Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible?
— Amity

Various commentators suggest that he is a somewhat contemptible figure (e.g., Annas), and Fooloso4 is less than complimentary here (the source of my exchange with Srap). I don't disagree too much with them, but there's another side to it. — Jamal

I read the exchange and found it less than charitable. Indeed, a 'harsh 'reading.

Maybe it's just the phrasing, but that seems a little harsh. I had rather a good impression of the old man, and I thought Socrates did too. His age and circumstances allow him to be more interested in less worldly matters, like talking with Socrates, which won't make him or his family any richer. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps rather than speculate and talk about impressions, read carefully and ask questions?
I've always found @Fooloso4 willing to read and respond to any relevant criticisms.

Edit: Apologies to @Srap Tasmaner if that sounded too personal. My intention here is not to sow discord but to progress the discussion in a positive manner. Good to hear your perspective. :sparkle:

There are several themes that are developed at the beginning of the dialogue including the questions of persuasion and inheritance. We need to take a step back. — Fooloso4

I agree.

The question of persuasion and its means is of central importance. On the one hand, it is behind both the arguments of Thrasymachus and the other sophists as well as those of Socrates and the philosophers, and, on the other, of the poet’s stories of men and gods. The stories of the poets are an inherited means of persuasion manifest as belief. From an early age children are told the poet’s stories. — Fooloso4

Thank you for explaining things further. The importance of poetry as a means to persuade has not always been apparent.

Polemarchus inherits his father’s argument regarding justice. (331e) What will he make of it? Will he become more just or less just than his father? What shapes his idea of justice? Does he depend on the wisdom of the poets or those who make arguments?

This is reflected in what Socrates says next:

Well,” said I, “it certainly is not easy to disbelieve Simonides, for he is a wise and divine man. But although you probably appreciate what precisely he is saying, Polemarchus, I do not understand it.
(331e) — Fooloso4

Again, thanks for the questions you raise. It motivates me to read more. Particularly, the last one.
Which path will be taken. Poetry v Philosophy? Both are open to misinterpretation.

It is not simply a matter of inheriting wisdom, as if it can be passed down from generation to generation as wise sayings, but of how one is to understand what is said and how one makes use of it. In other words, it is not simply either the poets or the philosophers but of how one understands and makes use of the stories of the poets and the arguments offered by sophists and philosophers. — Fooloso4

Totally agree. It is how the various texts are understood. How they are used. How will they impart wisdom on the inexperienced reader? Each generation learns anew.

Cephalus believes his money is power. It is used in his old age to protect himself. His only interest in being just is self-serving. He is persuaded by the fear engendered by the poet’s stories of what will happen to him when he dies. — Fooloso4

Cephalus is indeed financially comfortable but perhaps not spiritually. The 'self-serving' aspect re 'being just' - is this about his concerns as to death and his legacy? How 'just' was he in his life? How will he judged by the Gods? Have you an example of the 'poet's stories' that might have engendered this fear in him?

Socrates agrees in part with Thrasymachus. He does not deny that there is an element of self-interest in being just. He attempts to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that being just is itself a benefit, both to oneself and to others. To this end, he acts the poet, weaving stories together with arguments. — Fooloso4

Again, thanks for taking the time to engage in a meaningful way. Explaining and asking questions.

OK. Understood.

A festival is the starting point of Book 1.
It is important to recognise this and the religious/political aspects. — Amity

Socrates
I1 went down yesterday to the Peiraeus2 with Glaucon, the son of Ariston, to pay my devotions3 to the Goddess,4 and also because I wished to see how they would conduct the festival since this was its inauguration.5 I thought the procession of the citizens very fine, but it was no better than the show, made by the marching of the Thracian contingent. [327b] — Perseus Tufts - Plato Republic Book 1

Cephalus' turn to discussion in old age seems frivolous -- he has done the important work in his life already, and since he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question, it looks like he's not so interested in discussion as he claims, or else he really just wants a chat.

But yes, Cephalus is not simply a bad or contemptible character. As is often the case in the Republic, Plato is dialectical in more than just the ancient Greek sense. — Jamal

Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible?
It is not the case that he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question. He engages with Socrates up to the point where he agrees but then he must leave to attend to religious matters.
He talks of old age in the wisest of terms and uses poets as support. Sophocles, 329c.

From the Perseus site (excellent with notes):
“You are right,” he replied. “Then this is not the definition of justice: to tell the truth and return what one has received.” “Nay, but it is, Socrates,” said Polemarchus breaking in, “if indeed we are to put any faith in Simonides.” “Very well,” said Cephalus, “indeed I make over the whole argument48 to you. For it is time for me to attend the sacrifices.” “Well,” said I, “is not Polemarchus the heir of everything that is yours?” “Certainly,” said he with a laugh, and at the same time went out to the sacred rites.49 [331e]


He is thinking ahead to his death and how to please the Gods.
He uses Pindar 331a to talk about the 'ledger of his life' - Cephalus is perhaps haunted by any wrong doings or injustice at his hands and wants to make amends.

Thanks for further recommendations.

Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence.
— Amity

It should be noted that what I'm interested in here is a side-issue. Many introductions and guides don't even mention it, so it's not important for reaching a basic understanding of the work.
EDIT: To be clear, the side-issue is what Socrates means in this passage from Book 1, not his views of poets and tyrants. — Jamal

Thanks for clarification. It seems I was misled by the title: Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book I

It seems that you are limiting the discussion to a particular passage and what Socrates means by it.

Fair enough. However, I've never been a fan of speculating about the meaning of a quote without understanding the wider context.

Plato's views about poetry are part and parcel of this. And how he uses Socrates in the Dialogues to express them.

In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets.
— Jamal
In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons. — L'éléphant

I think there is more to be said about poets and the different types. Interesting to read that some travelled in groups and attended the various city festivals. A festival is the starting point of Book 1.
It is important to recognise this and the religious/political aspects.

But not only the poet could be a traveller. The public also could make a journey by attending or reading a text. And even more, a poem could travel and spread the fame of both poet and patron. Names like Theognis and Pindar are examples of that. And there’s still another possibility of travel in the act of composing or enacting a poem. This also can be seen as a kind of journey and the Argonautica, by Apollonius Rhodius, must be cited in this context.

It was very common that poets and performers travelled to receive honors like the proxenia but also to get payment, like the epinician composers and the Artists of Dionysus. This kind of activity continued into Hellenistic times and even into the Roman period, as the example of Archias, the poet defended by Cicero, shows. So, there were a munber of motivations that led to poetic mobility. — Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture - Bryn Mawr

Context needs to be understood as to why Plato might wish to banish poets, even as he wrote in such a poetic and creative manner.

In his time poets were certainly not outcast rebels like the Beat Generation, nor pursuers of the sublime like the Romantics. They were highly revered central actors in ancient Greek city-states. Poems functioned as much more than mere aesthetic artifacts — they represented gods, goddesses, and partially narrated historical and everyday events. More importantly, they played a significant role in social life, reenacted through theatrical performances. Poets, also often called “bards”, traveled around and recited their poems. Plato himself expresses his respect to great poets, acknowledging their talents as a form of “god-sent madness” that not everyone is gifted with. — Plato's Philosophy of Poetry in the Republic

So, poetry had a social function. Poets are highly influential. However, there is a danger of misinterpretation and manipulation. Do they reflect a true state of affairs?

Plato in his Dialogues and as a poet has also been interpreted in different ways. And I think that was his main project. To show the importance of philosophy, to arouse both the intellect and passions. The danger lies in misinterpretation...

In Book 2, the trio begins sorting the poets into different baskets.
— Paine

Great, I'd forgotten about that. — Jamal

Do you intend to widen the focus beyond Book 1 ?

Plato, Republic, translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett (2004) — Jamal

I searched for the free online version for ease of reading and using quotes.
Reeve's approach seems sensible. From the Preface:

Every translation, even the most self-consciously and flat-footedly slavish, is somewhat interpretative. There is no avoiding that. But I have tried to make this one as uninterpretative and close to the original as possible. One conscious deviation from strict accuracy, however, will be obvious at a glance.

The Republic is largely in reported speech. Socrates is relating a conversation he had in the past. But I have cast his report as an explicit dialogue in direct speech, with identified speakers. In the Theaetetus, Plato has Eucleides adopt a similar stratagem. “This is the book,” he says to Terpsion; “You see, I have written it out like this: I have not made Socrates relate the conversation as he related it to me, but I represent him as speaking directly to the persons with whom he said he had this conversation.” Decades of teaching the Republic have persuaded me that the minimal loss in literalness involved in adopting Eucleides’ stratagem is more than made up for in readability and intelligibility. — The Republic (trans. C.D.C. Reeve)

Thank you for starting this discussion. An exceptional OP with clear thoughts, quotes and sources.

My first attempt at reading Plato's Republic was some time ago. I think on the OnlinePhilosophyClub site. Even with help from @Fooloso4 and an online course, I found it perplexing and gave up on it.

I'm interested in interpretations of a comment by Socrates in Book 1 of the Republic. — Jamal

Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence. Now motivated to pick it up again and pleased to say that I rediscovered the online Open Yale course.

Prof Steven Smith is excellent and has an easy rapport with his students who are active participants. The video lectures include transcript and audio. Also available on YouTube.

https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-4

Returning to this.

With Fooloso4, what sticks in my mind is my initial condemnation of Plato - blaming him for the negativity towards poets and creativity in 'The Republic'. And how this has trickled down through the ages. We can question how we separate 'Philosophy' and its categories from the creative life. Stories to the left of us... — Amity

My first attempt at reading Plato's Republic was some time ago. I think on the OnlinePhilosophyClub site. Even with help from @Fooloso4 and an online course, I found it perplexing and gave up on it.

I note that @Jamal has started a thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15484/poets-and-tyrants-in-the-republic-book-i/p1

I look forward to reading this and the comments. Not sure yet whether I understand enough to participate. However, I'm pleased to say that I found the Yale course again. Prof Steven Smith is excellent and has an easy rapport with his students who are active participants. The video lectures include transcript and audio. Also available on YouTube.

https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-4

Welcome to effin' "Gilead" — 180 Proof

I couldn't bring myself to read the novel or watch the film.
I do feel physically sick at such things, even in fiction.
But perhaps it's time. To get over myself. To get to know Atwood and the story.

The American Election - the most vile Republican rhetoric.
Too damned close for comfort. I'm not even there but it's everywhere.

Take care :flower:

Not theirs alone, either! Don't look east or southward! — Vera Mont

Yes, I know that politics globally is scary and sickening.
I read this: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/international-system-unfit-to-deal-with-global-crises-annual-report-2022/

And I don't want to say any more...

I'm sorry but I can't even raise a smile at the solar flare theory. It's good to keep a sense of humour and perspective, when you can but...

'How can it be?!'
How can it not be?

Thanks for clarification and providing more food for thought. Who best to rule the world?
Why Vera, of course :wink:

I love and respect many men, but it's time for them to stand down and stand back. — Vera Mont

Oh dear. An unfortunate reminder of Trump's Proud Boy order of 'stand back and stand by'. Apparently to allow law enforcement do their work. Yeah, right! He is a vicious piece of work who knows fine well how to stir the shit to his advantage. Proud Boys don't stand back. They are primed for more.

I am becoming increasingly concerned with American politics. It sickens me.

Time, for me, to give it a rest. My BP is soaring.

Looking for light listening...books, music...or to watch non-violent films.
But not too slushy...Christmas Romance :vomit:

I am still not sure about how tolerant anyone should be to anyone else. it is another matter of personal choice. What I may tolerate others may not. We have to live with this fact. — I like sushi

Tolerance can be intolerable. The tolerant can be destroyed by the intolerant.
Interesting when it comes to 'open dialogue'. So often closed down by the dogmatic who only listen to their own narcissistic, egotistical desires. Even as they espouse religious beliefs or faith.

The 'personal choice' of those in positions of high political power - who would bully and kill world citizens - who control by hate, war and destruction - should never be acceptable. It is criminal.

If the 'freedom' wedge of vitriolic hate speech and promotion of violence are tolerated, then it becomes normalised. To all our detriment. Extremists in religion/politics manipulate words and images to cover their malignancies and justify acts of terror.

Dear God, if Trump wins he will grant himself the Nobel Peace Prize. Because, of course, there will be no war...he can make deals. He can make wishes come true. Peace to all. He has God delusions. It seems half of America believe him.

We can't stop people believing what they want or what they are told.
Education can help but, yes, not always accessible. And so on...

Apologies, I've gone off- topic. But the issue of abortion seems to be key as to how people will vote in America. Should this be such a determining factor, when there are so many others.
You can be anti- abortion but still vote Democrat, no? Or is it all so very black and white...

I don't know. But I am deeply and increasingly concerned as to the level of ignorance, arrogance and aggression leading to regression and destruction of human rights.

I thought it would be an interesting discussion especially as it is such a hot topic in America right now and I was wondering if someone on here would take me up on the offer to explain why they think banning abortion is the right thing to do. — Samlw

It has been a 'hot topic in America' forever and a day. However, I agree with you that, right now, beliefs about abortion will be a major factor in the American election. Interesting indeed.

I can a degree of sympathy with those who believe that life is sacred form the point of conception, but personally I just do not see things this way. Open dialogue is a good thing if people can respect/understand the authority of evidence others are working with. — I like sushi

The trouble is when religious 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion' activists push their 'dialogue' outside abortion clinics. This adds danger to an already fraught situation. Protests and obstructing workers and patients.
Abuse and intimidation have required legislation to enable buffer or protection zones. These will extend to a 150-metre radius.

However, it may be the case that 'silent prayer' is allowed.

Bishop Sherrington, a spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said the buffer zone legislation discriminates against people of faith.

In a statement he said: "By legislating for and implementing so-called ‘safe access zones’, the UK government has taken an unnecessary and disproportionate step backwards in the protection of religious and civic freedoms.

"Religious freedom includes the right to manifest one’s private beliefs in public through witness, prayer and charitable outreach, including outside abortion facilities." — BBC News - Abortion Safe Zones

'Religious freedom'. Is this a fundamental human right? Where are the limits? When it encroaches on other freedoms or rights. Like those of women. A world-wide problem - wider than abortion.

I'm coming late to this discussion. So, apologies if I'm going over old ground. But @180 Proof' s post caught my eye.

Abortion - Why are people pro life?
— Samlw
As an American, my two bits: "pro life" folks, especially those who are also pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-voter suppression & anti-immigration / ethno-nationalist, seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies and use 'Bronze Age superstitions' (rather than modern science / medicine) to 'justify' their movement. — 180 Proof

Absolutely spot on! And I'm not American.
I had similar thoughts when I read the shocking Guardian article re Capital punishment, yesterday.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935435
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/29/america-executions-death-penalty

Six days of horror: America’s thirst for executions returns with a vengeance
Five executions, five states: a glut of judicial killing not seen in 20 years took place last week – and there was nothing random about it.

The terms: 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', describe opposing sides of the abortion debate, are not helpful.
It's using loaded, extreme language for a specific and contentious issue. In general, people are FOR life and FOR choice. The trouble is that opponents are then deemed 'Anti life' and 'Anti choice'.
How ridiculous. Call it like it is. 'Pro-life' is 'Anti-Abortion'. Why muddy the waters? To persuade voters of the evils of Democrats?

If you are PRO life, then logically this should extend to opposition to guns, war and the death penalty.
It clearly doesn't and shows the toxic hypocrisy of the Republicans in America.

This is not about saving innocent life.

It is about power and control of women and their bodies.

The best fiction combines philosophy and social commentary, edification and intellectual stimulation in an entertaining form. (At least, that's what some of us aspire to.) — Vera Mont

Thank you. Take care :flower:

I've had some TPF interactions re Murdoch and Plato with e.g. 180 Proof and @Fooloso4.
I've still to tackle a Murdoch recommendation by 180 - 'Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals'. It's real heavy! Any advice as to a 'way in' gratefully received. The highlights?

With Fooloso4, what sticks in my mind is my initial condemnation of Plato - blaming him for the negativity towards poets and creativity in 'The Republic'. And how this has trickled down through the ages. We can question how we separate 'Philosophy' and its categories from the creative life. Stories to the left of us... — Amity

@180 Proof and @Fooloso4 - Never mind. It all seems quite pitiful, now.

Thanks to all who have participated. Stay well :sparkle:

While I fancied that that understood where some philosophers were coming from, and what they were having a go at, I never figured out whether Philosophy as a whole intended or aspired. As a 'discipline', I think it's purely academic, because it takes a pedagogue's orderly mind to make a system of it; in the wild, it's quite undisciplined. Does it serve a social function? Some branches do; some practitioners do so deliberately and self-consciously, while some, I'm a little afraid to say aloud in this environment, seem to me no more than cloud-gazing and verbal calisthenics — Vera Mont

Well. Where to start. I don't think it unusual for people to wonder as to the benefits of Philosophy as an academic discipline. Been discussed many times. The aspirations and aims of any course are usually well-defined. It can be seen an objective, civilised system in comparison to the 'wildness' of internet forums. They are both systems within which can be found imagination and thought-provoking claims.
As always, in Education, so much can depend on individual profs, tutors and the participating students. They have various demands placed on them but nevertheless keep the spirit of questioning and exploration alive.

As to Philosophy serving a 'social function'...what is that exactly? Whose philosophy?

I've had enough of talk. I should stop there. I am sick to my stomach at the inability to stop or even lessen the effects of male criminals and bullies of the world. Crimes against humanity going unpunished.
Wars started by male egos in a never-ending, crazy downward spiral. Who wins?

The Republican supporters of MAGA can go to the Hell they believe in. Within a system that is rotten to the core.

Only one example. The so-called Justice system - Capital punishment.
Don't read this, if you want to stay calm.
From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/29/america-executions-death-penalty

Six days of horror: America’s thirst for executions returns with a vengeance
Five executions, five states: a glut of judicial killing not seen in 20 years took place last week – and there was nothing random about it.

“I don’t think anything represents our long history of racial injustice more dramatically than the tolerance of racial bias in the administration of the death penalty,” Stevenson said. “For a Black defendant to be tried by a nearly all-white jury in a county with a substantial Black population, and have the courts look the other way, that’s the shadow, the pollution, that the history of lynching and segregation and punitive enslavement has created.” [...]

On Thursday, Miller, 59, was put to death by Alabama for the 1999 shootings of three of his co-workers. The state used nitrogen gas effectively to suffocate him – an experimental killing technique that has only been deployed once before in US history, with the execution in January of Kenneth Smith, also by Alabama.

An eyewitness for the Associated Press described Miller’s death by nitrogen in hauntingly similar terms to Smith’s: “He shook and trembled on the gurney for about two minutes with his body at times pulling against the restraints. That was followed by about six minutes of periodic gulping.”...

The article continues with more disturbing details of the previous attempt to kill Miller in September 2022. Alabama.

Politics. Big Boy Bullies and their MAGA philosophy or ideology. America gets worse with Trump.

The federal courts, which Trump transformed by appointing more than 200 judges during his presidency, have also changed their tune. Where they once acted as a failsafe against unreliable convictions, they now largely step aside.

That is especially true of the US supreme court, with its new ultra-right supermajority secured by Trump’s three appointed justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“There’s been a radical shift in the legal culture as it relates to the death penalty in the past six years,” said Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative...

Who is Stevenson? Did he read Plato? Look up wiki. His memoir 'Just Mercy'.

Never mind, eh. If I had the time I'd go looking for a song set in the South of France sung by a Welshman with a hiccup...

:lol:
Were you singing at the time?

Reminiscing over at the 'What are your listening to thread'.
Remembering @Olivier5 and all the wonderful music he shared. Merci :cool:
Including this:

“Ne me quitte pas“ is Belgian singer Jacques Brel’s single most famous song. Brel first released the song in 1959 and released an album with the same title in 1972. The meaning of “Ne me quitte pas” is “Don’t leave me” or “Do not leave me”. This post provides line-by-line explanations of the lyrics’ vocabulary and grammar... — French Learner - Songs

The French do a mean chanson. — unenlightened

Bien sûr, mais...
NB Belgian not French. Just like Hercules Poirot.

The French do a mean chanson.

Here, if you don't know it is one of the best: — unenlightened

Merci beaucoup. I hadn't heard that version before. C’est magnifique :cool:
I recognised it and wondered who had shared it.
@180 Proof posted 'Ne me quitte pas' about 3 or 4 yrs ago - as sung by Nina Simone.

I thought of @Olivier5 who I still miss. We had so much fun dancing our way through his 'Deep Songs' thread. Opening eyes to a variety of music and foreign language. Universal appreciation.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8898/deep-songs/p1
and elsewhere in the Short Stories Competition.

He also had much to say in philosophy proper, participating in numerous threads. Shame the way the political discussion re the Ukraine Crisis turned to a fast and furious engagement with a certain poster. The passion and anger didn't let up...

When I think of it, not all that often, I still burn at the injustice of @Jamal for banning him.
Mais c'est la vie, according to TPF. Tant pis :meh:

We move on...
Wherever Olivier is, I hope he is singing, dancing and laughing to the music of life :sparkle:

Poetry and Music

It's easy to see the connection between poetry and song lyrics. But can that be translated to sound, notes and chords? I suggested earlier that poetry is in the world of nature. Where else do we find the magical melodies; the murmuration and susurration...?

Inspired by @unenlightened's posting of the instrumental version of La Mer:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935055

La Mer. The poetry of its lyrics, in French and English. Embedded video of Trenet singing his song. And how it inspired other creative works:

Bergère d’azur infinie
Artist and commenter on this song Sophie Howard (@sophiemmh) was inspired by Trenet’s la Mer to create the sculpture pictured here, which she has called “The Infinite Shepherdess.” About it she says: “The body of the shepherdess is made from old buildings. The horse’s hooves touch the waves which rock boats on the shore. A bird’s head forms the eye of the horse. The clouds are like curls from the back of a sheep. Everything is wind-whipped.” It will be exhibited in London at the Mall Galleries in June 2024. — La Mer by Charles Trenet - French song translations

Ear-twisting chord sequences. Yum. — unenlightened

I love this. What a superb find! La Mer. One of my favourites. This is so unusual. The story of Django...wow.

From 4 years ago:

Deep Songs
La Mer by Julio Iglesias at end of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' film based on book by John le Carre.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SSIp2J3YHM

Brief note re the contrast of the tune with 'the tortured love-hate, self-or-country dynamics at work in the scene.' Here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/05/track-of-the-day-la-mer/482637/ — Amity

I've linked this to my current Lounge chat, concerning poetry and music:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935057

Poetry in Music?

Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place,
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

Stealers Wheel ~ Stuck In The Middle With You [LYRICS]

Well, we took her shopping and brought her KFC buckets, too: whatever made her life a little brighter. — Vera Mont

That is Love. :heart:
Making 'life a little brighter' is one of the best things anyone can do for themselves or others.
And I agree it is important to know when to hold one's tongue. First, do no harm.

Not sure whether this will brighten, enlighten or even be read but here goes nothing:

Turning my attention to: Iris Murdoch and Plato and 'Good for Nothing'.

First of all, my laptop has recovered. All hail Technology and wonderful experts who repair and restore.
It means that I'm now scouring its contents with the aim of saving the worthy to a memory stick. Or at least, knowing where to find 'stuff'.

Looking through old emails, I found a link to an article. It's a fascinating review of Iris Murdoch's 'Work for the Spirit' by Elizabeth Dipple.[ emphasis added]

With 3339 words, it starts:

Philosophy, religion, science,’ wrote D.H. Lawrence, ‘they are all of them busy nailing things down ... But the novel, no ... If you try to nail anything down, in the novel, it either kills the novel, or the novel gets up and walks away with the nail!’

Hence Lawrence’s conclusion that only the novel can now do for us what philosophy once aspired to do:
Plato’s Dialogues were queer little novels. It seems to me that it was the greatest pity in the world when philosophy and fiction got split. They used to be one, right from the days of myth. Then they parted, like a nagging married couple, with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and that beastly Kant. So the novel went sloppy and philosophy went abstract-dry. The two should come together again – in the novel.

Why in the novel? ‘You may know a truth but if it’s at all complicated you have to be an artist not to utter it as a lie,’ says one of Iris Murdoch’s characters in An Accidental Man who is explaining why he has abandoned philosophy. It is always dangerous to impute a character’s views to an author: but in Iris Murdoch’s case there is a special hazard. — LRB - Alasdair MacIntyre - Good for nothing

I've had some TPF interactions re Murdoch and Plato with e.g. @180 Proof and @Fooloso4.
I've still to tackle a Murdoch recommendation by 180 - 'Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals'. It's real heavy! Any advice as to a 'way in' gratefully received. The highlights?

With Fooloso4, what sticks in my mind is my initial condemnation of Plato - blaming him for the negativity towards poets and creativity in 'The Republic'. And how this has trickled down through the ages. We can question how we separate 'Philosophy' and its categories from the creative life. Stories to the left of us...

[...] Yet Plato himself would have expelled the dramatic poets from the republic and understood the mimesis of art as a tempting source of illusion. A Neoplatonic novelist seems to be an embodied contradiction.

Iris Murdoch has confronted this problem in The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists, where she draws our attention to Plato’s ambivalence about the arts. ‘He kept emphasising the imageless remoteness of the Good, yet kept returning in his exposition to the more elaborate uses of art.’ And she might well have drawn our attention to the fact that in the Republic, where Plato’s attack on all sensible representation is most vehement, the exposition of the diagram of the line, in terms of which the theory of forms is explained, includes the remark that any type of apprehension which has to be mediated by a diagram cannot be true knowledge of the forms. But if we and Glaucon and Adeimantus have had to learn about the forms by means of the diagram of the line, then sensible representation has had to play its part in the mind’s ascent towards the Form of the Good, and perhaps a part that cannot ever quite be left behind. And where then does the condemnation of the artist stand, deriving as it does in Book X precisely from the fact that mimesis is a form of sensible representation? It is very much to the point that Plato’s attack on the dramatic poets is voiced in a work which is itself an outstanding piece of dramatic art. — LRB - Alasdair MacIntyre review

I'm not sure if MacIntyre gives us a correct interpretation. Any thoughts?

[...] Iris Murdoch seems to be at one with Plato, although she extends his suspicion of art into a suspicion of philosophy. It too can screen us from the Form of the Good, it too can be a form of self-indulgence. And just as Plato attacked dramatic art in a play, so Iris Murdoch has voiced her indictments of philosophy in philosophical essays as well as in novels. [...]

[Her] storytelling voice is what gives the novels their pace and their comic energy, and with these, the enjoyment that comes from the reader’s, and the characters’, being carried along so swiftly. But where are the characters being carried to? At what does the directedness of those who aim at the good point? Where does the distractedness of those who fail to aim at the good prevent them from moving to? Aristotle long ago criticised the Platonic conception of the Form of the Good for being practically empty, for affording us no guidance. Lacking any specific content, it is in fact a nothing, the ghost of a something.

It is characteristic of Iris Murdoch’s later novels that all goodness being referred to the Form of the Good seems to entail that there is no such thing as a good way of life or a good form of human community. Good is an object only of individual aspiration. Social circumstances are not themselves, except accidentally, part of the matter of morality, which is a purely individual enterprise and one that, just because what is good is good ‘for nothing’, leads nowhere. This is why her novels have no genuine endings.

I don't intend this to become an in-depth discussion concerning Murdoch, Plato and the Good but would appreciate thoughts/opinions as to the above.

We can read a novel and its characters and sometimes assume the author's views are one and the same. Sometimes, it is obviously autobiographical as in e.g. Philip Roth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Roth

How true is it that: 'the novel can now do for us what philosophy once aspired to'. :chin:

Yes, i think we're probably reading too much into it, bringing too much of our own experience to it. But, what the hay, isn't that what poetry is for? — Vera Mont

Yes. That's part of the fun of poetry. The writer and readers care and share. In all kinds of ways. Amazing to see where a single 2-part poem can lead... Really enjoyed your interpretation. It reminds me of our times in TPFs Literary Challenge. The Short Story Stimulating the brain cells...

I loved that. — wonderer1

Yes! There are some real gems hidden away...still more to come. Hopefully...

I understand it really is a deep seated fear for her, and knowing that in particular, I'm not much inclined to challenge her views. — wonderer1

It takes a certain kind of courage to share personal stories. And to show ways of coping and dealing with 'differences of opinion' in family and other situations.
Both you and @Vera Mont have been inspirational. Thank you :sparkle: :flower:

I couldn't find anything that makes clear the sex of the child. — wonderer1

Strangely enough, the confusion reminded me of @Tobias captivating story. The hairpin.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13745/the-hairpin-by-tobias/p1

And it made me wonder as to the Mum. She might have been like her daughter but unlike her she was totally brainwashed and not in a position to leave her husband...or father?
They may well have been the 'He' in Part 1...
Overthinking? :chin:

Another lovely poem. It reminded me of Greyfriars Bobby.
https://edinburgh.org/blog/the-tale-of-greyfriars-bobby/

I read the second part as being between a mother and son, simply because it was easy for me to relate to it that way even though, on rereading' I couldn't find anything that makes clear the sex of the child. — wonderer1

I think that the reader always brings their self to an interpretation. How else could it be? And I thought too that the poem could be autobiographical. The writer being female. But I don't know...probably not.

It's an all too easy assumption to make! Maybe just biographical. Imagination creating parts of a whole.

Oh, not directly. My father was a bully, nothing we could do about that. — Vera Mont

Still, very unfortunate. Your mother did well in the circumstances.

She made fun of it, so my brother and I learned to make fun of it. — Vera Mont

That seems to be the way to manage bullies. See current American politics. Not taking Trump seriously and making fun of him. The downside is that it can infuriate and make matters worse. The situation is serious.

But I did subsequently witness how it happens to others — Vera Mont

A few stories to be told there. Most are never shared. The voices unheard.

The even more insidious form is smothering 'love' - sustained and unrelenting emotional blackmail. — Vera Mont

'Love' in its most hateful, abusive form.

Yes, it is excellent as two halves of a whole. — Vera Mont

Yes. The more I look, the more I see...

The first part a grandiose narcissist father and his daughter. The second part a covert/vulnerable narcissist mother and her son. — wonderer1

Hmm. Interesting point of view.
For me, Part 1 concerned a domineering husband confronted by his wife finding a new way, after a loss of faith. A better way to live.
The second, a loving mother showing religious concern for her daughter's soul. And losing control of the situation.

Both have conflict and tension. The wife/daughter being torn every which way.

That's just wrong! If you're going to print a poem, print the whole thing - else, desist. — Vera Mont

Exactly.

"And often asks her not to yell"
That's the gist of it for me, the power trip. If he 'raises his voice from time to time', it's because she's being obtuse and exasperating; if she does, she's strident or hysterical. I know this story well enough. — Vera Mont

Yes. It's all about power and control. You are not alone in knowing this story.

I do know the other one, too: the drip, drip, drip of guilt, of shaming, of turning your best impulses on you as weapons. — Vera Mont

Sorry to hear that. I know guilt as being inbuilt. Stemming from religion.
Also, a necessary part of a moral, legal system. But it's not healthy when it adversely affects our mental health.
Or worse, being found guilty, sent to prison as an innocent. Awaiting death for decades and then being killed unjustly. Dear God!

Yes, I can see how this poem could bring tears to the eyes of a pet lover.
They are precious companions who bring joy, love and comfort in so many ways.

When my elderly Aunt tried to describe how depressed she felt after the loss of her dog ( there were other major factors ) - the young, male doctor couldn't understand or empathize. "But it's only a dog!"
How the heart can be broken...but the pain is part of the pleasure.
We know it will come. And dogs are replaced. Each having their own character, personality and love.

Coping with the loss of a mother and then a wife:
Anthony Hopkins as Jack, - C.S. Lewis, from Shadowlands:

Why love, if losing hurts so much? I have no answers anymore: only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I've been given the choice: as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, the man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That's the deal. — Shadowlands 1993

Thanks. You make good points as to why Part 2 is disregarded by some who find it too long and less sharp.

However, I find it troubling that it is not even included in the Poetry Foundation website. Only the part concerning the Man.

This not only shows disrespect to the female writer but denies people potential access to the internal subjective experience of being inside someone's head. Almost like a stream of consciousness. The repetitions necessary for effect. The troubling voices going round and round.

Part 1 seems more objective. Showing a distant, rational aspect. This is how it is between them. Females can relate to that. The apparent superiority of males.
The paradoxical call on logic to support his (emotional) faith.
The religious aspect is contemporary, political and hits home.

She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.

Can't you just see/hear it ? The male narcissistic bully pushing it to the limits and then dismissing her opinion/arguments as emotional!
The cold rationality of 'fact' v the heat of passion, supported by knowledge.
The right and the wrong. Sometimes, it's about more than opinion.

Differences of Opinion

I find it interesting that more attention is given to the first part. Indeed, some only receive this as a short poem. The second part disregarded. Why?
1. He tells her
2. Your mother knows

The change in perspective and effect on/of the writer can be seen in the time, length and weight given to each. The different form, style and tone.

The conclusion in 1. The planet goes on being round.

For me, seems to be a resignation. You can't argue with someone who has a dogmatic, delusional belief. Tired of trying, you 'let it be'.
'She cannot win' - he stands on his fact, flat ground. Enough said. Cut short.
So is she then silenced? What happens next? This non-negotiation or lack of regard is bound to have consequences. Her world turns...

2. Longer and more challenging reflecting a greater degree of angst, I think.
This is not a gender difference of opinion but generational. And with the closest of blood relatives. The mother/daughter bond usually strong is being severely tested.

The religious mother prays, 'hoping' for the daughter to change. But it seems the daughter has lost her faith and can't return to being Mummy's good little girl.
Both are experiencing loss and grief.

The personal and social challenges of changing belief. This is an instance where the fight is for your life. You can't 'let it be' and yet you must, if you still love and want to be close to your Mum. The conflict and tension evident. The words go round your head:

You’re difficult.  You don’t fit in.
You know your anger is a sin.

It is this fight that continues in philosophy and politics.
We see this daily. The consequences of powerful, religious males who dominate the world. War. The cowards who would hide behind or use a God. Who now no longer care about anyone but themselves. Hospitals, homes, women and children killed, wounded or displaced. The environment destroyed.
You will be exterminated. Some people pray...

A couple of days ago my mom told me she would be praying for me. If she knew about this guy wonderer on the internet, she would probably consider him the antichrist. :wink: — wonderer1

Yes. It is relatable. We often show different sides of our self to keep peace and love. There can be a need to 'let it be'. Not to challenge if it will cause deep pain and a family breakdown. It won't change anyone's deeply held faith.

It is a different kettle of fish when the person without faith is spurned and cast out. That must be traumatic...

The wars of world-wide, hate-filled preachers of 'Us v Them' is tragic.
There will always be 'Differences of Opinion'.
It is how we negotiate them that matters. How does philosophy help?

My speculation is that whether we consciously recognize such poetic elements, our subconscious is excited by patterns in detecting such elements, and that can literally result in an altered state of mind in which we can see things from a different perspective. — wonderer1

Yes. Perhaps so. We can view the natural world as a poetic element. An aesthetic experience stimulating the senses, consciously and subconsciously.
Taking a walk on the wild side...the world as poetry. Poetry in the world and beyond. :chin:

By poetic elements, I had in mind things like rhyme, rhythm, alliteration, assonance, etc — wonderer1

Yes. There is also the use of symbolism. Symbols can help or hinder readers understanding. If there is a sensory impression or shared association, it can take the mind to deeper places. Perhaps to enrich or trouble. Or question...world views or values. If open and curious, the reader's imagination can be stimulated.

However, delving through the layers is not always desired. And a simple reading will suffice. But then what is missing? Appreciation of the artistic; intriguing words can unearth deeper meanings and a hidden world beauty.

From: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/symbol

Poets such as William Blake and W.B. Yeats often use symbols when they believe in—or seek—a transcendental (religious or spiritual) reality.

Of course, Jung is known for his symbolism; Goethe and other poets have been inspired by him. And we could say there is a kind of alchemy afoot. Floating into a different awareness. Or perhaps I'm being too fanciful.

There are many grounded, funny poems which resonate without any such thing going on. It's a simple case of using ordinary language to engage with contemporary concerns. No great need for interpretation.

I only just realised that that this poem was a 2-parter:

Differences of Opinion by Wendy Cope

Two-part poem first published Poetry Magazine in 2006.

1.

HE TELLS HER

He tells her that the earth is flat —
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.

2.

YOUR MOTHER KNOWS

Your mother knows the earth’s a plane
And, challenged, sheds a martyr’s tear.
God give her strength to bear this pain –
A child who says the world’s a sphere!

Challenged, she sheds a martyr’s tear.
It’s bad to make your mother cry
By telling her the world’s a sphere.
It’s very bad to tell a lie.

It’s bad to make your mother cry.
It’s bad to think your mother odd.
It’s very bad to tell a lie.
All this has been ordained by God.

It’s bad to think your mother odd.
The world is round.  That’s also true.
All this has been ordained by God.
It’s hard to see what you can do.

The world is round.  That must be true.
She’s praying, hoping you will change.
It’s hard to see what you can do.
Already people find you strange.

She’s praying, hoping you will change.
You’re difficult.  You don’t fit in.
Already people find you strange.
You know your anger is a sin.

You’re difficult.  You don’t fit in.
God give her strength to bear this pain.
You know your anger is a sin.
Your mother knows the earth’s a plane.

Re: nostalgia. Actually, I have to admit, it did give me a pang when I saw your interaction with @Agent Smith. Now gone...
And when I read some of the beginning pages, yeah, there were some good moments of sharing.
Unfortunately, I left with an overall distaste for the Tao Te Ching...

I am ready to go there, and share thoughts and ideas with you. It will be a pleasure.  :up: — javi2541997

Sorry to have been so dismissive. It's a pleasure to share thoughts with you :up:

I am ready to go there, and share thoughts and ideas with you. It will be a pleasure.  :up: — javi2541997

Hah, yeah! Not gonna happen. Not in that particular thread, anyway. I'm as nostalgic for that as my cookery class exam in high school. :fear: :monkey:

Time flies indeed. Soon be deid! :death: :flower: