My name is Monica and I am here to further my knowledge of western political thought as I am a first year philosophy major at Montgomery Collge. My class has just completed several sections of The Republic. The first essay was centered around what Plato would say about the recent “General Petraeus or Betray Us” ads by MoveOn.org. I failed that essay. Here is an excerpt:
“Plato may also argue against the ruled. Plato would say that much of today’s society is operating in the realm of belief and basing those beliefs on only visible images. He would say that veterans of the war have perceived objects but are still nowhere near understanding the level of higher forms. Plato would warn the public that the rulers are rulers because they are wise and therefore operate with reason and possibly understand the higher forms. The public are observing these higher forms, which are represented as mere images in the media, and taking them for face value and are ignorant to the forms that the ruler understands.”
My professor wrote “on what basis” next to this section and throughout this paper. My professor said that I did not write what Plato would say but rather interjected my own opinions.
The second essay we have been given is about what Plato would say about the Mohammad caricature by the Norweigan media (Jyllands-Posten) and the reaction of the Moslem world.
Should I concentrate more on asking questions like Plato does? I really am stumped on what Plato would say or ask. I really want to understand this style of thinking but my mind is having such a hard time getting used to it. Any help or suggestions on how to think about this would be greatly appreciated.
I’d bet your professor is looking for direct quotes (referenced) from plato in relevant context with the current questions asked…
don’t say “I think plato would say” and give your opinion; say in this instance “hypothetical question”, which is like this instance in “the apology” or wherever, plato said …
(in the first instance, plato would not have said what you thought he’d say because today’s leaders are not close to plato’s “philosopher kings”…)
he wants to check to see if you are familiar with the texts, that’s all…
When a prof asks “on what basis” they are asking you to draw a line between what Plato actually said and what you say he would say now. In other words, what, in your readings of Plato, did Plato say that makes you think he would have said “X” today?
Plato would say George Bush is a Philospher King because Plato said: “This I know; I know nothing.”
Plato was a humanist—a classical one, in fact!—and embodies his teacher Socrates’ endless thirst for inquiry. He would not think he has all the answers, and his Republic is intended as an introduction to the very concept of an ideal state rather than the final word. It’s this kind of humanism that is important to bear in mind in imagining his pronouncements on some event twenty-five centuries later.
Plato encountering contemporary society would be horrified, for he would be facing an apparatus of tyranny against body and mind inconceivable to his time. He would delight in the knowledge and information available, but would quickly realise that a tyranny of images held sway, and that this had degraded the mental abilities of the population to a level appropriate to Athenian slaves.
In the face of a cartoon insulting an alien religion, he would not merely present an opinion, he would engage in a Socratic investigation to trace it back to its origins, and eventually realise that it was a deliberate provocation intended to facilitate strife between Christendom and Islam, the utility of which is for certain political factions for whom peaceful co-development is unprofitable.
Plato was deep. Don’t get caught in what he wrote as if it were dogma that he would then construct new opinions using. He would come up with something new.
Thanks for all the great responses everyone! They were very helpful and got me on track. I just got the paper back today and I aced it!! Thanks again!!!
