In the Republic women are regarded as equal to men when it comes to the capacity to be philosophers. But, of course, this should not obscure the differences attributed to men and women. — Fooloso4

At what cost are they regarded as equal? What are the criteria? Temporary sexual relations to perpetuate the guardian class. Children to be cared for, communally. Equality is based on abstract political principles.

Republic V contains two revolutionary proposals for the social organisation of the ideal state, the first that the function of guardianship is to be performed by men and women alike (451c-457b), the second that for the guardians the private household and therefore the institution of marriage is to be abolished (457b-466d), since the guardians do not own property and the care of children is to be a communal responsibility.

These proposals are the consequences of two fundamental moral and political principles: a) persons of each of the primary psychological types are to confine themselves to the primary social roles for which they are best fitted by temperament and education; b) institutions which constitute a threat to social cohesion, and hence to the existence of the state, are to be eliminated.

In consequence of these principles the guardians, male and female alike, are deprived of any private life, since the concerns of such a life would tend to distract them from that total dedication to the affairs of the community which their social role requires.

Since the function of a wife in Athenian society was confined to the private sphere, female guardians are not in the conventional sense wives of their male counterparts Rather they are comrades whose shared social role includes temporary sexual liaisons, the function of which is the perpetuation of the guardian class, itself required for the continued existence of the ideal state.

Plato’s attitude to the emancipation of women has to be understood in the context of the complex moral and political theory in which it is embedded.

His proposals on equality of political status and of educational opportunity are congenial to classical liberal opinion, while the abolition of the family aligns him with more radical feminist thought. But his reasons are hostile to much that is central to feminism.

He does not argue for equality of status on grounds of fairness or of self-fulfilment for women, but rather on the grounds of the abstract political principles stated above. Nevertheless those abstract principles lead indirectly to the self-fulfilment of the female guardians, since the aim of the ideal state which is founded on those principles is to create and preserve the conditions for the maximal eudaimonia, i.e. self-development, of all.

The modern feminists’ quarrel with Plato is not that their ideals are totally alien to him, but that he is wrong to think that those ideals are attainable within his preferred form of political organisation, and even more radically wrong to think that they require that organisation. In that objection they find many allies outside their own ranks. — The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor

At what cost are they regarded as equal? What are the criteria? Temporary sexual relations to perpetuate the guardian class. Children to be cared for, communally. Equality is based on abstract political principles. — Amity

The guardian class is the middle class. Philosophers are the ruling class. Do you think that the ruling class is supposed to be male only?

Republic V contains two revolutionary proposals for the social organisation of the ideal state — The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor

I question this assumption. The purpose, as stated at the beginning of Book 2, is not to make an ideal state, but to persuade those listening that it is better in every way to be just rather than unjust. (357a-b)

Adeimantus says:

And no one, so far, either in poetry or in ordinary language, has described in a sufficiently detailed argument what each does, itself, by its own power, when present in the soul of its possessors, unnoticed by gods and humans, an argument according to which injustice is the worst of all the evils that any soul can have within itself, while justice is the greatest good.For if you had all described it in these terms from the beginning, and convinced us of this from our earliest years, we would not have been acting as one another’s guardians for fear we might behave unjustly, but each of us would himself be his own guardian, for fear that by acting unjustly he would have to live with the worst evil of all.’

(366e-367a)

In other words, the ideal city would be one in which each acted as his own guardian to assure that he is just while shunning injustice as the greatest evil. In such a city there would be no guardian class.

The city Socrates creates in speech suffers the same problem as the bed made by a maker of images. You can't sleep in this bed or live in this image of a city. In addition, far from being ideal such a city is in its first iteration first, in Glaucon's words, a city of pigs. (372d) Glaucon wants a more conventional city, one with couches, tables, relishes, and desserts. (372e) Socrates goes along in the making of this "luxurious city", but although it accommodates some of our human desires, it it far from ideal. Even with the compromises away from what Socrates calls the "true city", a "healthy one" (372e), it is not one that any of us would want to live it.

Rather than a proposal for an ideal state, it is anti-idealist. Whatever we might imagine the ideal to be, its implementation involves great injustice. Socrates starts as we must with what is there to work with. Human beings with all their flaws and weaknesses.

I agree.
Taylor treats the 'ideal' city as a kind of governance in the way being discussed in Book 8. The focus there is that particular kinds of people predominate in particular kinds of Cities. In those accounts, there are many discussions of the roles of men and women and children. The metric of the 'city of words' is used to measure what changes in the field.

One thing that strikes me about the myth of Er is that the reassignment of souls requires a level of election by the self where a man could become a woman, a human an animal, and vice versa. An equality of all possible fates.

An equality of all possible fates. — Paine

An interesting point. Socrates says:

And this, dear Glaucon, it seems is the moment of extreme danger for a human being, and because of this we must neglect all other studies save one. We must pay the utmost attention to how each of us will be a seeker and student who learns and finds out, from anywhere he can, who it is who will make him capable and knowledgeable enough to choose the best possible life ...

(618b-c)

The guardian class is the middle class. Philosophers are the ruling class. Do you think that the ruling class is supposed to be male only? — Metaphysician Undercover

At this point, I think the class system as imagined by Plato is a fiction within a fiction tied up in a bow of confusion and contradiction.

There are different interpretations and translations. With some holding firm views and dismissive of others.

Given that there were only a few women admitted to Plato's Academy, the majority within a ruling class would be males.

Given that one of the roles of women is to have sex with select males on a temporary basis, it's clear that they are seen as baby producers. Like machines churning them out. Year in, year out. What toll would that take on their ability to rule?

What does it say about how women are valued? They are used.
I am not convinced that many women of wisdom would be happy or healthy in such a state.

There is more than one way to be a 'philosopher'. Even the so-called lower classes have the power to think critically and behave as justly or unjustly as those ruling the roost.

I question this assumption. — Fooloso4

It is not an assumption but one interpretation out of many.

Taylor treats the 'ideal' city as a kind of governance in the way being discussed in Book 8. The focus there is that particular kinds of people predominate in particular kinds of Cities. In those accounts, there are many discussions of the roles of men and women and children. — Paine

[emphasis added]

If you say so. I clearly don't have the same degree or depth of knowledge or experience as you and @Fooloso4 who has read, re-read, reflected and taught this to students, over many years.
It is also clear that I shouldn't have engaged with a Book 10 discussion without reading the whole Republic at least once! I should follow @Jamal 's lead.

I don't know about Book 8. Taylor references Book 5

Republic V contains two revolutionary proposals for the social organisation of the ideal state, the first that the function of guardianship is to be performed by men and women alike (451c-457b), the second that for the guardians the private household and therefore the institution of marriage is to be abolished (457b-466d), since the guardians do not own property and the care of child — The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor

Starting here:

[451c ] But maybe this way is right, that after the completion of the male drama we should in turn go through with the female,1 especially since you are so urgent.”
“For men, then, born and bred as we described there is in my opinion no other right possession and use of children and women than that which accords with the start we gave them. Our endeavor, I believe, was to establish these men in our discourse as the guardians of a flock2?” “Yes.” — Plato, Republic, Book 5, section 451c

At this point, I think the class system as imagined by Plato is a fiction within a fiction tied up in a bow of confusion and contradiction. — Amity

The entire proposal is imaginary, that's pretty clear. To say that one particular aspect is a fiction within a fiction is not really meaningful. You are just isolating it as a separate part of the overall fiction. It's generally not very helpful to attempt to completely separate aspects of a conception like this, because the various aspects tie together, and rely on each other for meaning. Analyzing a specific aspect, in isolation, usually will lead to confusion, because the ties, associations, required to develop the intended meaning are dropped.

Given that one of the roles of women is to have sex with select males on a temporary basis, it's clear that they are seen as baby producers. — Amity

If you consider the selection process, you'll see that the men are selected as "baby producers" just as much as the women are. This selection process is known by us as eugenics. In agriculture it is a very important part of what is called husbandry. Notice, Plato compares the guardians to dogs, and makes an analogy with the breeding of dogs. Advances in science have brought us into a new realm of husbandry known as GM.

I am not convinced that many women of wisdom would be happy or healthy in such a state. — Amity

Health ought not be a problem. There is nothing to indicate that a person would be less healthy in Plato's type of state. In fact, Plato describes the means to physical health through gymnastics, and mental health through music. And happiness, in relation to the breeding program, is ensured by the "noble lie".

Analyzing a specific aspect, in isolation, usually will lead to confusion, because the ties, associations, required to develop the intended meaning are dropped. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand that there are many specific notions and fictions tied together in different books of the Republic. And yes, it does lead to confusion.

If you consider the selection process, you'll see that the men are selected as "baby producers" just as much as the women are. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please point me to where it tells of the 'selection process' in this fiction.
The males don't go through the travails of repeated pregnancies.

Notice, Plato compares the guardians to dogs, and makes an analogy with the breeding of dogs. Advances in science have brought us into a new realm of husbandry known as GM. — Metaphysician Undercover

I did note the dog breeding analogy. How perfect is that. Not.

Health ought not be a problem. There is nothing to indicate that a person would be less healthy in Plato's type of state. In fact, Plato describes the means to physical health through gymnastics, and mental health through music. And happiness, in relation to the breeding program, is ensured by the "noble lie". — Metaphysician Undercover

Health will always be a problem for women if treated like bitches.

Physical health through gymnastics. Didn't that involve being naked?
Imagine a pregnant woman riding bareback...

Must go now. Late for an appointment.

I understand that there are many specific notions and fictions tied together in different books of the Republic. And yes, it does lead to confusion. — Amity

I believe, that it is this way of looking at things which is what leads to confusion. Instead of looking at the work as one united fiction, parts tied together in unity, building a cohesive conception, you are looking at a number of different fictions, which are somehow, supposed to be tied together.

This way of looking, which you describe, removes each section from the context of the whole, understands that section on its own, then attempts to establish a relation between it and other sections. Since the separated section cannot be adequately understood on its own, out of context, it is misunderstood. Then the attempt to relate it to other sections is very confusing, filled with the appearance of incoherency and contradiction between the distinct sections, due to that misunderstanding of the sections.

The proper way to understand a work of philosophy like this, is to take the whole as that which gives context, and then understand each section according to the context it is in. This will assist greatly in preventing you from giving a faulty interpretation to an individual section, i.e. an interpretation which does fit with the rest of the whole. That type of faulty interpretation is a great cause of confusion.

Please point me to where it tells of the 'selection process' in this fiction.
The males don't go through the travails of repeated pregnancies. — Amity

In Bk 5, the males are subjected to a false (fixed) lottery to determine who gets to breed. The true selection process is not revealed by the rulers. The males go through the travails of repeatedly losing the lottery.

Pregnancy is a fact of nature, which is irrelevant here. Since Plato was strongly into eugenics, I'm sure that if he could have conceived of a way to have laboratory babies instead of having women pregnant, he would have jumped on that opportunity.

What I specifically challenge in the Taylor passage is this (emphasis mine):

The modern feminists’ quarrel with Plato is not that their ideals are totally alien to him, but that he is wrong to think that those ideals are attainable within his preferred form of political organisation, and even more radically wrong to think that they require that organisation. In that objection they find many allies outside their own ranks. — The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor

I read Book 5 as describing a city where the complete separation of public and private works and interests has been established. They are not proposed as a means to an end. Plato recognizes that anything like this result runs strongly against the way polity actually has formed and changed over time. Book 8 focuses on this process:

“

Then do you know,” I asked, “there must be as many kinds of human beings as there are constitutions? Or do you think constitutions grow somewhere ‘from oak’ or ‘from stone,’ but not from the practices of those who live in states which as it were tip the scales and drag everything with them?”

“In my view they come from nowhere but the place you just mentioned,” he said.“Then do you know,” I asked, “there must be as many kinds of human beings as there are constitutions? Or do you think constitutions grow somewhere ‘from oak’ or ‘from stone,’ but not from the practices of those who live in states which as it were tip the scales and drag everything with them?”

“In my view they come from nowhere but the place you just mentioned,” he said.“So if there are five kinds of state then, there would also be five types of soul among the citizens?”

“Certainly.”

“Indeed, we’ve already discussed the man who shares the characteristics of the aristocratic state whom we rightly said was good and just.”

“We have.”

“Are we then to go through the next stage and look at those who are inferior, the contentious and ambitious type corresponding to the Laconian constitution, and again look at the oligarchic, democratic, and tyrannical type so we can identify the most unjust and set him against the most just; and our examination will be complete when we discover how perfect justice stands in relation to pure injustice in the matter of the possession of happiness and misery, so that we can either heed Thrasymachus and pursue injustice, or, the way our discussion is now developing, justice?” — Book 8, 345e, translated by Jones and Preddy

While looking at each of these 'regimes', the relationship between husband and wife and the raising of children is examined as a part of the 'psychological' examination of the best life we can aim for in the 'less perfect' cities. It is not clear how this evaluation relates to the 'ideal' described in Book 5. In the language of Book 10, how does the craftsman make this in the way a chair becomes something we can sit upon?

Hi, Paine. As always, thanks for putting in the time and effort to explain your perspective. I'm still listening but will hang back for now. :sparkle:

Thank you for the friendly response. I want to make it clear that I am not arguing on the basis of any authority. There are plenty of scholars who disagree with me for many different reasons. Maybe I could find common ground with Taylor on other statements. That 'radical' feminism is in collision with Plato's view of society must somehow be the case.

Thank you for the friendly response.... — Paine

:up: and thanks for the clarification.

Unfortunately, my last post to @Fooloso4 was a bit 'short' in every sense. I guess it reflected my frustration and I could/should have done better. Apologies to Fooloso4 :yikes:
Returning to this, with a bit more patience:

The city Socrates creates in speech suffers the same problem as the bed made by a maker of images. You can't sleep in this bed or live in this image of a city. In addition, far from being ideal such a city is in its first iteration first, in Glaucon's words, a city of pigs. (372d) Glaucon wants a more conventional city, one with couches, tables, relishes, and desserts. (372e) Socrates goes along in the making of this "luxurious city", but although it accommodates some of our human desires, it it far from ideal. Even with the compromises away from what Socrates calls the "true city", a "healthy one" (372e), it is not one that any of us would want to live it. — Fooloso4

Thanks for further explanation and references. I appreciate all your time and effort, as I think you know. I'm taking myself out of here, until I read/listen to the Republic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/938996

I look forward to hearing more from you and others. :sparkle: :flower:

Appreciated but no apologies necessary.

From my last response to your thread "With philosophy, poetry and politics on my mind..."
I think in discussions of Plato we are doing at least two things:

1) Discussing ideas and issues that arise in the part of the dialogue.we are reading.
2) Discovering how those ideas and issues are addressed by Plato in the larger context of the whole of the dialogue and other dialogues.

We all start with the first. We might do this without ever going too far into the second.

I'll add that those involved in the dialogue do not know where it will go or how it will end. We can imagine ourselves to be participants of the dialogue and add our responses to what is being said.

A most generous and helpful response to my concerns.

We can imagine ourselves to be participants of the dialogue and add our responses to what is being said. — Fooloso4

I read that with a sense of relief. No pressure. If and when...

Imagine. I can do that...and know that you welcome curious minds.
I can also appreciate being introduced to the deeper levels. Simply by listening.

OK, then...over to you :sparkle:

One thing that strikes me about the myth of Er is that the reassignment of souls requires a level of election by the self where a man could become a woman, a human an animal, and vice versa. An equality of all possible fates. — Paine

:up:
I've now read the Myth of Er. See: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939277

It is striking in so many ways.

'The Spindle of Necessity'. Plato's description is not easy to follow or visualise.
He naturally assumes that the reader knows what an Ancient Greek spindle looks like and how it is operated. And then, there is the whorl of the celestial spindle with its 8 orbits. Wiki helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

The myth is excellent for bringing out the juxtaposition of necessity and possibility, and ultimately how this relates to choice or selection. The assumption is that there is always some sort of necessity behind every act of selection, but the necessity is often veiled so that the selection appears as chance. This is the hidden nature of intention, and Plato's assumption that what appears to be random chance, is really guided by an underlying, unveiled necessity. That is the principle employed by the fixed lottery proposed as the selection lottery for breeding, and the use of the noble lie. Selection appears like random chance, an idea propagated by the lie, but only to those who are not privy to the reality of the underlying necessity.

Now, apply these principles to Darwinian natural selection as juxtaposed with Darwinian artificial selection in husbandry, and go have some fun.

The description of the spindle whorls is hard to visualize on the cosmological scale. I went searching for information that could give me a leg up from the statement: "The nature of the whorl is as follows: its shape is like the ones we use...." The most succinct explanation I could find is on this site where the section, Process of Ancient Spinning and Weaving can be found.

Here is another, Picturing Homeric Weaving, that has helpful references to the process as a part of the whole art of producing fabric.

Here is a single image of the whorls shown together in the first website.

The are some seemingly impossible features of the subsequent descriptions of the whorls within other whorls I won't try to wrap my brain around right now. Maybe in the coming week. I will end with two observations:

The humble beginning of this elaborate image connects this process with the techne emphasized at the beginning of Book 10, where the carpenter makes usable beds and chairs.

When the souls are choosing their future habitations, Epeius selects:

After her he saw the soul of Panopeus’ son Epeius entering the nature of a female craftworker. — ibid. 620c

The footnote provided: "Epeius built the wooden horse of Troy; also distinguished himself at Achilles’ funeral games as a champion boxer (Hom.Il. 23.664ff.).

:up:

I think I have come to a better understanding of the spindle. It is not used as in loom weaving.
It is hand-held, as in the depiction of Ananke: The Goddess of Necessity and Mother of the Fates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananke

The spindle revolved on the lap of Necessity. On top of each of its circles stood a Siren, who was carried around by its rotation, emitting a single sound, one single note. And from all eight in concord, a single harmony was produced. And there were three other women seated around it equidistant from one another, each on a throne. They were the daughters of Necessity, the Fates, — The Republic - trans. C.D.C Reeve

The are some seemingly impossible features of the subsequent descriptions of the whorls within other whorls I won't try to wrap my brain around right now. Maybe in the coming week. — Paine

Yes. Somewhat convoluted. My understanding is limited to this:
These are smaller, inner circles nesting within the main circle circumference of the whorl. Looked at from above or below. They correspond to the Orbits -the distance between planets. Struggling to see beyond...

There is a helpful Note, p357.

Plato’s description of the beam of light and the spindle is difficult.

He compares the light to hypozomata, or the ropes that bind a trireme together. These ropes seem to have girded the trireme from stem to stern and to have entered it at both places. Within the trireme, they were connected to some sort of twisting device that allowed them to be tightened when the water caused them to stretch and become slack.

The spindle of Necessity seems to be just such a twisting device. Hence, the extremities of the light’s bonds must enter into the universe just as the hypozomata enter the trireme, and the spindle must be attached to these extremities, so that its spinning tightens the light and holds the universe together.

The light is thus like two rainbows around the universe (or the whorl of the spindle), whose ends enter the universe and are attached to the spindle.

The upper half of the whorl of the spindle consists of concentric hemispheres that fit into one another, with their lips or rims fitting together in a single plane.

The outer hemisphere is that of the fixed stars; the second is the orbit of Saturn; the third of Jupiter; the fourth of Mars; the fifth of Mercury; the sixth of Venus; the seventh of the sun; and the eighth of the moon. The earth is in the center.

The hemispheres are transparent and the width of their rims is the distance of the heavenly bodies from one another.

A convincing discussion is J. S. Morrison, “Parmenides and Er.”The Journal of Hellenic Studies (1955) 75: 59–68 — As above

***

I found suggestions for visualisation. You can download as PDF.
Plato's Myth of Er : The Light and the Spindle by Griet Schils
https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1993_num_62_1_1163

The humble beginning of this elaborate image connects this process with the techne emphasized at the beginning of Book 10, where the carpenter makes usable beds and chairs.

When the souls are choosing their future habitations, Epeius selects:

After her he saw the soul of Panopeus’ son Epeius entering the nature of a female craftworker.
— ibid. 620c — Paine

Clever work. Connecting the dots. Fascinating to observe the various 'returns' in Book10.

The myth, the spiritual aspect of Socrates/Glaucon final conversation mirrors the beginning of the Republic. From Book1:

I went down to the Piraeus yesterday with Glaucon, the son of Ariston, to say a prayer to the goddess,1 and also because I wanted to see how they would manage the festival, since they were holding it for the first time.

@Paine and others. This is mesmerising. A slow and clear narration, illustrations included. :fire:
:100: Excellent.
The Myth of Er - Plato's Republic - Book 10

:up:
The level of detail in the composition blows my mind.

I am going to be slow to respond to the other parts of the Er story because I am a slow reader. I will check out your sources. This is an interesting part of the dialogue that I have skimped over in the past.

I am going to be slow to respond to the other parts of the Er story because I am a slow reader. — Paine

You might notice the basic principle of Aristotle's doctrine of the mean at 619a:

"And we must always know how to choose the mean in such lives and how to avoid either of the extremes, as far as possible, both in this life and in all those beyond it. This is the way that a human being becomes happiest."

This section deals with the art of decision making. And, it's interesting that those who have had a good life are portrayed as being bad decision makers because they are rash in thinking that they already know what's best, but those who have had to suffer take their time to deliberate, grasping the importance of avoiding a repeat of suffering.

I recognize how the Aristotle view is a part of the conversation.

The myth is concerned with decision making and I think the big issue is the relation between possibility and necessity, and the role of each in the art of decision making. Each soul is free to decide its own destiny by choosing the life which it wants, from the vast multitude of possibilities. However, the drawing of the lots is the necessity which forces the decision.

As depicted in the story, the options are listed as what the lottery offers. Some are left scrabbling for the last bits.

The Spindle of Necessity or Ananke.

In the eponymous dialogue Timaeus he identifies two kinds of cause, intelligence and necessity, that is, Nous and Ananke. Given the earlier emphasis in the Republic on the Forms, the introduction of ananke is both surprising and significant. Here at the end we must, by necessity, begin again. Forms and their imperfect images do not tell the whole of the story.

Plato’s concept of necessity differs from ours. What is by necessity is without nous or intellect. Necessary causes can act contrary to intelligible causes. What is fixed and unchanging cannot serve as the cause of a world of change, contingency, and chance. It should be noted how often necessity occurs in this story. The various cases helps to give us a better sense of the scope of what necessity means and what it entails

The Fates, Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos are the daughters of Necessity.The are respectively what was, what is, and what will be. Clotho, with a touch of her right hand, helps turn the outer revolution of the spindle, pausing from time to time, while Atropos, with her left hand, does the same for the inner revolutions, and Lachesis lends a hand to each revolution in turn, with each hand in turn.

In less figurative terms, by necessity, what was, the past, influences what is and what will be. What is, the present, influences what will be. The influence of what was on what will be is not eliminated by what is. In other words, by necessity we cannot undo what has been done.

Each soul chooses a daimon and also a pattern of life. (617e) The daimon is the guardian of that life. (620d) Nothing is said about choosing a daimon, on what basis it is chosen, or how closely it reflects the soul that chooses it.

Before choosing a life the souls are told that one who chooses wisely will choose a life midway between extremes. In this way a human being attains the utmost happiness. (619 a-b) They are warned that:

‘Even for the person who comes up last, but chooses intelligently and lives in a disciplined way, an acceptable life rather than a bad one, awaits. The first to choose must not be careless, and the last must not be despondent.’

(619b)

The first to choose by lot chooses extreme tyranny. (619b) We might think that this person had led a life of hardship and oppression and now wants to be on the giving rather than receiving end, but:

He was one of the people who had come from the heaven and had lived his previous life under an orderly system of government, where any share of excellence he had came from habit in the absence of philosophy. And, generally speaking, those who had come from the heaven were more likely to be caught out in this way, since they had no training in dealing with suffering, while those who had come out of the earth, for the most part, having had experience of suffering themselves, and having seen others suffer, did not make their choices in a hurry. This, and the element of chance from the lot, is why most souls undergo an interchange of what is good and what is bad.

(619c-d)

The first to choose had chosen quickly out of stupidity and greed. He came to lament his choice. He blames chance and the spirits, everything but himself. (619 b-c)

Yet if someone were to engage in philosophy, consistently, in a sound manner, whenever he comes back to live in this world, unless he is among the last to choose, it is likely not only that he would be happy whilst here, but also that his journey from here to there, and back here again, would be a smooth journey through the heaven, rather than rough and underground.

(619d-e)

The last to choose is Homer’s Odysseus:

When his turn came, he remembered all his former troubles, gave up the love of honour he had held previously, and went about for a long time seeking the life of an ordinary man with a private station. And he found it with difficulty, lying about somewhere, neglected by everyone else. And he said, when he saw it, that he would have done the same thing even had he been given first choice, and he chose it gladly.

(620 c-d)

Unlike most souls who made their choice based upon the habits of the previous life, (620a) Odysseus now chooses a life of moderation. The suggestion seems to be that although he has chosen last he is an example of someone who has attained phronesis, someone who engaged in philosophy, consistently, in a sound manner. He has become, so to speak, a philosophical hero. Put differently, Socrates has transformed Homer. The soul that was Odysseus comes home again after his journey from there to here.

As depicted in the story, the options are listed as what the lottery offers. Some are left scrabbling for the last bits. — Paine

The point though, is that the order in which the souls get to choose, is dictated (necessitated) by the lottery, which as a lottery, appears as random chance. So those who have the number of possibilities available for their choices, severely restricted (scrabbling for the last bits), suffer from a necessity which is imposed by chance, the lottery.

Compare this lottery to the one Plato proposes earlier, the lottery which selects breeding partners. The breeding order is necessitated by the lottery. Just like in the case of the souls whose order of choosing is determined by the lottery, to those involved in the selection process, the necessity appears to be imposed by chance. In both cases, to those being selected from, it appears like the order is produced from a purely random, chance lottery. However, we see that in the one example, there is really intelligence behind the scene which creates the appearance of random chance for all those being selected from, and only a distinct class of people are privy to that information. Plato has guided us to allow for the possibility that what appears as a chance lottery, which is behind the necessity that imposes itself on us, there might really not be a chance lottery at all.