his Confessions, St. Augustine told the story of how his friend Alpius got sucked into gladiator shows though he loathed it at first. I think Augustine used it as an example to show how passion, if left unchecked, could damage the soul.

The atmosphere in any sports playoff games nowadays is very much like the gladiator shows, imo. Being a sports fan, I'm susceptible to that too. It could affect the thumos and lead to violence if not watched.