![TheRepublic[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cJ7lPnG.jpg "TheRepublic[1].jpg")
So, /lit/, I just got finished reading Plato's republic and I have to ask, was Thrasymachus right after all? Plato essentially spends the entirety of his book trying to prove him wrong and I still feel like that isn't enough.
>>7986190
The "Do my homework for me" bait is FRESH this morning!!
Plato's massive jump in logic that I am sure many people raised eyebrows at is that you can upscale an individual to society, then apply what seems right to society to the individual. It's cool but I do not find it convincing.
On top of this I believe he was utilitarian, this adds value to Mill's otherwise weak defense of his philosophy where he says that he was not saying anything new and that humans very naturally equate happiness with the good. If you read the book carefully Plato mentions two principles underlying his notion of a good republic, and the whole structure of it: happiness to all classes and in equal amounts (I do not see this emphasized anywhere but yes he does very, very explictly say this in the Republic if only in a few words) hell this happiness can even be said to be hedonistic based off how the republic came into being because people just weren't satisfied chillin like tribals and eating acorns or what not.
My conclusion is that noone in the book is right, courses should drop Plato and Aristotle, instead starting with Desecartes, then moving to Hume then Kant and then some elementary Russell Frege and Wiggie all supplemented by logical readings along with easy papers by other analytics.
All other philosophy besides this eased to be treated as crap and feel good blabbery.
>>7986807
The city-in-speech isn't meant to be a real society. This is the mistake too many readers of Plato make. The CIS is a logic exercise. Of course whole, huge classes of people won't all be blocks and lumps like they are in the CIS. The whole entire point of that argument is to find what justice is. The whole entire point OF THE WHOLE BOOK is the find out what justice is. It says some amazing things along the way about politics and metaphysics and the soul, but ultimately they're not the central aim.
And I do think the Republic's final conclusion about justice is quite right, and really pretty difficult to refute. What is justice, really? Justice is an internal order. Justice is having your soul, your mind, properly constituted. It's a state of being, not any act of the state or any individual. Though it CAN be an act of the state, insofar as the state is properly ordered.
Actually, you know who's right, in the end? It's not Thrasymachus. It's Cephalus, of all people, right at the start of the dialogue. Cephalus says that justice is giving to each what they're owed. He turns out to be right. But WHAT are they owed? The Republic, as a whole, answers THAT question. It determines what all men and women are ultimately owed. It's what all men, and all women, deserve in their own lives.
>>7986853
Fuck, I confused Cephalus with his son, Polemarchus. He's the one who's ultimately right.
>>7986853
>The city-in-speech isn't meant to be a real society.
Interesting, what do you meam by a real society? I find it absurd that he would actually try to implement such a republic but I believe historical texts do indicate that Plato had previously tried to counsel some ruler (D something?) into ruling in some philosopher king sort of way although that ended with him almost dying (Plato that is) or maybe that was Socrates idk.
Anyway let us assume he did not mean to actually implement his plan for a republic, why would that make the city in question any less real? What do you mean by the word real here?
Plato does seem to make conjectures of people's actions based on how they would act in real life (for example the warrior class would not rebek because of so and so reason) so in no way does it seem like he is taking fictional liberties. Still I do not see why just because his city is hypothetical it is not meant to be real.
What really do you mean by real?
Anyway I do believe his city was hupothetical, despite the historical sources, and I still do not see any convincing power in the logical jump from city to person it seems like a blatant category mistake.
Why is a just city similar to a just individual, that is, share certain chaterestics with it, namely in Plato's case the virtues present in it.
Also, to see how you respond, I believe justice is the strong doing what they will and the weak doing what they must, why is Plato's conception correct and not mine.
>>7986853
>and really pretty difficult to refute
Define a refutation for me please.
>>7986807
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
>>7986905
Dessenters are always nice to listen to. What do you disagree with from what I have said and why? (despite the last bit which I put there as an indication of how much the Greeks make me yawn)
No need to justift why I am dumb, that needs no more evidence than my writing style.
>>7986898
the act of refuting
>>7986884
Well, that's Thrasymachus' conception of justice, after all.
I think what Plato/Socrates does is pretty clever. It's an internalization of the idea of justice. Again, remember, the Republic's ultimate conclusion is that justice is a correct orientation of the soul. It's the tripartite soul properly arranged, with the reason ruling over both the spirit and the appetite.
Therefore, in the physical, tangible world (which some might call the 'real' world) the strong may do what they will and the weak may do what they must. However, according to the Republic, even if those conditions exist the weak might be just and the strong might be unjust, because the strong may be disordered in their souls and the weak might be ordered properly.
This, of course, is how Socrates answers the dilemma Glaucon and Adiemantus set up with the Ring of Gyges thought experiment. The whole point of that was to force Socrates to justify pursuing justice over injustice by giving him a case where a person could have all the outward benefits of justice while still being fundamentally unjust. His conclusion, after they establish what justice is, is that even a powerful person, even a dissembling person, even someone who has all the benefits in the world, may be a mess internally, and may not be at peace, due to being fundamentally unjust in their souls.
>>7986898
I suppose a refutation would have to be very psychological and psychiatric, since we're dealing with a state of mind and a psychological condition. You would have to show how a disordered soul/mind might nevertheless be settled, ordered, and peaceful. I realize this might not be possible.
>>7986853
Hey, you actually studied Plato under someone knowledgeable didn't you ?
People unfortunately don't pay attention to the context of the book.
>>7986884
>Anyway I do believe his city was hupothetical, despite the historical sources, and I still do not see any convincing power in the logical jump from city to person it seems like a blatant category mistake.
The thing is, Plato assumes that justice is not an equivocal term, that even if there are different ways of it applying to different things, that there is one definite "form" ( clear definitional principle) of justice that everything that is just must take part in for the whole concept of "justice" to make any sense. And in fact he doesn't just assume this, but argues this with the whole section on why we need forms in general.
So Plato moves on to the city because it is in a larger scale so it should be easier to pick out justice in it then in individuals. It could be that he is wrong about what makes a city just and hence an individual, but given his epistemology and metaphysics I think that the leap from the micro to macro is warranted for Plato.
>>7986942
>that's Thrasymachus' conception of justice, after all.
Of course, why would you put this sentence here, my challenge was to have you show that this definition of justice is not "correct".
>according to the Republic, even if those conditions exist the weak might be just and the strong might be unjust, because the strong may be disordered in their souls and the weak might be ordered properly.
Yes, I know he says that, but why is he correct in saying that? Why are the strong not just and why can there be no just person who does not exist by the tripartite scheme.
>settled, ordered, and peaceful
This is not as necessary to his definition of justice as I beleive is his criteria that the following exist in the correct proportions as directed by reason, as you said:
>reason ruling over both the spirit and the appetite.
Now then consider a man who has these attributes in what you conceive as the correct proportion. Now consider a man, working as a judge, whose tendencies of spirit are much less than in the previous ideal proportions.
This unideal man works as a judge, is it impossible for you to visualize him always making just verdicts for his cases.
>>7986951
>People unfortunately don't pay attention to the context of the book.
If I only ever had access to works by and pertaining to Plato in the genre of philosophy they would be my favourites of all books.
Luckily in the age of the internet I can be more selective, I wholeheartedly admit thst I find the Greeks horrendously boring (including Homer) compared to other authors who would spend a lot more time analyzing what words mean before analyzing what justice means.
>>7986951
>why we need forms in general.
Why do we need forms? I don't see him arguing so much as to why we need it, or how we know or why we should hold the belief that they exist as much as dictating what they are.
>the idea of people being right or wrong
>>7987062
Check out
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Plato/PlatoTheoryForms.pdf
for an overview.
It's been a few years since I've done Plato personally. So I'll let the other anon explain Plato in more depth. That point I quoted in particular is all I really wanted to discuss.
