Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Medical stuff has kept me behind in my reading (am doing a lot of audio book "reading," but I don't have an audio version of the Republic and can't stand the Kindle reading voice), so I won't get to Book 8 for another day or two. So I don't have any thoughts to start the Book 8 discussion. But here's the thread for it, so have it! Unless everybody else is behind, too, and people want another break week?

There are a couple of audio versions available online, if that would be a help. I was able to stream both of them and they sound okay (better than the Kindle voice anyway.)

There's one at Learn Out Loud
and one at Librovox.

I am behind, but gamely trying to catch up.

Adelle wrote: "I am behind, but gamely trying to catch up."

Nice to see you back!

Maybe another break week would be a good idea.

"My haste to go through everything quickly is the cause of my being slowed down." (528d)

Thomas wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I am behind, but gamely trying to catch up."

Nice to see you back!

Maybe another break week would be a good idea.

I agree. It's done.

Let's all try to get caught up (myself definitely included!) There is a LOT of material in books 7 and 8 which we have barely touched yet.

Compromise.

I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to this sentence except for the fact that compromise was tangentially brought up in the Book 7 discussion posts.

@547 b: "Once internal strife has started, the two elements pull in different directions:the iron and bronze towards private profit and property.....and gold and silver, having true riches iin their own hearts, towards excellence and the traditional order of things. The violence of their opposition is resolved in a compromise under which they distribute land and houses to private ownership, while the subjects they once guarded as freemen and friends, and to whom theu owe their maintenance, are reduced to the status of serfs and menials, and they devote themselves to war and holding the population in check."

Here Socrates seems to be saying that the compromise resulted in an inferior society. Yet, that because the types had already deterioated, without compromise, the outcome would have been violence within the society.

So how does a society keep the individuals striving towards excellence as long as possible?

Private Property.

@550d

"The accummulation of wealth in private hands is what destroys timarchy. The men find wys to become extrvagant, and for this reason pervert the law and disobey it, and the women follow their example,"

Yet in Ideal City the bronze and iron people....the workers... WERE allowed private property, right? So is it that with even the smallest amount of corruption (through ill-timed conceptions) that human nature becomes covetous? That the Guardians, now ill-conceived literally, develop ill-conceived ideas? Seeing the private "goods" of the workers, they become willing to forfeit the Good of all?

Mmm, also, it looks as though the workers are doing their jobs...the fault would seem to lie in the Guardians who no longer properly fulfill their assigned role.

Ambition.

I can't quite determine whether Socrates views ambition as a virtue. Or as a virtue under some circumstances??

When discussing the Spartan type rule, Socrates says, "...it has one salient feature, due to its emphasis on the strenous element in us--ambition and the competrtive spirit"

Yet Socrates said that the only men fit to rule were those who did not want to rule. Am I mis-reading or not picking up on the nuances that Socrates intends for me to see?

Glaucon was ambitious, yes, but I haven't viewed Glaucon as being Guardian material.

Patrice wrote: "I thought Socrates saw ambition as a bad thing."

In earlier reading I had thought that too. Though I can't recall Socrates out-and-out saying so. Possibly an assumption I had made??.

Is it possible that when Socrates refers to ambition as a salient charcteristic he is actually meaning "spiritedness"??? That the spiritedness, the desire accomplish something, is a good thing....and tht it is only a negative characteristic when it is not rightly directed?

I don't know. And yet I go back again to his rejection of those who actually WANT to be Guardians. Mmm. Is that if one wants to govern, ten it is to be assumed that one is seeking some sort of personal honor?.

I'm asking because I, too, had thought he held ambition to be a negative,

As it is practiced in modern day American politics, I find this whole concept of seeking out as desirable those who supposedly don't WANT to be leader to be a charade.

To me, here, in rejecting the philosopher who might want to be Guardian, Plato/Socrates doesn't seem to deal with "real" life. Machiavelli may be less likeable, but at points he seems more honest, more realistic. (Anyone know who has written very good ("the best") comparisons of those two on politics?)

Adelle wrote: "Ambition.

I can't quite determine whether Socrates views ambition as a virtue. Or as a virtue under some circumstances??

When discussing the Spartan type rule, Socrates says, "...it has one sali..."

The word translated as ambition here is philotimia, which is more literally rendered as "love of honor." Glaucon is described as someone who has this kind of character (and interestingly, Adeimantus takes over the conversation at this point.) Like you say in post 11, the timocratic soul is dominated by spiritedness, which isn't the worst thing... but it isn't the best. The best is when the spirit is under the reins of reason. But Socrates is describing how the best city (and the best souls) decay from aristocracy to mob rule. Love of honor is one step down from love of wisdom.

Lily wrote: "To me, here, in rejecting the philosopher who might want to be Guardian, Plato/Socrates doesn't seem to deal with "real" life."

Isn't this why the philosopher must go back down into the cave -- to deal with "real" life? The question then becomes how to translate the ideals of the bright sunlit world to the murky shadows of the "real world." Is it possible?

Does Socrates give democracy a fair shake? Does freedom really mean license? Does equality mean there is no discrimination between the good and the bad? (557-560, approximately).

He seems to say that the fault of oligarchy is that oligarchs become too greedy for wealth, and the fault of democracy is that democrats become too greedy for freedom. But isn't there such thing as a moderate oligarch and a moderate democrat, one who has some restraint? Why such extremes?

Patrice wrote: "I don't picture Sparta as being ruled by greedy, wealthy leaders. ..."

Evidence? (I don't know Spartan history, but I don't see strict self-discipline and hardihood in the face of pain or danger as necessarily implying lack of greed, at least for power.)

Patrice wrote: "i think he was reacting to the democracy that killed Socrates. Pure democracy is a pretty wild system. But he does say it's the most pleasant system in which to live which is quite an endorsement..."

I think when he says that democracy is the "fairest," the most colorful and diverse regime, he is also saying it's the weakest because it doesn't commit to being one way. There is no consistency -- the people can be persuaded to vote for something on one day, and the opposite the next. Which is a very interesting way to live, but it's like the alleged Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." One of the reasons Socrates was persecuted was because he thought there was a better way, and to some extent Sparta's way, a timocracy, was better. And yet he believed in Athens enough to fight for her during the war, and to accept her unjust punishment of him.

Plato doesn't mention Sparta explicitly, but it really does sound like he's talking about Sparta in the section on timocracy. I don't think he thought it was an oligarchy, at least in the terms of the Republic. Plato associates oligarchs with wealth, and the Spartans were certainly not greedy in that way.

Patrice wrote: "OK, that explains it Thomas. I don't know where I heard that Sparta was an oligarchy but I do remember hearing that, and that it was the most admired of governments so there seemed to be a contrad..."

By the common definition it probably is an oligarchy because it was ruled by two kings, and later by small assemblies of elected citizens. But I think Socrates considers Spartan society as a whole to be a timocracy, since Spartan citizenship was extremely exclusive and most of those who lived in Sparta were not Spartan citizens. The big difference between oligarchy and timocracy for Socrates seems to be how they treat private property -- oligarchs crave and hoard wealth, while timocrats treasure honor above all. Spartan government seems much more timocratic than oligarchic in that regard.

Patrice wrote: "Plato constantly amazes me. Not only does this seem to be the beginning of political science, it's also psychology. I just love the way he explains how a nagging mother and a weak father creates ..."

You know, I found that interesting as well.

Patrice wrote: "Talk about your footnotes to Plato! Here are some more jewels...

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith ..."

And what here separates "pure genius" from "common sense"?

Patrice wrote: "I was also struck when he said that democracy is the triumph of the poor. Made me think of the French Revolution. But I don't think that applies to the US.
I think the history of the US is the triumph of the middle class. Any thoughts? "

I guess the problem with democracy is that it isn't founded on truth. Political advertising is a perfect example -- smoke and mirrors, shadows on a wall, and not a shred of truth to be found. And what use is liberty without truth? Or even an attempt at truth?

Not to say that there isn't honest political discourse in America... but there really are very few people who are interested in it when the finale of Dancing with the Stars is on. Don't the majority of people (everywhere I think, not just in the U.S.) live in the cave?

And if this is the case, I think Plato asks a good question: Isn't liberty wasted on them? Isn't this like unshackling the cave dwellers so they can fight over superficialities, about which shadow is the best?

Patrice wrote: "But deep down, I have this confidence in the people. I do think that you can fool the people, but not forever. "

I worry though that by the time people wake up to the truth, the damage has already been done. And as soon as we wake up and clean up the mess we've made, we get started on creating the next one. Our problems (as Americans, and as human beings) seem to have a common root, and I think Plato nails it -- we let desire take the reins. We lack moderation. Almost all great nations have fallen because they could not could not stop growing, spending, expanding, and conquering other nations. We don't know when enough is enough. Maybe someday reason will rule, but I don't see it happening soon.

But hey, at least it's not raining.

Patrice wrote: "Is Plato speaking about the character of the citizen of the city state or the government? IOW, if Sparta is a timocracy, then kings and assembly should be awarded their power based on honor. If they were kings were they given their kingships as rewards for heroic actions?"

Maybe "timocracy" is not really a form of government, because honor is something bestowed by one person on another, or by a group of people on another group. It's sort of democratic at its root. I was thinking of Spartans as timocrats because honor and patriotism were their highest values. To be a Spartan was in itself an honor, and it had to be earned by going through their system of education, the agoge, which was absolutely brutal. Their actual government was a mix of democracy and monarchy -- kings were hereditary but the assemblies (the ephors and the gerousia) were elected. Were they elected based on honor? I would think so.

It seems to me that Plato is always talking about the soul -- the city is a device for doing this, and an imperfect one at that, but at the end of the day what really concerns him is the health and goodness of the individual soul. At times I think the political analogy is actually more of a distraction than a help, but there's no separating the two. We don't live in isolation, after all. (Though Plato suggests that the philosopher would like to. Alas, he can't. Back to the cave, wise man.)

Patrice wrote: "Maybe it's little brains like mine that keep going back to the concrete in order to understand the abstract.
But that can mislead...."

Feel in good company? Plato/Socrates' whole analogy with the city can be said to be using the concrete to understand the abstract (soul).

Patrice wrote: "Maybe I missed something but I believe Sparta was an oligarchy and I was surprised that he was so against oligarchy. I don't picture Sparta as being ruled by greedy, wealthy leaders. "

I think he was equating Crete and Sparta with timocracies -- governments in which honor is the core principle, along with its henchman duty. One could argue, I think, that our military, particularly the Marines, is a timocracy: it's not, I think, an accident that the highest military award our country can give is the Medal of Honor, nor that the pre-eminent French order is the Legion of Honor. (Meanwhile, I doubt that more than half a dozen people in this country would consider our current Congress a Government of Honor.)

Thomas wrote: "Maybe "timocracy" is not really a form of government, because honor is something bestowed by one person on another, or by a group of people on another group. It's sort of democratic at its root. I was thinking of Spartans as timocrats because honor and patriotism were their highest values. "

I see that my response was anticipated.

But I think that timocracy is a government if you consider that really what defines a government is how the rulers are chosen, not what they do. I believe that Spartans would have claimed that those who showed the highest love of and dedication to honor were the ones who were accepted as the leaders of the state. That to funk it or act dishonorably would get one expelled from the leadership, as we today expel people from government by voting them out of office.

What I think Plato means by different governments is simply different ways of selecting the leaders of hte government. And by this standard, I think, timocracy is as much a government as oligarchy is.

Patrice wrote: "It just occurred to me that we are the ones who thought of Sparta, right? I don't think that Plato specifically says he's talking about Sparta, does he? "

Actually, in most translations I've read, he does.

At 544c: the Perseus translation "“For those I mean are precisely those that have names in common usage: that which the many praised, your Cretan and Spartan constitution; and the second in place and in honor, that which is called oligarchy,"

Jowett: "...first are those of Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded..."

Sachs: "...the one approved by most people, that type from Crete and Sparta ..."

What I found most interesting, checking on this, was that he thinks this is the most applauded or approved from of government. Yet after Sparta had defeated Athens and imposed a government on it, the people revolted against the Thirty and returned to democracy.

Is he being ironic here? Why does he call this the most approved or applauded form of government when Athens not only didn't follow it in the centuries before the war, but rejected it by revolt after they lost the war to Sparta? What is going on here????

Patrice wrote: "Could you say more on why the Marines are not honor based? "

I thought I said that they were. "One could argue, I think, that our military, particularly the Marines, is a timocracy: it's not, I think, an accident that the highest military award our country can give is the Medal of Honor..." Did you miss the colon after the "it's not"?

I wonder though if Plato isn't also commenting on the decay of the Spartan regime from timocracy (or rule by those who love honor) to oligarchy (rule by those who love wealth). "There is no other transformation so quick and so sure from a young man who loves honor to one who loves money." (553d) I don't think this is what happens to Sparta because Spartan society is incredibly conservative (like the regime of Socrates' city) but it happens to Athens under Spartan rule.

After the war Sparta set up puppet governments that most certainly weren't honor-based, oligarchies like the 30 tyrants that ruled Athens briefly. Oligarchies like this lead to the genesis of the "drone", as Plato describes at 552. The oligarchies confiscated private property for themselves and for the rich, creating a small class of very rich and a large class of very poor, who Socrates describes as drones -- people with no jobs and no purpose. They become either beggars or thieves. Eventually this situation becomes ripe for democratic revolution, and the leaders of the revolution are often the unprincipled drones -- sophists and con artists -- that Socrates laments so often in the dialogues.

I think Socrates does admire Sparta in certain respects, but he thinks it is unbalanced -- it's too "gymnastic" and not musical enough.

Thomas wrote: ""There is no other transformation so quick and so sure from a young man who loves honor to one who loves money." (553d)"

I'm not so sure about that. As you said, Sparta didn't go that route; it stayed an honor-based society for many generations. And when I look at our modern society, I think the young men who love money (not just want to earn an honest living and make enough to be comfortable, but those who truly love money, who place the acquisition of money above all else in their lives) are less likely to come from those who love honor as they are from other regimes. After all, how many Marines do you know who after their service in the Corps turn to the wholehearted pursuit of money?

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: ""There is no other transformation so quick and so sure from a young man who loves honor to one who loves money." (553d)"

I'm not so sure about that. As you said, Sparta didn't go t..."

I think this kind of "regime change" doesn't usually happen to an individual; Socrates describes it as it happens in families, the most basic political unit.
He uses the example of an honor-loving father who is dishonored, a father who fails. (Interestingly, it is the legal system that brings him down.) The son becomes disillusioned with the honor-based regime after seeing this, and decides to pursue wealth instead of honor. It's a familiar story -- the rebel son who believes he can be different and better than his father, but who in fact is choosing an inferior way of life.

In modern capitalistic societies wealth is itself a symbol of honor, of success. It isn't about having enough, it's about having more than the next guy. Having a Lexus is more "honorable" than having a Ford. It's a misplacement of values. Which leads to a Platonic question: what is honor? Does it have anything at all to do with wealth, and what could cause someone to mistake wealth for honor?

Thomas wrote: "Which leads to a Platonic question: what is honor? Does it have anything at all to do with wealth, and what could cause someone to mistake wealth for honor? "

Wonderful question. Honor seems to me even harder to define than justice, but as with pornography, I think I know it when I see it.

I could not love justice so well, my dear, loved I not honor more? Nah, doesn't quite work, does it? [g]

Patrice wrote: "Is it the same as kleos? Reputation?"

Could be. Kleos is certainly one kind of honor, one gained through victory in war or athletic competition. (Which is perhaps why Socrates says that the timophile is too "gymnastic".) "Glory" might be a better translation of kleos; Greek has both words (Κλεος and τιμη), so there is a shade of difference between them, but they do share something in common.

Patrice wrote: "Fame! I'm gonna live forever!"



"Fame" derives from the 1st pers singular of the Greek verb meaning "to say." So fame is what someone says about a person, or reputation. Is reputation the same thing as honor?

This might go back to the discussion in Book 2 where Glaucon proposes a test for justice: let a truly just man go through life suffering from a reputation for injustice, and let an unjust man go through life with all the "gifts and honors" of being just (though he is not), and at the end of their lives judge who is the happier. This leads to Glaucon's insisting that they leave "seeming" just out of the equation -- the just or unjust man must be understood as he really is, not how he appears.

Does Plato/Socrates deal well with the concept that single words can have multiple meanings? Or does he view them more like workers -- one vocation/one person, shall not vary, even over a lifetime?

Lily wrote: "Does Plato/Socrates deal well with the concept that single words can have multiple meanings? Or does he view them more like workers -- one vocation/one person, shall not vary, even over a lifetime?"

Sometimes it sounds like Socrates is trying to arrive at the perfect definition, but he knows that isn't possible. It's not so much a problem of words having multiple meanings, but one of ideas being inexpressible in words. Those who claim to have found definitions -- usually sophists -- quickly fall prey to Socrates' questioning.

On the other hand, talking the issues through, without pretending to have a final answer, can often give us a better understanding than a definition can. I think that's what's going on in the Republic.

Thomas wrote: "On the other hand, talking the issues through, without pretending to have a final answer, can often give us a better understanding than a definition can. I think that's what's going on in the Republic. ..."

I rather adore it that you give Plato/Socrates such a gracious pass -- even after the cave and its shadows!

(While I quite agree with your point, it was not one I had ascribed to Plato/Socrates. But I've essentially said that before. I have been enjoying the conversation here, but am sorry to say I have let other things prevent me from contributing very much of substance, at least recently. My thanks to all who have.)

Lily wrote: " . I have been enjoying the conversation here, but am sorry to say I have let other things prevent me from contributing very much of substance, at least recently. My thanks to all who have.."

What Lily said here, I would like to echo.

Lily wrote: "I rather adore it that you give Plato/Socrates such a gracious pass -- even after the cave and its shadows!"

I hope I'm not giving him a pass. Socrates didn't seek out those who would agree with him -- he went after who didn't, and he did his best to make them his friends. We learn from arguing with him, as philosophers have been doing for two thousand years.

Patrice makes a good point -- it really is a never ending process. It's asymptotic. We get closer and closer to being able to express the ideal, closer and closer to the right path and the final goal, the perfect expression of truth, but we never get there. What matters is the direction in which we are headed. And we stay on the right path by asking the right questions and letting others do the same. Thrasymachus serves a very good purpose because he's not entirely wrong. (Nor is he entirely right!)

Patrice wrote: "I'm always drawn back to science, even though the natural world was not Socrates interest. The quest for the truth never ends. Einstein's theory was just disproven, right? We're always approachin..."

On my drive up tp ND this September, I listened to Teaching Company CDs on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Surprisingly, the professor had said that there had been a period in his life, earlier, in which Socrates had been deeply interested in the natural world and sciences.

Patrice wrote: "Adam is studying the universe, the stars and the planets. The angel Raphael tells him not to. He says, it's all fine and good to wonder about the stars, but turn your attention to more important things, right here on earth. How to be a good human being and how to live your life. I always wondered if Milton was referencing Socrates when he wrote that..."

Thank you for this post! Reminds me of Leonard Mlodinow (co-author of The Grand Design with Stephen Hawking) saying to Deepak Chopra at a book signing last week at the Open School in NYC that Chopra had taught him a lot about human nature and spirituality. Regardless of one's opinion of either of these authors, they do represent those two positions in current day discussions. (Friends interested in the intersection of science and religion convinced me to go with them. Not sure either of these guys have it "right" -- but look at the reviews for their just released book for that.)

Patrice wrote: "Yes, Socrates was once s pre-Socratic and wanted to know about the natural world. But then he decided that understanding the human world, the world of human nature and politics was more interestin..."

That's very probable. I find that as I grew older, I had more interest in human nature and psycholoy. It would stand to reason, that Socrates' intellectual pursuits might have changed as he grew older.

On the one hand, I can relate to Socrates finding human nature to be interesting. Perhaps even fascinating. As we are thinking creatures, what would be more natural, more compelling, than to think about human relations...especially as generation after generation, people have the same basic needs and wants and basic conflicts.

On the other hand, the Teaching Company CD, if I remember correctly, said that there was danger ahead for Socrates in further pursing the natural sciences...in asking the questions along the lines of If thunder comes from Zeus, where does Zeus come from?{That wasn't the exact question....but the questions were headed in that direction.) the TC said that Aristophanes' The Clouds contained a warning for Socrates. And that although Aristophanes, too, might have been questioning current theology, he ended his play with the gods re-established as authority.

But no....or at least, not quite. It seems to me, that it wasn't independent thought ... that's not why, (I think), he was given the death sentence. He could have had all the independent thoughts he wanted, had he kept them to himself. He probably could have casually discussed them all he wanted with old friends.

But he was aggresively questioning much of what his society held to be true or of value. And he was engaging in such discussions with the young....who could be and were being influenced....and he was possibly destablizing Athenian society...at a time Athens needed internal stability due to the pressures it was under as a result of external events.

They gave him every chance to be an "acceptable" citizen of Athens. They didn't really want to have him dead. Athens would have preferred to exile him. The vote on his guilt was very, very close. And then Socrates gave that incendiary/insulting speech...and then in the subsequent vote, the vote on the death sentence, way more of the jurors voted for death than had voted guilty.

The position of the Republic is that a society has a right to determine what kind of society it is going to be. Well, at least the beautiful city has a right to determine what sort of city it is going to be. Athens had laws. Laws that Athens as a society as a whole had agreed to. If Socrates didn't want to abide by them he could leave...or face the consequences. Socrates made his choice.

Lily wrote: "Does Plato/Socrates deal well with the concept that single words can have multiple meanings? Or does he view them more like workers -- one vocation/one person, shall not vary, even over a lifetime?"

LOL. I just saw the irony here! Very nice.

Adelle wrote: "LOL. I just saw the irony here!..."
Thank you, Adelle! (I appreciated Thomas' perspectives, too -- @57 & 61.)

Well, yeah,I, too, liked Socrates' questioning. But I'm living in the US circa 2011. I'm looking at Socrates 2500 years after the fact. One DOES live in the society one lives in. Socrates was seemingly no fool. He knew where in lived and the times in which he lived. He must have been aware of the risks he ran through speaking up. He was all grown up, practically grown old: he made his choices and lived--or died--with the consequences. And I believe the world is a better place because he did.

But Athens DID have laws. Athens didn't know how the future was going to turn out. It was unsettled times. I think we have to respect the decision that Athens made (or perhaps only the decision to find Socrates guilty --- and he might very well have been guilty--- and then to exile him...FOR THE GOOD OF THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Perhaps we should look a little darkly on the death sentence, as that seems to have been determined upon only after Socrates gave that insulting speech and angered the jurors.)

Had WE been in the togas and sandals of the jurors, what decision would WE have made. Athens has just gone through about 30 years of war (the Pelopponian Wars). Prior to that, Athens was engaged in the Persian War. Athens had been burned. Twice. The Persians burned it to the ground in 480 BC. The Persians torched Athens again in 479 BC. (look at us. 150 years after the fact, some Southerners still remember The Civil War with bitterness. In 430, the city was decimated by the plague. "Athens lost perhaps one third of the people sheltered within its walls" (wikipedia). And it wasn't just the city populace sheltering there. The people from the surrounding countryside had sought safety there. Proportionately...that would be like the US losing 100 million. Thucydides writing of the terrible social consequence. Religious doubts. The people thinking the gods must favor Sparta. Then democracy abandoned. Then unstable rule of the 400, lasting only a few months. In 404, Sparta installed an oligarchy in Athens (the Thirty Tyrants), forced the city to tear down the Long Walls walls, and decommission's the Athenian navy. The pride and strength of Athens!

Only in 403 was democracy re-established.

"In the Memorabilia, Socrates set himself up as an oppenent of all forms of existing government " (Trial of Socrates, 12). Among the students of Socrates had been two who had caused much harm to Athens: Alcibiades, the general who had defected to the Spartans, and Critias, one of the most violent of The Thirty, ordering the execution of many Athenian citizens and the confiscation of their wealth. Xenophon, another of Socrates' students, was exiled and spent the remainder of his life in Sparta.

"when democracy was restored, to have 'stayed in the city' became a badge of dishonor, as we know from many references in Lysias and other fourth-century orators....Socrates had stayed in the city" (Trial of Socrates, 153).

There WERE accusations against Socrates. He DID have a trial. He WAS found guilty.

I just try to imagine myself as a juror, in 399 BC, very probably with family living in Athens. I would probably be hungering for some stabilty for my family, my city, my polis. I would probably be fearful of further unrest. If the evidence presented to me showed that Socrates were guilty, then I, too, would have voted to convict him and send him into exile. After all the years of lawlessness, if the city doesn't start enforcing the laws, will there be any society left??? Should Athens be looking out for the good of the ctiy as a whole, or should it be making an exception for a man who has been duly convicted of breaking the laws of the city? And what message would that send to the citizens? Socrates can break the law, why shouldn't I? There had been an attempt to overthrow the newly restored democracy in 401 BC, only 2 years before Socrates went on trial.

And then we look at Plato's Republic. Freedom of speech is not permitted.

Just trying to see the merits from the other side. I believe (not just "think," mind you, but believe) that George Washington was a patriot, with many admirable traits, but when reading of the revolting colonies from the British perspective, I can see their point as well.

And then I have to remind myself that I only have the story of Socrates from the perspective of HIS supporters.

I just want to try to see the other side. How do we know that he wasn't guilty? The accounts we have were written by his supporters.

Factored into this somewhere should be the fact that Athenian law was not itself a stable thing. Anyone could charge anyone with anything -- all that was required was something called a graphe, a charge of wrongdoing. Socrates was forced to defend himself against the graphe brought by Meletus, not against codified Athenian law. And the resulting trial is an examination of whether Meletus is right about what is just, and if Socrates has committed any crime at all. Which brings up the question: what is justice anyway?

Thomas wrote: "Factored into this somewhere should be the fact that Athenian law was not itself a stable thing. Anyone could charge anyone with anything -- all that was required was something called a graphe, a c..."

So then, if there weren't any set laws, how would one know that one was acting improperly? From the TC cd's, long before this, Aristophanes knew that Socrates was dancing on thin ice. So people must have had some fairly good idea of what was verbotten. No???

(Me, I prefer items for sale to have a price tag. Then I know wha t it costs. My MIL from a different culture prefers th give--and-take/back-and-forth of bargaining. I would prefer set laws.)

I would not want to wrestle every time with "what is justice?". ...I wonders now...does having set laws to some degree turn us into unthinking "consumer"-law abiding or law breaking people? I mean, with set laws, one can, rather like a consumer, when considering breaking a law, simply decide whether one is willing to pay the price. Want to go faster than the speed limit? One seldom thinks, Would it be just or unjust. One thinks more along the lines of Am I willing to pay $50 if I'm caught?

On the surface, it would seem easier for the citizens to simply be told what the laws are...and simpler for societies, too, to simply be able to say: that's against the law.

But on a different level, doesn't that take away from them the responsibility of thinking about whether their actions are right or wrong, just or unjust? A much tougher question than Is it legal?



Maybe that's one of the reasons that Socrates thought about justice. Because it was a real question for Athenians.

I knew there weren't any professional lawyers as such....and that the schools of the Sophists were popular because one would need to do verbal standing up for oneself.

Patrice wrote, "Defining the charges seems to be Plato's life's work"


Again...WHY would Plato's Republic be a place so unconducive to people such as Socrates???

Patrice wrote: "Adelle, your description of the mood of the city and how that explains Socrates conviction and execution is true and valid and a great example, I think, of what is wrong with a pure democracy.....Either he was guilty of the crimes or not, what difference should it make if he did not act contrite? t..."

Yet, courts today take that into consideration as well.

The jury decides "guilty.". In Athens, Socrates was found guilty. And then comes the sentencing.

A person today...first guilt or innocence is established. And then sentencing. And if the person seems ... Genuinely remorseful...they realize that what they did was wrong, that is taken into consideratio during sentencing. (they understand they did wrong, it was a mistake, they'll never do it again, after they do their time it will be safe to release them back into society, etc)

But if the convicted guy shouts out, yeah, and I would kill him again! And his little dog, too! Then that guy probably gets a longer sentence. Because it seems a fair bet that he would, once released, just do again what he's already been found guilty of. Socrates was probably just going to keep doinh what he had been convicted of. And he bascally refused exile. So what should Athens do with him?

Adelle wrote: "So then, if there weren't any set laws, how would one know that one was acting improperly? From the TC cd's, long before this, Aristophanes knew that Socrates was dancing on thin ice. So people must have had some fairly good idea of what was verbotten. No??? "

In a rough sense, they did. But in a specific sense, no. This was left up to debate, and at some point in their lives most citizens had to defend themselves against charges which weren't clearly defined in law. Hence the need for teachers of rhetoric like Thrasymachus. There were no professional lawyers, but there were professional accusers (sycoophants) who would threaten citizens with prosecution, baseless or not, in order to extort a fee. If you didn't pay up, you had better be prepared to argue your case in front of a jury. And like today (in some respects) it wasn't about being right, it was about convincing the jury. In sum, it was a horrible system of justice, and Socrates' dim view of Athenian democracy seems entirely justified.

Socrates had a target on his back because he pointed out the problems with democracy, problems he details in the Republic and elsewhere. He bucked the system, and in the end the those who benefited from the system used it to get rid of him. Ironically, they demonstrated his point in the most glaring way possible.