February 7, 2009

Republic by Plato

2 Comments

I read Plato’s Republic. It’s thought that this book was written around 380 B.C. This translation that I read, copyright 1992, is by G.M.A. Grube, and C.D.C. Reeve revised it.

With some significant interruptions, to which we shall return, Plato spent the remainder of his life as director of studies in the Academy (see 528b-c). He is thought to have written the Republic there in around 380 B.C. [1]

Plato is thought to have been born in 428 B.C. and to have died in 348. The legend goes that his dad, Ariston, was descended from the last king of Athens; his mom, Perictione, was related to Solon, the first architect of the Athenian constitution. Plato’s family was aristocratic and well off, and Plato was related to, and knew, a bunch of people with power.

Plato is traditionally thought to have been been born in 428 B.C. and to have died in 348. His father, Ariston, was descended—or so legend has it—from Codrus, the last king of Athens; his mother, Perictione, was related to Solon, the first architect of the Athenian constitution. His family was aristocratic and well off. He had two brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, both of whom appear in the Republic, and a sister, Potone, whose son, Speusippus, took over as head of the Academy on Plato’s death. While Plato was still a boy, his father died and his mother married Pyrilampes, a friend of the great Athenian statesman Pericles. Thus Plato was no stranger to Athenian political life even from childhood. Because he was eighteen in 409, when the Peloponnesian war with Sparta was still in progress, he almost certainly served in the military in that period. He may have served again around 395, when Athens was involved in the so-called Corinthian war.

Given his social class and family connections, it would have been natural for Plato to take a prominent role in Athenian political life. But he did not do this, and, in his Seventh Letter, written when he was himself over seventy, he explains why:

As a young man I went through the same experiences as many others. I thought that as soon as I became my own master, I’d devote myself to public affairs. Now, it happened that the course of political events gave me the chance to do just that. The existing constitution came to be reviled by many people, so that a revolution occurred . . . and thirty rulers were set up with supreme powers. Some of these happened to be relatives and friends of mine, and they immediately called on me to join them, on the assumption that theirs was the sort of work appropriate for someone like me. [2]

Plato’s Republic is largely in reported speech. You have this guy Socrates who’s relating a conversation he had in the past. The dialogue discusses a bunch of topics, including a city ruled by ruled by philosopher-kings.

The Republic is largely in reported speech. Socrates is relating a conversation he had in the past. [3]

Plato did not go to Sicily to found a heaven on earth; he was much too hardheaded for that. But he surely thought that he had something to teach Dionysius that would prove of real political significance. Throughout the Republic, indeed, he insists that the ideal city he describes is a real possibility that would most easily be realized if a king became a philosopher or a philosopher became a king. [4]

This city, compared to a hive in discussions, has three classes. With the three classes you have the guardians on top, in the middle you have the auxiliaries and the money-makers are on the bottom.

But I suppose that when someone, who is by nature a craftsman or some other kind of money-maker, is puffed up by wealth, or by having a majority of votes, or by his own strength, or by some other such thing, and attempts to enter the class of soldiers, or one of the unworthy soldiers tries to enter that of the judges and guardians, and these exchange their tools and honors, or when the same person tries to do all these things at once, then I think you’ll agree that these exchanges and this sort of meddling bring the city to ruin.

Absolutely.

Meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it.

Exactly.

And wouldn’t you say that the worst thing that someone could do to his city is injustice?

Of course.

Then, that exchange and meddling is injustice. Or to put it the other way around: For the money-making, auxiliary, and guardian classes each to do its own work in the city, is the opposite. That’s justice, isn’t it, and makes the city just?

I agree. Justice is that and nothing else. [5]

Now, think about this. When the person who sells all his possessions was rich and spending his money, was he of any greater use to the city in the ways we’ve just mentioned than when he’d spent it all? Or did he merely seem to be one of the rulers of the city, while in truth he was neither ruler nor subject there, but only a squanderer of his property?

That’s right. He seemed to be part of the city, but he was nothing but a squanderer.

Should we say, then, that, as a drone exists in a cell and is an affliction to the hive, so this person is a drone in the house and an affliction to the city?

That’s certainly right, Socrates. [6]

The guardians rule the city. They are the smallest class and they are “wise”. [7]

Then, a whole city established according to nature would be wise because of the smallest class and part in it, namely, the governing or ruling one. And to this class, which seems to be by nature the smallest, belongs a share of the knowledge that alone among all the other kinds of knowledge is to be called wisdom. [8]

The auxiliaries are “like dogs obedient to the rulers, who are themselves like shepherds of a city.” [9] And you’ll find the military in this class.

. . . we made the auxiliaries in our city like dogs obedient to the rulers, who are themselves like shepherds of a city. [10]

But I suppose that when someone, who is by nature a craftsman or some other kind of money-maker, is puffed up by wealth, or by having a majority of votes, or by his own strength, or by some other such thing, and attempts to enter the class of soldiers, or one of the unworthy soldiers tries to enter that of the judges and guardians, and these exchange their tools and honors, or when the same person tries to do all these things at once, then I think you’ll agree that these exchanges and this sort of meddling bring the city to ruin. [11]

And the money-makers are the farmers, the craftsman, the labour, etc.

Therefore our citizens must not only produce enough for themselves at home but also goods of the right quality and quantity to satisfy the requirements of others.

They must.

So we’ll need more farmers and other craftsmen in our city.

Yes.

And others to take care of imports and exports. And they’re called merchants, aren’t they?

Yes.

So we’ll need merchants, too.

Certainly.

And if the trade is by sea, we’ll need a good many others who know how to sail.

A good many, indeed.

And how will those in the city itself share the things that each produces? It was for the sake of this that we made their partnership and founded their city.

Clearly, they must do it by buying and selling.

Then we’ll need a marketplace and a currency for such exchange.

Certainly.

If a farmer or any other craftsman brings some of his products to market, and he doesn’t arrive at the same time as those who want to exchange things with him, is he to sit idly in the marketplace, away from his own work?

Not at all. There’ll be people who’ll notice this and provide the requisite service—in well-organized cities they’ll usually be those whose bodies are weakest and who aren’t fit to do any other work. They’ll stay around the market exchanging money for the goods of those who have something to sell and then exchanging those goods for the money of those who want them.

Then, to fill this need there will have to be retailers in our city, for aren’t those who establish themselves in the marketplace to provide this service of buying and selling called retailers, while those who travel between cities are called merchants?

That’s right.

There are other servants, I think, whose minds alone wouldn’t qualify them for membership in our society but whose bodies are strong enough for labor. These sell the use of their strength for a price called a wage and hence are themselves called wage-earners. Isn’t that so?

Certainly.

So wage-earners complete our city?

I think so. [12]

There’s discussion about how these three classes are “natural” classes and people are born, by nature, into one of these classes. [13] Exchange and meddling between the three classes is “the worst thing someone could do to” [14] this city. So a money-maker trying to become an auxiliary would be “injustice” [15] in this city.

But a city was thought to be just when each of the three natural classes within it did its own work, and it was thought to be moderate, courageous, and wise because of certain other conditions and states of theirs.

That’s true. [16]

But I suppose that when someone, who is by nature a craftsman or some other kind of money-maker, is puffed up by wealth, or by having a majority of votes, or by his own strength, or by some other such thing, and attempts to enter the class of soldiers, or one of the unworthy soldiers tries to enter that of the judges and guardians, and these exchange their tools and honors, or when the same person tries to do all these things at once, then I think you’ll agree that these exchanges and this sort of meddling bring the city to ruin.

Absolutely.

Meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it.

Exactly.

And wouldn’t you say that the worst thing that someone could do to his city is injustice?

Of course.

Then, that exchange and meddling is injustice. Or to put it the other way around: For the money-making, auxiliary, and guardian classes each to do its own work in the city, is the opposite. That’s justice, isn’t it, and makes the city just?

I agree. Justice is that and nothing else. [17]

There’s discussion about breeding and how a pedigree dog naturally has desired characteristics, like being “gentle as can be to those he’s used to and knows, but the opposite to those he doesn’t know.” [18] Then there’s discussion about having men and women doing everything in common, but none of them will live privately together. Even the children and all their education must be in common. And there’s also discussion about how the “superior” men must have sex with the “superior” women, but the opposite would be true for the “inferior” men and women. [19] And the rulers would have to do this “superior” breeding without anyone other than the rulers noticing, cause if other people found out then there might be dissension. Bringing the women into the military is discussed, so you could get the “superior” men and women in the military to breed with one another and they will, in theory, breed “superior” babies who will remain in the military and continue this breeding process.

You can see them in other animals, too, but especially in the one to which we compared the guardian, for you know, of course, that a pedigree dog naturally has a character of this sort—he is gentle as can be to those he’s used to and knows, but the opposite to those he doesn’t know. [20]

That all these women are to belong in common to all the men, that none are to live privately with any man, and that the children, too, are to be possessed in common, so that no parent will know his own offspring or any child his parent. [21]

It follows from our previous agreements, first, that the best men must have sex with the best women as frequently as possible, while the opposite is true of the most inferior men and women, and, second, that if our herd is to be of the latter’s. And this must all be brought about without being noticed by anyone except the rulers, so that our herd of guardians remains as free from dissension as possible.

That’s absolutely right.

Therefore certain festivals and sacrifices will be established by law at which we’ll bring the brides and grooms together, and we’ll direct our poets to compose appropriate hymns for the marriages that take place. We’ll leave the number of marriages for the rulers to decide, but their aim will be to keep the number of males as stable as they can, taking into account war, disease, and similar factors, so that the city will, as far as possible, become neither too big nor too small.

That’s right.

Then there’ll have to be some sophisticated lotteries introduced, so that at each marriage the inferior people we mentioned will blame luck rather than the rulers when they aren’t chosen.

There will.

And among other prizes and rewards the young men who are good in war or other things must be given permission to have sex with the women more often, since this will also be a good pretext for having them father as many of the children as possible.

That’s right.

And then, as the children are born, they’ll be taken over by the officials appointed for the purpose, who may be either men or women or both, since our offices are open to both sexes.

Yes.

I think they’ll take the children of good parents to the nurses in charge of the rearing pen situated in a separate part of the city, but the children of inferior parents, or any child of the others that is born defective, they’ll hide in a secret and unknown place, as is appropriate.[*]12[*]

[*]12[*]. There can be no doubt that Plato is recommending infanticide by exposure for these babies, a practice which was quite common in ancient Greece as a method of birth control. [22]

If a city is to achieve the height of good government, wives must be in common, children and all their education must be in common, their way of life, whether in peace or war, must be in common, and their kings must be those among them who have proved to be best, both in philosophy and in warfare. [23]

Then I’ll have to go back to what should perhaps have been said in sequence, although it may be that this way of doing things is in fact right and that after the completion of the male drama, so to speak, we should then go through the female one—especially as you insist on it so urgently.

For men born and educated as we’ve described there is, in my opinion, no right way to acquire and use women and children other than by following the road on which we started them. We attempted, in the argument, to set up the men as guardians of the herd.

Yes.

Then let’s give them a birth and rearing consistent with that and see whether it suits us or not.

How?

As follows: Do we think that the wives of our guardian watchdogs should guard what the males guard, hunt with them, and do everything else in common with them? Or should we keep the women at home, as incapable of doing this, since they must bear and rear the puppies, while the males work and have the entire care of the flock?

Everything should be in common, except that the females are weaker and the males stronger.

And is it possible to use any animals for the same things if you don’t give them the same upbringing and education?

No, it isn’t.

Therefore, if we use the women for the same things as the men, they must also be taught the same things.

Yes. [24]

Knowledge being power is discussed. The majority of people believe that pleasure is what is important, but the more “sophisticated” believe that it’s knowledge. [25] And it’s not any kind of knowledge that is important. The knowledge that is important is to be called wisdom. Only the rulers will get this wisdom. This wisdom can be used for control.

Then let’s back up. Is knowledge a power, or what class would you put it in?

It’s a power, the strongest of them all. [26]

Furthermore, you certainly know that the majority believe that pleasure is the good, while the more sophisticated believe that it is knowledge.

Indeed I do. [27]

Then, a whole city established according to nature would be wise because of the smallest class and part in it, namely, the governing or ruling one. And to this class, which seems to be by nature the smallest, belongs a share of the knowledge that alone among all the other kinds of knowledge is to be called wisdom. [28]

Then, don’t you see that in your city, too, the desires of the inferior many are controlled by the wisdom and desires of the superior few?

I do. [29]

The earlier you use wisdom on a person the better. Like on page 52 it says, “You know, don’t you, that the beginning of any process is most important, especially for anything young and tender? It’s at that time that it is most malleable and takes on any pattern one wishes to impress on it.” [30]

It’s important that you control everything that enters a person’s mind from the very beginning. On page 53, for example, it says, “Then we must first of all, it seems, supervise the storytellers. We’ll select their stories whenever they are fine or beautiful and reject them when they aren’t. And we’ll persuade nurses and mothers to tell their children the ones we have selected, since they will shape their children’s souls with stories much more than they shape their bodies by handling them.” [31] And it’s not just stories that you can use but other things, like games, music, and poetry. On page 100 it says, “But when children play the right games from the beginning and absorb lawfulness from music and poetry, it follows them in everything and fosters their growth, correcting anything in the city that may have gone wrong before—in other words, the very opposite of what happens where the games are lawless.” [32]

So say one part of your plan requires children to grow up violent then all you have to do is make their games, music and stories violent. If one part of your plan requires children to grow up very sexual then all you have to do is make their games, music and stories very sexual.

Then we must first of all, it seems, supervise the storytellers. We’ll select their stories whenever they are fine or beautiful and reject them when they aren’t. And we’ll persuade nurses and mothers to tell their children the ones we have selected, since they will shape their children’s souls with stories much more than they shape their bodies by handling them. Many of the stories they tell now, however, must be thrown out. [33]

Then, as we said at first, our children’s games must from the very beginning be more law-abiding, for if their games become lawless, and the children follow suit, isn’t it impossible for them to grow up into good and law-abiding men?

It certainly is.

But when children play the right games from the beginning and absorb lawfulness from music and poetry, it follows them in everything and fosters their growth, correcting anything in the city that may have gone wrong before—in other words, the very opposite of what happens where the games are lawless.

That’s true.

These people will also discover the seemingly insignificant conventions their predecessors have destroyed.

Which ones?

Things like this: When it is proper for the young to be silent in front of their elders, when they should make way for them or stand up in their presence, the care of parents, hair styles, the clothes and shoes to wear, deportment, and everything else of that sort. Don’t you agree?

I do. [34]

There’s discussion about how lying is acceptable in this city, but only for the rulers. On pages 64 and 65 this is said, “. . . and falsehood, though of no use to the gods, is useful to people as a form of drug, clearly we must allow only doctors to use it, not private citizens. . . . Then if it is appropriate for anyone to use falsehoods for the good of the city, because of the actions of either enemies or citizens, it is the rulers.” [35] Since the majority of people think pleasure is important, and they just want to be happy like little children, then that would be a good excuse to not tell the people the truth, cause the truth might upset them.

Furthermore, you certainly know that the majority believe that pleasure is the good, while the more sophisticated believe that it is knowledge.

Indeed I do. [36]

One thing that’s discussed in the Republic that’s pretty cool is this allegory of the Cave. An allegory is a “symbolic representation”, and an example the dictionary gives is “[t]he blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.” [37]

Imagine human beings living in an underground, cavelike dwelling, with an entrance a long way up, which is both open to the light and as wide as the cave itself. They’ve been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered, able to see only in front of them, because their bonds prevent them from turning their heads around. Light is provided by a fire burning far above and behind them. Also behind them, but on higher ground, there is a path stretching between them and the fire. Imagine that along this path a low wall has been built, like the screen in front of puppeteers above which they show their puppets.

I’m imagining it.

Then also imagine that there are people along the wall, carrying all kinds of artifacts that project above it—statues of people and other animals, made out of stone, wood, and every material. And, as you’d expect, some of the carriers are talking, and some are silent.

It’s a strange image you’re describing, and strange prisoners.

They’re like us. Do you suppose, first of all, that these prisoners see anything of themselves and one another besides the shadows that the fire casts on the wall in front of them?

How could they, if they have to keep their heads motionless throughout life?

What about the things being carried along the wall? Isn’t the same true of them?

Of course.

And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?

They’d have to.

And what if their prison also had an echo from the wall facing them? Don’t you think they’d believe that the shadows passing in front of them were talking whenever one of the carriers passing along the wall was doing so?

I certainly do.

Then the prisoners would in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts.

They must surely believe that.

Consider, then, what being released from their bonds and cured of their ignorance would naturally be like. When one of them was freed and suddenly compelled to stand up, turn his head, walk, and look up toward the light, he’d be pained and dazzled and unable to see the things whose shadows he’d seen before. What do you think he’d say, if we told him that what he’d seen before was inconsequential, but that now—because he is a bit closer to the things that are and is turned towards things that are more—he sees more correctly? Or, to put it another way, if we pointed to each of the things passing by, asked him what each of them is, and compelled him to answer, don’t you think he’d be at a loss and that he’d believe that the things he saw earlier were truer than the ones he was now being shown?

Much truer.

And if someone compelled him to look at the light itself, wouldn’t his eyes hurt, and wouldn’t he turn around and flee towards the things he’s able to see, believing that they’re really clearer than the ones he’s being shown?

He would.

And if someone dragged him away from there by force, up the rough, steep path, and didn’t let him go until he had dragged him into the sunlight, wouldn’t he be pained and irritated at being treated that way? And when he came into the light, with the sun filling his eyes, wouldn’t he be unable to see a single one of the things now said to be true?

He would be unable to see them, at least at first.

I suppose, then that he’d need time to get adjusted before he could see things in the world above. At first, he’d see shadows most easily, then images of men and other things in water, then the things themselves. Of these, he’d be able to study the things in the sky and the sky itself more easily at night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than during the day, looking at the sun and the light of the sun.

Of course.

Finally, I suppose, he’d be able to see the sun, not images of it in water or some alien place, but the sun itself, in its own place, and be able to study it.

Necessarily so.

And at this point he would infer and conclude that the sun provides the seasons and the years, governs everything in the visible world, and is in some way the cause of all the things that he used to see.

It’s clear that would be his next step.

What about when he reminds himself of his first dwelling place, his fellow prisoners, and what passed for wisdom there? Don’t you think that he’d count himself happy for the change and pity the others?

Certainly.

And if there had been any honors, praises, or prizes among them for the one who was sharpest at identifying the shadows as they passed by and who best remembered which usually came earlier, which later, and which simultaneously, and who could thus best divine the future, do you think that our man would desire these rewards or envy those among the prisoners who were honored and held power? Instead, wouldn’t he feel, with Homer, that he’d much prefer to “work the earth as a serf to another, one without possessions,”[*]2[*] and go through any sufferings, rather than share their opinions and live as they do?

I suppose he would rather suffer anything than live like that.

Consider this too. If this man went down into the cave again and sat down in his same seat, wouldn’t his eyes—coming suddenly out of the sun like that—be filled with darkness?

They certainly would.

And before his eyes had recovered—and the adjustment would not be quick—while his vision was still dim, if he had to compete again with the perpetual prisoners in recognizing the shadows, wouldn’t he invite ridicule? Wouldn’t it be said of him that he’d returned from his upward journey with his eyesight ruined and that it isn’t worthwhile even to try to travel upward? And, as for anyone who tried to free them and lead them upward, if they could somehow get their hands on him, wouldn’t they kill him?

They certainly would.

[*]2[*]. Odyssey 11.489-90. The shade of the dead Achilles speaks these words to Odysseus, who is visiting Hades. Plato is, therefore, likening the cave dwellers to the dead. [38]

So as Earth Emperor you could make the whole world like the allegorical Cave. You would raise the people of the world in the reality you give them. You could do that through things like media and education. Then the people of the world would complain to the false reality that they’re given instead of you. So you, the Earth Emperor, can relax behind the scenes without worrying about people getting upset at you.

Some other cool stuff that’s discussed . . .

There’s discussion about using things like war and disease to maintain a population.

We’ll leave the number of marriages for the rulers to decide, but their aim will be to keep the number of males as stable as they can, taking into account war, disease, and similar factors, so that the city will, as far as possible, become neither too big nor too small. [39]

There’s discussion about the money-makers, the lowest class, paying for the upkeep of those above them.

Moreover, we also agreed that, as soon as the rulers are established, they will lead the soldiers and settle them in the kind of dwellings we described, which are in no way private but common to all. And we also agreed, if you remember, what kind of possessions they will have.

I remember that we thought that none of them should acquire any of the things that the other rulers now do but that, as athletes of war and guardians, they should receive their yearly upkeep from the other citizens as a wage for their guardianship and look after themselves and the rest of the city. [40]

There’s reincarnation discussion near the end . . .

It isn’t, however, a tale of Alcinous that I’ll tell you but that of a brave Pamphylian man called Er, the son of Armenias, who once died in a war. [41]

For each in turn of the unjust things they had done and for each in turn of the people they had wronged, they paid the penalty ten times over, once in every century of their journey. Since a century is roughly the length of a human life, this means that they paid a tenfold penalty for each injustice. If, for example, some of them had caused many deaths by betraying cities or armies and reducing them to slavery or by participating in other wrongdoing, they had to suffer ten times the pain they had caused to each individual. But if they had done good deeds and had become just and pious, they were rewarded according to the same scale. [42]

Er said that the way in which the souls chose their lives was a sight worth seeing, since it was pitiful, funny, and surprising to watch. For the most part, their choice depended upon the character of their former life. For example, he said that he saw the soul that had once belonged to Orpheus choosing a swan’s life, because he hated the female sex because of his death at their hands, and so was unwilling to have a woman conceive and give birth to him. Er saw the soul of Thamyris choosing the life of a nightingale, a swan choosing to change over to a human life, and other musical animals doing the same thing. The twentieth soul chose the life of a lion. This was the soul of Ajax, son of Telamon. He avoided human life because he remembered the judgment about the armor. The next soul was that of Agamemnon, whose sufferings also had made him hate the human race, so he changed to the life of an eagle. Atalanta had been assigned a place near the middle, and when she saw great honors being given to a male athlete, she chose his life, unable to pass them by. After her, he saw the soul of Epeius, the son of Panopeus, taking on the nature of a craftswoman. And very close to last, he saw the soul of the ridiculous Thersites clothing itself as a monkey. Now, it chanced that the soul of Odysseus got to make its choice last of all, and since memory of its former sufferings had relieved its love of honor, it went around for a long time, looking for the life of a private individual who did his own work, and with difficulty it found one lying off somewhere neglected by the others. He chose it gladly and said that he’d have made the same choice even if he’d been first. Still other souls changed from animals into human beings, or from one kind of animal into another, with unjust people changing into wild animals, and just people into tame ones, and all sorts of mixtures occurred. [43]

But if we are persuaded by me, we’ll believe that the soul is immortal and able to endure every evil and every good, and we’ll always hold to the upward path, practicing justice with reason in every way. That way we’ll be friends both to ourselves and to the gods while we remain here on earth and afterwards—like victors in the games who go around collecting their prizes—we’ll receive our rewards. Hence, both in this life and on the thousand-year journey we’ve described, we’ll do well and be happy. [44]

On page 41 it says, “To remain undiscovered we’ll form secret societies and political clubs. And there are teachers of persuasion to make us clever in dealing with assemblies and law courts. Therefore, using persuasion in one place and force in another, we’ll outdo others without paying a penalty.” [45]

On page 232 there’s discussion about how tyranny evolves from democracy. And on page 238 it talks about how a tyrant is always stirring up wars to keep the people continually feeling the need of a leader, and cause they’re becoming poor through having to pay war taxes they’ll be more focused on their daily needs and be less likely to plot against the tyrant. If there are people having thoughts of freedom and not favoring his rule then he can just put those people at the mercy of the enemy in order to destroy them.

Come, then, how does tyranny come into being? It’s fairly clear that it evolves from democracy.

It is. [46]

But I suppose that, when he has dealt with his exiled enemies by making peace with some and destroying others, so that all is quiet on that front, the first thing he does is to stir up war, so that the people will continue to feel the need of a leader.

Probably so.

But also that they’ll become poor through having to pay war taxes, for that way they’ll have to concern themselves with their daily needs and be less likely to plot against him.

Clearly.

Besides, if he suspects some people of having thoughts of freedom and of not favoring his rule, can’t he find a pretext for putting them at the mercy of the enemy in order to destroy them? And for all these reasons, isn’t it necessary for a tyrant to be always stirring up war?

It is. [47]

There’s discussion about law. On page 192 it says, “The law produces such people in the city, not in order to allow them to turn in whatever direction they want, but to make use of them to bind the city together.” [48]

It’s important that people don’t go in whatever direction they want to go. The people need to follow your plan and go in the direction YOU want to go, otherwise you might as well just quit going after your dream of becoming the very first Earth Emperor.

I was wondering, when there’s something wrong in the world and people are to blame, do you blame the people that are living in a false reality that they’ve been given, or do you blame the people who are the designers and givers of that false reality?

Daniel Kemp

Footnotes:

1. Plato, Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. (Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., c1992), xii-xiii

2. Ibid., viii-ix

3. Ibid., vi

4. Ibid., xiii

5. Ibid., 109-110

6. Ibid., 222

7. Ibid., 104

8. Ibid., 104

9. Ibid., 116

10. Ibid., 116

11. Ibid., 109

12. Ibid., 46-47

13. Ibid., 110

14. Ibid., 109

15. Ibid., 109

16. Ibid., 110

17. Ibid., 109-110

18. Ibid., 51

19. Ibid., 134

20. Ibid., 51

21. Ibid., 131-132

22. Ibid., 134

23. Ibid., 213

24. Ibid., 125

25. Ibid., 178

26. Ibid., 153

27. Ibid., 178

28. Ibid., 104

29. Ibid., 106

30. Ibid., 52

31. Ibid., 53

32. Ibid., 100

33. Ibid., 53

34. Ibid., 100

35. Ibid., 64-65

36. Ibid., 178

37. “Allegory.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. 2006.

38. Plato, Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. (Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., c1992), 186-189

39. Ibid., 134

40. Ibid., 213-214

41. Ibid., 285

42. Ibid., 286

43. Ibid., 290-291

44. Ibid., 292

45. Ibid., 41

46. Ibid., 232

47. Ibid., 238

48. Ibid., 192


Put in Books
  • http://blog.zeemp.com Paulo Miranda

    Woww! I loved the model you built for the allegory of the Cave. It is a great easy way to make people understand the whole thing.

  • GrosBug

    This one is like a classic for the ruling class, kinda like “The Prince” from Machiavelli!