Plato's Republic

read it last year (junior year in hs).
I personally found it very entertaining as works of philosophy go as it revolves around many anecdotes and questions…very thought provoking.

reading it within a discussion based classroom really helped though, you might want to talk to someone who has read and understood it to get a full appreciation for the magnitude of the work in its perspective.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
Long story short: If Plato had wanted his readers to have a bite-sized intro to philosophy, we would have put just such an introduction at the beginning of his book.

But you see, if you want your philosophy to have an impact, why keep it a secret? Why write so that only a few can follow what’s being said? Most will simply give up, say that it’s not for them, and then live with out ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and so forth. Why not make it possible for everyone to read and enjoy (and apply) a philosophy? Why all the mystery?

[/quote]

What nephorm said.

The idea of converting as many people as possible over to your philosophy, as far as I can tell, first shows up with Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s turn to the people seems to be a key part of the way in which he breaks with the previous tradition. So if you really want to understand philosophy, starting from the notion that philosophical texts are meant to appeal to everybody is a good way to miss the trireme.

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
The idea of converting as many people as possible over to your philosophy, as far as I can tell, first shows up with Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s turn to the people seems to be a key part of the way in which he breaks with the previous tradition. So if you really want to understand philosophy, starting from the notion that philosophical texts are meant to appeal to everybody is a good way to miss the trireme.[/quote]

Machiavelli still kept plenty hidden from the masses… after all, he was the first Philosopher to treat indirect rule in depth. While a book like The Prince is ostensibly accessible to any literate person, as are his plays (Mandragola is a favorite of mine), reading through the Discourses is a dizzying demonstration of his genius and subtlety.

I don’t think anyone wanted to play with Plato when he was a kid, or with Rand for that matter…Niccolo, on the other hand, would be great to have on your side when you fought the kid form the next block.

[quote]TQB wrote:
I don’t think anyone wanted to play with Plato when he was a kid, or with Rand for that matter…Niccolo, on the other hand, would be great to have on your side when you fought the kid form the next block.[/quote]

No, no. You fight him with Sun Tzu. Once you’ve beaten him, you keep him in check with Machiavelli.

[quote]pookie wrote:
No, no. You fight him with Sun Tzu. Once you’ve beaten him, you keep him in check with Machiavelli.
[/quote]

Coincidentally, both wrote books entitled “The Art of War.”

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
But you see, if you want your philosophy to have an impact, why keep it a secret?

Perhaps it is more responsible for the philosophy to NOT have a direct impact.

Why write so that only a few can follow what’s being said? Most will simply give up, say that it’s not for them, and then live with out ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and so forth.

Well, it probably isn’t for them. But there are all sorts of institutions in a working society that make it unnecessary for its members to work out every ethical problem in advance.

Why not make it possible for everyone to read and enjoy (and apply) a philosophy? Why all the mystery?

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.[/quote]

Excellent Post, Neph!

My main trouble is that a philosophy, if not clearcut, can be misinterpreted by those trying to apply it. Think of Nietzsche’s Ubermench, for example. Can we imagine FN advocating death camps? Ich glaub es nicht!

Philosophers also don’t contemplate long-term consequences: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Well, who decides if someone is working up to his ability? Who decides what each person’s needs are? This led to totalitarianism.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But you see, if you want your philosophy to have an impact, why keep it a secret? Why write so that only a few can follow what’s being said? Most will simply give up, say that it’s not for them, and then live with out ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and so forth. Why not make it possible for everyone to read and enjoy (and apply) a philosophy? Why all the mystery?

[/quote]

When you say “Why write so that only a few can follow what’s being said” I think you need to distinguish between writing that is hard to follow due to lack of clarity from writing that is hard to follow due to complexity. The former is a fault, the latter is not.

As Umberto eco wrote in his dialogue with Cardinal Martini:
‘… it doesn’t matter if some find our discussion too difficult: they have doubtless been encouraged to think in simplistic terms by mass-media “revelations” which are predictable by definition. Let them learn to think hard because neither the mystery itself nor the evidence is easy/’

OP-

Read the republic, breeze through a lot if you like, but focus on the “cave”. I actually liked it.

Plato and Aristotle’s works are both murder to read. The notes are better way to go if you just want to knwo his basic tenets. Plato had a couple of very important contributions, but he was way off on his arguments as nobody had defined the rules of logic at that point, Aristotle did that. His arguments are chocked full logical fallacies. He, in my opinion, is more important historically than philosophically. I think your better off paying attention to the works of Berkley, Liebniz, Hume, Kant and Descarte if you really want to get into philosophy.

Eastern philosophy is okay if you are in prison and having nothing but time on your hands. I say that because Eastern philosophy make a statment and expects you to figure out why it is true. The westerners explain why they think their theories are true.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Plato and Aristotle’s works are both murder to read. The notes are better way to go if you just want to knwo his basic tenets. Plato had a couple of very important contributions, but he was way off on his arguments as nobody had defined the rules of logic at that point, Aristotle did that. His arguments are chocked full logical fallacies. He, in my opinion, is more important historically than philosophically. I think your better off paying attention to the works of Berkley, Liebniz, Hume, Kant and Descarte if you really want to get into philosophy.

Eastern philosophy is okay if you are in prison and having nothing but time on your hands. I say that because Eastern philosophy make a statment and expects you to figure out why it is true. The westerners explain why they think their theories are true. [/quote]

Word (although I can’t vouch for the prison bit)

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Plato and Aristotle’s works are both murder to read. The notes are better way to go if you just want to knwo his basic tenets. Plato had a couple of very important contributions, but he was way off on his arguments as nobody had defined the rules of logic at that point, Aristotle did that. His arguments are chocked full logical fallacies. He, in my opinion, is more important historically than philosophically. I think your better off paying attention to the works of Berkley, Liebniz, Hume, Kant and Descarte if you really want to get into philosophy.

Eastern philosophy is okay if you are in prison and having nothing but time on your hands. I say that because Eastern philosophy make a statment and expects you to figure out why it is true. The westerners explain why they think their theories are true. [/quote]

But in the Eastern philosophies, the process of personal discovery is elemental to the philosophy itself. Without it they would simply not be the same.

[quote]pookie wrote:
TQB wrote:
I don’t think anyone wanted to play with Plato when he was a kid, or with Rand for that matter…Niccolo, on the other hand, would be great to have on your side when you fought the kid form the next block.

No, no. You fight him with Sun Tzu. Once you’ve beaten him, you keep him in check with Machiavelli.
[/quote]
Bwhahahahaha! I love it!, best ever!..and Mao was the real hack, he ripped off SunTzu, but Giap actually applied his stuff…

Oh, BTW, Platos Repub’ is why the rich and poor stay that way (and why it’s taught where it’s taught)…Black helicopters will be coming for me now I guess?:wink:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
She tells people that they have a right to be happy, as a rational being. Guess that pisses off lots of folks…[/quote]

If you think she’s somehow unique in doing that, then you need to read a heck of a lot more philosophy.

Ayn Rand is second hand “philosophy”. Not very different from the bad New Age stuff, in some ways. I.e. - read real philosophy, don’t understand it very well, come up with your own opinions nevertheless, write books, claim you’re a legit “philosopher”.

I agree that her writings can be quite motivational. I do not disparage her for that. In fact, I can see why some people like her books and I do believe there is a kernel of truth to some things she’s saying (you just mentioned it above).
When considered in that light, I think (some of) her ideas are quite valuable.

But to say she’s a “philosopher”… come on. She’s more like a Stephen Covey (“The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”) gone self-infatuated.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why not make it possible for everyone to read and enjoy (and apply) a philosophy? Why all the mystery?[/quote]

Why there’s no such book called “Quantum Electrodynamics for dummies”? I’ll tell you why, because I studied that stuff - it really is incredibly complex.

Same with philosophy. The real stuff really is extremely convoluted. If it appears simple, chances are it’s either you who are wrong (so it actually isn’t simple, it just seems so) or that same “philosophy” is just watered down coffee grounds.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My main trouble is that a philosophy, if not clearcut, can be misinterpreted by those trying to apply it. Think of Nietzsche’s Ubermench, for example. Can we imagine FN advocating death camps? Ich glaub es nicht!
[/quote]

Boy, did you get that right: of course, the difference between Nietzsche and many other philosophers is that ol’ Fred’ is a favoured target for purposeful misinterpretation.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people argue that the Untermensch is about domination of others as opposed to the domination of self.

Back on topic, somewhat.

The best way I have found to get into a topic is similar to the person who suggested multiple translations - instead I get multiple authors on a topic and then work to understand the how each writer’s ideas fit into an overall, intergrated thesis…

Thing with Machiavelli to remember is the context in which he was writing things…that is, sucking up big time in order to secure patronage etc…

That being said, the tricky little bugger is a lot of fun

[quote]florin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why not make it possible for everyone to read and enjoy (and apply) a philosophy? Why all the mystery?

Why there’s no such book called “Quantum Electrodynamics for dummies”? I’ll tell you why, because I studied that stuff - it really is incredibly complex.

Same with philosophy. The real stuff really is extremely convoluted. If it appears simple, chances are it’s either you who are wrong (so it actually isn’t simple, it just seems so) or that same “philosophy” is just watered down coffee grounds.[/quote]

Great post. I don’t think people realize that respected theoretical physicists can take a while to fully understand an original paper by a high-level colleague. No one is making books on quantum physics complex just for complexity’s sake. I think it was Niehls Bohr who said “If quantum physics doesn’t confuse you, then you haven’t truly understood it.” It really is that complex and counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, if you devote the time and energy necessary to understand it, it is very rewarding and is almost a belief system in and of itself.

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
Great post. I don’t think people realize that respected theoretical physicists can take a while to fully understand an original paper by a high-level colleague. No one is making books on quantum physics complex just for complexity’s sake. I think it was Niehls Bohr who said “If quantum physics doesn’t confuse you, then you haven’t truly understood it.” It really is that complex and counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, if you devote the time and energy necessary to understand it, it is very rewarding and is almost a belief system in and of itself.[/quote]

Not to be an asshole, but how much quantum physics have you really studied? And Zukav’s “Dancing Wu-Li Masters” doesn’t count.

[quote]iscariot wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ol’ Fred’ is a favoured target for purposeful misinterpretation.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people argue that the Untermensch is about domination of others as opposed to the domination of self.
[/quote]

That whole Thule society cult and the one balled paperhanger with the f’d up stash kinda’ screwed that up, nicht war?..

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
But in the Eastern philosophies, the process of personal discovery is elemental to the philosophy itself. Without it they would simply not be the same.[/quote]

True. It’s just a preference really. I like to know how someone came up with their conclusions. After all, conclusions are not always correct and they are easier to refute if you know how they came about.

I think more then anything else about eastern philosophy that bothers me isn’t the philosophy itself but how it proponents attach a beatific quality to it. Like a dogma that can do know wrong as if the hand of God wrote it. The eastern thinkers were no better than the western thinkers. But they do have some catchy phrases.