the republic
Entry 2
So socrates. a bit of reflection on that man and his wild "experiment," "the republic." the prof. asked us whether we thought socrates, and plato through socrates, was serious in this experiment. he meant, do we really believe that The Republic is meant to be a whole argument for this kind of justice, and i have to say with a resounding "Yes." the man sets up a hypothetical situation but by the end of Book 4 he declaring that he has found what it means to be just in a city, and that now the question remained how to accomplish this justice.
the glaring problem i have with him is that he believes that justice is a fixed state, a state that remains just, temperate, wise, and courageous despite any temptation. his logic is that anything good is fixed. a "fine" thing is a thing that retains its qualities despite forces outside itself. his entire argument of the "just" city and the "just" person revolves around this idea of the immovable, the unchageable, the eternal "justice." as me buddy Johnny says, he's concerned with the "essences" of things. But excuse me mr. socrates, doesn't it make sense that some things are best when they respond to their environment. the best teacher is one who can adjust practices to suit students' needs. the best pilot is one who can compensate for environmental changes in order to remain on that fixed course so valued. the best animal is one which can adapt to its surroundings. the best nation learns to receive the desires of its people and mix them in such a way that causes most of their ideals and desires to be fulfilled. just a thought, but a major problem for the "justice" presented in the Republic.
it is from this "fixed" nature socrates/ plato is obsessed with that most other problems arise in this "experiment." each person is then supposed to b suited for exactly one type of work. according to the logic, those who wish to blend two jobs could never be as could as one who does only one thing. but is that really true. was foucault, who blended disciplines, never as good as his colleagues? is the martial artist who does yoga any less a martial artist than the martial artist who does nothing but?
puting aside my many other concerns about this experiment, let me ask the big question. why should i care? because eventually socrates articulates just what his experiment is all about. it eliminates dangerous, "intemperate" poetry, literature, philosophy, etc. because it is not conducisive to "justice." his "experiment" exiles those who question, those who refuse to remain in their ordained tasks. he eliminates social units which might undermine his "experiment" such as families, love, theatre, etc. he reserves philosophy, literature, rhetoric, and poetry for a select few in his imagined society, recalling to mind the regimes of the Third Reich or the kind articulated in The Giver. For a "justice" that is fixed allows no newness to come into being, allows no reconsideration, no questioning, and does not reflect on the possibility of its own injustice.
i am also reminded of the kind of superficial happiness that the Bush regime fights for, which does indeed fight for a certain level of happiness under a certain definition. i simply view this definition as the death of justice.
So socrates. a bit of reflection on that man and his wild "experiment," "the republic." the prof. asked us whether we thought socrates, and plato through socrates, was serious in this experiment. he meant, do we really believe that The Republic is meant to be a whole argument for this kind of justice, and i have to say with a resounding "Yes." the man sets up a hypothetical situation but by the end of Book 4 he declaring that he has found what it means to be just in a city, and that now the question remained how to accomplish this justice.
the glaring problem i have with him is that he believes that justice is a fixed state, a state that remains just, temperate, wise, and courageous despite any temptation. his logic is that anything good is fixed. a "fine" thing is a thing that retains its qualities despite forces outside itself. his entire argument of the "just" city and the "just" person revolves around this idea of the immovable, the unchageable, the eternal "justice." as me buddy Johnny says, he's concerned with the "essences" of things. But excuse me mr. socrates, doesn't it make sense that some things are best when they respond to their environment. the best teacher is one who can adjust practices to suit students' needs. the best pilot is one who can compensate for environmental changes in order to remain on that fixed course so valued. the best animal is one which can adapt to its surroundings. the best nation learns to receive the desires of its people and mix them in such a way that causes most of their ideals and desires to be fulfilled. just a thought, but a major problem for the "justice" presented in the Republic.
it is from this "fixed" nature socrates/ plato is obsessed with that most other problems arise in this "experiment." each person is then supposed to b suited for exactly one type of work. according to the logic, those who wish to blend two jobs could never be as could as one who does only one thing. but is that really true. was foucault, who blended disciplines, never as good as his colleagues? is the martial artist who does yoga any less a martial artist than the martial artist who does nothing but?
puting aside my many other concerns about this experiment, let me ask the big question. why should i care? because eventually socrates articulates just what his experiment is all about. it eliminates dangerous, "intemperate" poetry, literature, philosophy, etc. because it is not conducisive to "justice." his "experiment" exiles those who question, those who refuse to remain in their ordained tasks. he eliminates social units which might undermine his "experiment" such as families, love, theatre, etc. he reserves philosophy, literature, rhetoric, and poetry for a select few in his imagined society, recalling to mind the regimes of the Third Reich or the kind articulated in The Giver. For a "justice" that is fixed allows no newness to come into being, allows no reconsideration, no questioning, and does not reflect on the possibility of its own injustice.
i am also reminded of the kind of superficial happiness that the Bush regime fights for, which does indeed fight for a certain level of happiness under a certain definition. i simply view this definition as the death of justice.