OG,
If you hadn’t pointed out the source, had done a bit of paraphrasing to clean up archaic language, it could easily be an editorial on most western governments… 
I have a funny feeling it still is.
And around and around she goes…
But if it ever stopped, what would there be to write about? Sometimes it seems that the stuff of life is all the mistakes, all the stupidity, all of the misery… I think heaven is vastly overrated.
Yeah, but one problem with the Plato is that he believed in fascism. So, what is a “drone” mean to him?
He believed in fascism?
I think that we might have to explore that notion a little bit.
Dictatorship over self doesn’t necessarily equate to to a political view. Ideally the philosopher he describes would be a rational leader, one who doesn’t even want to lead, or rather, care about the power.
The book is more about the self than the allegorical state they employ to help with their conversation… I really don’t think that Plato believed in fascism, I think he simply explored the notion as it was a conventional mode of government at the time.
The drones are short sighted and introspectively ignorant people who are intelligent enough to manipulate other people to achieve a mean, rather than themselves towards the good.
Tent,
Heaven would have to be flawed… it would have to be like earth in order for us to view it as ‘good’ or ‘pleasurable’ because these things are all based on the dualistic nature of our psychology. Unending bliss would very quickly turn to a greyish ‘whatever’ feeling because with time we’d loose the memory of anything else to compare it to.
So in that way I like to think that earth is heaven, in all it’s fractured glory.
The Republic is all about control of the population for the sake of the state. Even types of entertainment are discussed that will make people more violent. That by the way, it’s entertainment that’s only a little violent, so as to glorify violence.
All kinds of censorship is are recommended. In fact, Bertrand Russell believed that Islam is actually mostly based on Platonic philosophy.
The main fascist bit has to do with the bodies that would make up the state. The public will be told that the leaders have a little gold in their soul, the military a little silver, and the rabble a little bronze. This is to be done to ensure a belief in Ubermen that is not always earned.
So, the state is to be based on control of expression and lies about the quality of its inhabitances.
Plato is not a favorite of mine.
In one philosophy class, I took about a million years ago,
The theory offered by the teacher was, that Plato’s republic
was about the soul, not about a physical reality.
There were three parts of the soul and the he was talking
about mastery of the soul. Now this is how the evolution
of teaching travels. This was in the late 70’s, and the
establishment was trying very hard to shift the focus of
the youth into more acceptable channels, Plato became
a metaphor for the soul instead of being about the state.
The years after nixon everybody was shying away from
the idea of dictatorships. very interesting. UMMMMMM.
Kropotkin
Yeah that’s generally one of the more accepted theories.
I’m not entirely sure Ad’s opinion of Plato is… healthy.
Guys, you have to read the book completely.
molloy.edu/academic/philosop … b_comm.htm
If lies about the soul are ok to control the population then great.
However, I see little difference between what he recommends and the past practice of saying that blacks are subhuman (except for those that believed it) as an excuse to have a working class free of rights. In fact, I bet that Plato inspired the idea.
The rest of the Republic, as I said, speaks heavily and specifically about social control. The section about the arts is very interesting, as reflections of it still exist today.
In my opinion, the republic is exactly what we don’t want.
I’ve read the book completely. I spent a week studying it in class my first year.
I think that the jump you’re trying to make is that the noble lie is the equivalent to fascism. Lieing is perhaps wrong in an idealistic state but this particular state is more of an allegory for the soul as pete pointed out.
Let’s work with this for a second… Do you not lie to yourself sometimes? I mean… Plato wasn’t well versed in psychology. I think it is more his way of saying “this is how we get things done as individuals”. Is not my mentality when I play basketball specialized on the premise that this part of me should be focusing on basketball? Even if I could have chosen to play any sport? Perhaps this was simply Plato’s way of explaining the amalgamative nature of consciousness. The noble lie is a helpful illusion when it comes to ourselves, so why not in the republic?
Certainly not fascism. The republic isn’t supposed to be any one particular design for a polis, perhaps it just seems that way because of the dialectic discourse?
Ok, it’s a useful illusion to say that that black, jews, and women are subhuman, because that way we will have a well-ordered world of leaders and followers. Even if it’s not true it’ll be helpful.
Seriously, read the arts section again. How could it be anything but sinister to suggest that the ruling class be feed sanitized violence so that they will be more pleased with the thought of war?
This reminds me of something^
When we expect an evil to exist within someone, and that evil isn’t even really there – when we act as if it was, this creates synthetic evil within us, and it sparks the same kind of reactions that real evil sparks – within EVERYONE who believes in that synthetic evil.
So, what does sensationalism do to the world? Deeply?
Well, I believe that life is very easy and possible. It’s so easy that it’s boring and people start to create problems in their own lives, for cheap thrills. They imanine the world is worse then it is, they look for trouble, they are argumentive, they tempt themselves with things that they don’t need, etc.
le sigh…
=)
no one elects a philosopher king…
-Imp
Read the Republic and really think, “What is Plato most likely to be saying here?” Don’t suffer from intimidation of the Classics that Brecht warned about. If read in that straight-forward manner, Plato is definately proto-fascist.
Now, the text can be interpreted to be about the soul. In that case, it can be beautiful and a wonderful tool. But it’s highly unlikely that that’s what he meant.
Also, I had read about the Platonic/Aristotle divide between Christendom and Islam. Since the Eastern Roman Empire had nearly all the texts, I’d say that saying Christendom was based off of Aristotle is given the West a pinch too much credit . . . but the reverse seems pretty likely. Any history buffs know what the predominant Roman ruling style was in the Eastern Empire around 600 A.D.?
The author of Profiles in Courage got elected.
(Unless you are just pointing out that kings are not elected.)