Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The last book. (Though we also have some time scheduled for discussion of the work as a whole.)

I'm off very early tomorrow (leaving 5:10 to catch the early ferry) for another minor operation, not sure what my schedule will be or when I'll be back to post again. Keep the home fires burning!

The best to you, Eman. May all go well. Blessings on the hands and skills of your surgeon and caregivers.

Lily wrote: "The best to you, Eman. May all go well. Blessings on the hands and skills of your surgeon and caregivers."

What Lily said here, I whole-heartedly concur.

Be well, Eman.

Thanks for the good thoughts. I'm back at least briefly, will find out how successful this was in about two weeks. Meanwhile, I haven't had much energy for Plato, but am hoping this weekend.

As you've been busy posting, the least I can do is provide the link.

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

Like a glove! Not an actual glove, of course....but mimicing The Idea of "gloveness"...sans fingers, etc.

Isn't it a bit strange that the final book begins with a diatribe against fiction and ends with a tremendous myth? What are we to make of this?

Thomas wrote: "Isn't it a bit strange that the final book begins with a diatribe against fiction and ends with a tremendous myth? What are we to make of this?"

That Plato is not necessarily about internal consistency, regardless of whatever relationship that may or may not bear to rationality?

Well, I think there's a pretty close relationship between rationality and consistency... besides which, Socrates will get taken to the cleaners by his interlocutors if he says that something is both true and false at the same time.

A related question might be this: Why does Plato choose a dramatic form, the dialogue, to present his ideas? Would Socrates approve?

Maybe Plato and Socrates disagree on this issue; perhaps Plato believes that in some cases art can be an effective vehicle for the truth. Maybe Plato disagrees with Socrates on some other points as well. I'm not sure, but these are inconsistencies that are just too obvious to be mistakes. There must be a way of resolving them, somehow...

I am reminded of something Carol Shields wrote about how long (the short time) an author can write or expect or hope for his or her words to be discussed.

Patrice wrote: "I haven't finished re-reading Book X but my understanding was that the myth was necessary to get the lower classes, the uneducated, to comply and live a just life. The guardians will live justly b..."

But the Myth of Er is not told to a lower class audience -- it's for the same people that have been in the discussion all along. Socrates decides to discuss the "rewards" of being just, not only in this life but in the afterlife as well. He says that being just is itself the best thing for the soul, but there are added benefits in the afterlife... and here is where the myth comes in.

There must be a reason for Book 10, even though it appears to be an appendix rather than a conclusion. The end of the dialogue is in Book 9. The question is answered: the happiest man is the most just man, and he is the one who is most like a king and king of himself. Why do we need this myth tacked on at the end?

It's almost as if we have gone back to the beginning, with Cephalus paying for sacrifices so he can be in the gods' good graces when he dies. Socrates even uses the phrase "giving back" to justice its wages and reputation, the same phrase that Cephalus uses in his definition of justice (612c). Have we recirculated back to the beginning of the dialogue?

In order to see justice plainly for what it is, it had to be stripped of its reputation and rewards. It is "just" that these things now be returned to it. Maybe one of the rewards that is returned to the just, the philosopher, the one who sees things as they are and not as they seem, is poetry.

Thomas wrote: "Well, I think there's a pretty close relationship between rationality and consistency...."

Still, "pretty close" but not necessarily "identity" is a possibility.

Is most of the world intrinsically binary, i.e., inherently "true" or "false"?

Lily wrote: "Is most of the world intrinsically binary, i.e., inherently "true" or "false"? "

Yes! Er... no. Well, maybe! I guess it depends on what you're talking about.

Socrates talks about the Beautiful City as being a "pattern," something that is ideally true, but not a reality. In that sense, the idea is true, but the reality is not. A distinction must be made between the two (the ideal and the real) in order to answer both true and false at the same time. But Socrates does not deny the principle of non-contradiction. For that we may be thankful, as this stuff is difficult enough already.

Thomas wrote: "A distinction must be made between the two (the ideal and the real) in order to answer both true and false at the same time...."

One can also posit that there is a distinction between the truth of an ideal idea and of an idea -- the second may be "true" even as "ideal" remains open to discussion? (Sorry, spent part of the day on readings about the issues of law versus politics to attain justice, e.g., (when) should national leaders be subject to international tribunals of law?)

I haven't been part of this discussion, I came upon this group only recently. But one book that I found helpful was Eric Havelock's "Preface to Plato" in which he's concerned with the shift from an oral society to a literate one.

Most people would have heard "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" in live performance -- not read them -- and their emotions would be engaged and their minds not able to question and consider. Havelock's suggestion is this that Plato wants eliminated from the Republic.

In broader context, Plato was of course writing after Athens loss in the Peloponnesian War in which inspired oratory often led to decisions that Athens snatched defeat from the jaws of victory until there was no possibility of victory at all. I think the notion of the philosopher king always has to be read in the context of a democracy that hadn't worked very well in recent years.

Bill wrote: "I haven't been part of this discussion, I came upon this group only recently. But one book that I found helpful was Eric Havelock's "Preface to Plato" in which he's concerned with the shift from an..."

I was so glad that I had read at least some Greek history from this period before I started the Republic. It was immensely helpful.

I'm wondering whether the Socrates in the Republic might not be a bit of an intellectual Thrasymachus.

Remember how Thrasymachus said might made right. Disregard the moral claims of others. Disregard whatever feelings others might have. Might makes right.

Socrates is strong in reason, mighty in intellect. Yes, he says he advocates for a moral life. But then is willing to disregard what the silver or bronze people might view as moral claims...or even what gold people might view as moral claims (like, they might think it moral to live in more traditional families and they might think it moral to more directly participate in the lives of their own children...they might make a moral claim that one SHOULD know which childen are theirs).

The Socrates of Plato's Republic only wants the criteria that HE thinks important to be of any importance. He only wants the morality of reaso to rule the beautiful city. And he doesn't even want most of the inhabitants to be able to discuss and critique those reasons.

I would not want to live in the "beautiful" city.

Adelle,

I think almost no one would. That doesn't make the arguments uninteresting.

Bill wrote: "In broader context, Plato was of course writing after Athens loss in the Peloponnesian War in which inspired oratory often led to decisions that Athens snatched defeat from the jaws of victory until there was no possibility of victory at all. I think the notion of the philosopher king always has to be read in the context of a democracy that hadn't worked very well in recent years. "

This is true -- there was hardly a year during the democracy when the people did not vote to go to war -- but there is a flip side. Without the treasure exacted by the Delian League there would have been no Golden Age of Pericles. No Parthenon. No Aeschylus or Sophocles or Aristophanes. And probably no Plato. The leisure class that was educated by and then produced all of these things was bankrolled by the Athenian empire. Plato belonged to that leisure class, and that is a major reason why we have this book today. That, and the relative freedom of speech that the democracy allowed (and which Socrates might very well forbid in the beautiful city.)

That said, I think it's true that Plato was reacting to the excesses of democracy. And it's understandable why. But at the same time, we are still benefiting from those excesses two millenia later.

Adelle wrote: "The Socrates of Plato's Republic only wants the criteria that HE thinks important to be of any importance. He only wants the morality of reaso to rule the beautiful city. And he doesn't even want most of the inhabitants to be able to discuss and critique those reasons. "

I used to think the same thing, but after reading this book about five times over two decades, I think I've finally changed my mind on this point. I don't think Socrates thinks that his criteria are necessarily the best -- the beautiful city is only a model of sorts. Glaucon and Adeimantus are able to successfully challenge Socrates' design on several points, and the reader can easily see the manifold problems with his ideal regime. It's just a pattern, Socrates says. Socrates is not himself the "kingliest of men," who no doubt would come up with a better plan. As Socrates is fond of saying about himself, he knows nothing except that he does not know.

Thomas wrote: "...As Socrates is fond of saying about himself, he knows nothing except that he does not know...."

Thomas -- you've clearly grown fond of the old codger over those ten years and five reads! So many thanks to you and the others here for a most interesting discussion. It has been fun to follow even when I haven't invested adequate time to participate fully.

Patrice wrote: "But aren't we benefiting from the cautionary tale of a pure democracy? Our founding fathers were well aware of how dangerous a pure democracy could be and that's why they created a balance of powe..."

I definitely think we are, and through the political philosophers who came after as well. What I think is brilliant about Plato is that he shows us how incredibly difficult -- in fact, impossible -- the "perfect" regime is to create. Which I why I think the idea of balancing powers in a way that requires compromise is a stroke of genius. It is a recognition that perfection is unrealistic. To achieve the best that is possible, we have to realize that absolute "Platonic" perfection is not possible.

Well, it's been a most engaging read. I knew so very little about Socrates' thinking before I read the book....and now I know, well, if not actually Socrates' thinking, at least I have some knowledge of Socrates as presented through Plato.

In a way...its a bit like Plato's Ideas--- The Real Truth of subject--- impossible to see directly. We only see versions of the Ideal, which inevitably fall short.

Likewise, we will never see the "real" Socrates...only "Socrates" as described by Plato.

Like others above expressed, it was benefical and good to read the Republic....and I most likely wouldn't havr read it without this group.

Lily wrote: "Thomas -- you've clearly grown fond of the old codger over those ten years and fiv..."

It looks like my cover has been blown! I do like the old codger, but I think I like his methodology (and Plato's prose) better than his philosophy. But like it or not, it has been tremendously influential on Western thought. Patrice said it, and I can't disagree: Plato is everywhere.

Patrice wrote: "Slowly working my way through book X and I think Plato is not condemning all poets just those who promote the bad.
607
"You must know that only so much of poetry as is hymns to gods or celebration..."

Isn't it imitative poetry in particular that he finds unworthy? Drama especially, where actors pretend to be people they are not and mislead the audience into believing the pretense. But the myth of Er is not imitative, is it? It's a fantasy, a totally fictional morality tale. It's a demonstration of sorts, but still a fictional one. Does its being "good" acquit it of the charge of falsehood? I don't know... I still find the myth of Er to be a great puzzle.

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality

Some of those footnotes are, certainly, very long. :-) But if you read through the dialogues, and the Republic is one of the longest and not always the most charming (The Symposium is the most charming), it's extraordinary how true that statement seems.

Thomas wrote: "...Patrice said it, and I can't disagree: Plato is everywhere...."

With the proviso I said earlier to Patrice: humankind is extremely capable of making associations. One historic research lab taught this rule of thumb: any information/knowledge/person is within seven degrees of linkages, and it doesn't matter where you start.

Patrice wrote: "Another thing that jumped out at me was that he refers to "reason" as the best of us. I think I have to disagree. I think compassion is the best of us. And he seems to think that it is a weakness. "

Good point. He sees suffering as an impediment to reason, and that "human things" are of no great seriousness. (e.g., 604c). But then he appeals to this most human thing, poetry, at the end. And of course he is a poet all along, as you point out. It's as if he wants to have recourse to the power of poetry to educate people in reason, but he can't reconcile the magic of poetry, its power of communication, with the consistency of reason. So he winds up in a strange position where he criticizes poetry in a form that is itself poetic. He needs poetry to convey his message.

Patrice wrote: "OTH, human life has been improved by science and reason more than by anything else. I'm thinking of all of the centuries of human suffering that has been relieved by scientific reasoning. I would..."

Well, science and poetry are not necessarily opposed to one another. They can be, but they don't have to be. The dialogue that follows the Republic is the Timaeus, which is all about cosmology; and the same thing happens at the end of the Phaedo: after demonstrating the immortality of the soul, Socrates embarks on a long lecture about the structure of the earth and the heavens to show where the soul goes when the body dies. It's similar to the myth of Er. The conclusion I come to is that poetry is okay, as long as it is under the rule of reason.

As for suffering and compassion... Boethius's real suffering is spiritual, and if he is thinking correctly he will not suffer. This is the consolation of philosophy -- it teaches him that physical existence is inconsequential. Socrates believes the same. In a way, this is compassion, but admittedly a rather cold form of it. Life was a bit harsher back then.

Thomas wrote: "This is the consolation of philosophy -- it teaches him that physical existence is inconsequential..."

Is that teaching "truth"?