I question this assumption. — Fooloso4

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

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.

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

Unlike the poetry that Socrates criticizes, the purpose of the story of Er is not to bring pleasure to the listener. (607c) It may bring hope to some, but fear to others. It may not be the truth of what happens in death but it could be considered leading rather than misleading, for:

What’s at stake is becoming good or bad, and so we should not neglect justice, and excellence in general (608b) — Fooloso4

A fine thing to say. Easier said than done. We can only do our best...

The discussion turns to the fate of the soul. — Fooloso4

You jumped from 602c to 608d. Did you not think the missing sections to be important as to an understanding and assessment of Book 10's value?

602C “By Zeus,” said I, “this business of imitation is concerned with something at a third remove from the truth. Isn’t it so?”
“Yes.”
“And what aspect of the person does it have the power to influence?”... — Platonic Foundation - Book 10

[emphasis added]

You didn't want to follow this question?

603C Let’s take a look, rather, at the very part of the mind with which poetic imitation consorts, and see whether it is lowly or superior.” — As above

Socrates then goes on to suggest that poetry leads us to remember past events and the accompanying sorrows. There is a desire for this which is 'irrational and idle and a friend of cowardice.'
The troubled one is highly susceptible compared to the one who has an 'intelligent peaceful disposition.'
(604E)

He continues:
“Then it is obvious that the imitative poet has no natural affinity with the good part of the soul, and his wisdom is not designed to please this if he is going to be well regarded among the general population. He has, rather, an affinity with the troubled and complex character because it is so easy to imitate.” (605A)

What a load of... ass-umptions...he makes it worse...by design...

...You know that we are delighted, we surrender ourselves, we follow along and feel what they feel, and, in all seriousness, we praise whoever is best able to give us such an experience and call him a good poet.”

“I know, of course.”

“But when some personal misfortune befalls any of us, you realise, in this case, that we pride ourselves on the opposite response, on being able to remain at peace and to endure it, since this is the response of a man, while the other, the one we just praised is a woman’s response ” 605E

[emphasis added]

The question of poetry and its value has been revisited. It is seen to have been reasonable to have banished it from the city. The argument seems to have 'proved' this. But has it? Not here but perhaps later with the use of images and a myth? An intended irony or just plain sarcasm?

To talk of justice at the same time as comparing men and women. The latter unfavourably and then to talk of poetry as a 'she'...bad and irrational. Even if there is irony involved, it sets up a certain kind of 'truth'. A smell that pervades Philosophy. The way male Philosophers are privileged and seen as good.
Kings of Reason. Peaceful and Intelligent. They go to Heaven, don't they?

And then, another truth but so condescending with it:

But in case poetry accuses us of a certain harshness and lack of refinement, let’s explain to her that a dispute between philosophy and poetry is of ancient date. 607B

I have been reading Republic Book 10 for the sake of the Fooloso4 thread and came across a positively Dantean passage... — Paine

@Fooloso4's thread is doing well. I'm enjoying it immensely and have participated. However, I am a bit of a fraud, not having read Book10 in its entirety. Merely skirting the edges. A flirty butterfly. So far.

Thanks for the quote and relating it to Dante. The Myth of Er does stand out. I can understand why some consider Book 10 'weird'. But it does show the magnificence of Plato's writing.

In Dante, of course, there is no return. The location of the placards on the front or back sends a chill down my spine. — Paine

Yes. The judgements based on one's life can't be seen by the offender. So, there is no recourse against any misinterpretation by the judges, whoever and how 'righteous' they are. I'll have to read this.
Just as well I don't believe in either Heaven or Hell. I am surely damned :naughty:

So, perhaps a resolution of everything before?
— Amity

I don't think so. Many of the problems raises in the dialogues do not seem to have a resolution. Some might find the odd or unsatisfactory, but I think it is a reflection of life. There is much that we do not have answer for. — Fooloso4

Yes. A reflection of life. And how best to live it. In not reaching any definite conclusions, Plato shows us that philosophy is never-ending. Inner and outer conversations continue, as long as we have a mind to.

So, Book 10 - is both an ending and a beginning. It is an important part of the whole.
It offers the opportunity to return and re-examine. From a different perspective with a new eye.
Just as we are doing here...to carefully consider and increase our understanding. Hopefully.

'There is much that we do not have the answer for'.
Yes. But in general, our knowledge has increased in fields other than philosophy. Modern Neuroscience, for one. And at other levels, accessible to the ordinary, interested reader - e.g. a growing body of literature, easier to comprehend than the Republic. Now, we have Eco Literature and others, more inclusive. Like feminism and gender issues. The whole wide world unknown to Plato.
Plato is a dinosaur of a dazzling writer.

Oh, spooky. Especially in the month of Halloween. Where's my blue witches hat...and cat...? A graveyard plot...? :fire:

I have concepts of a story.... — Vera Mont

Hah! Nice one. Channeling Trump's 'concept of a plan' for healthcare.

You raise interesting questions.

We can pose the same question to Socrates. If he is a second remove rather than a third, then what is original that he has made an image of? In addition, if the city of Athens is the judge of such things then Socrates made the city worse not better.

When he goes on to say:

“Come on then, consider this carefully. The maker of the image, the imitator, according to us knows nothing of what is, but does know what appears. Isn’t this so? (601b-c)

Shouldn’t the same consideration be given to Socrates’ own images? — Fooloso4

We can also consider whether it is Socrates' or Plato's imagination based on What is and What could be? An Ideal state of affairs. But then, they must both know that this absolute perfection is questionable, no? And so it has proved to be...as thought-provoking as intended.

How did Socrates make Athens 'worse not better'? Ah, you mean according to the Athenian judges. Returning us to the Apology...

Imitation, Socrates says, is surely at a far remove from the truth. (5598b) Even if there were such a thing as the form of a just soul or just city, any existing city or soul would be at a remove from it. Since Socrates’ city is made in speech, it is twice removed. An image (3) of an image (2). As such we do not know the truth of the just soul or just city by looking at the image Socrates makes. — Fooloso4

Humans can and do express their feelings and thoughts from a distance - however, that is not to deny them any 'truth' as experienced. It is true that there are daffodils and that they provide inspiration.

William Wordsworth's poem 'I wandered lonely as a cloud'. Words painting a picture of a host of golden daffodils dancing in the breeze of the Lake District. Just as Plato paints pictures.

Socrates makes an image of 'just souls or just cities' but I find it hard to see this as any 'truth', given that it is in his, or Plato's, imagination. I have not experienced similar, that I know of. I can, however, value it as a way of stretching my mind and thoughts.

To what extent is justice in the soul like justice in the city? Initially we may have gone along with the image presented earlier, but it would seem that Plato is now leading us to reconsider how much the soul is like the city. To what extent should our idea of the one shape our idea of the other? — Fooloso4

I don't have any idea of the shape or structure of a 'soul'. However, I know what a city is like and its various structures e.g. socio-political. It is easy to compare what Plato suggests with our own.
To judge the value of his way of thinking...

I am on my second and more thorough read through the Republic after having read it a few weeks ago, and I don't have a stable view either way. But certainly, Book 10 feels different from what has gone before. — Jamal

You are way ahead of me, and better placed to have a supported view after a second read.
I've been hovering around the Republic, hardly daring to enter its complexities. That will have to be rectified.

From the little I have gleaned, Book 10 is certainly different but that's not the same as being 'weird'.
I wonder if this is due to the turn from the abstract to parable. The Myth of Er and the judgement of souls. Socrates is telling a story. Plato has decided to conclude his Dialogue on the Ideal City ( against poetry) with a poetic narrative. A spiritual nature.

I think this shows that Book 10 does indeed have a symmetry with Book 1.
I remember our discussion about the elderly Cephalus. His concerns and comments about any rewards or punishment after death. You suggested a negative picture of Cephalus - his contribution as frivolous.
I took the opposite view:

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 argument 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.[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. — Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book 1

Again, your impression: 'Plato wants to portray Cephalus as ordinarily just, but complacent.'
Annas was mentioned as viewing Cephalus as a contemptible figure.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts after a second read. :sparkle:

There was talk of doing it this December. I'm not sure if I'll be able to help or not but I'm hoping it will happen. I have a story written already for once. — Noble Dust

You are not alone in hoping it will happen. However, like you, I'm not sure how able I will be if it does.
I doubt I will write a story or poem, unless my brain is taken over by an unrelenting creative spirit.
Hope to read yours, wherever and whenever :sparkle:

I started this thread in response to a comment by Jamal about Plato’s Republic:

They all belong together and they're all important, although book 10 is weird and some would say adds nothing of much value to the whole work's argument.

I want to look into it in order to see how much value it might add. — Fooloso4

First of all thanks for starting the thread. I look forward to hearing more. It is, as you say, a response to Jamal's comment - a reply to my question here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/937134

It surprised me - I had thought Book 10 would be the main conclusion. Perhaps echoing what Jamal said about Book 1:

But the allusions or allegories in Book 1 of the Republic are woven in with the central themes of the work and contain everything that's to come in microcosm. — Jamal

So, perhaps a resolution of everything before?

I wish I had asked about the 'weirdness' and who the 'some' were. I wondered if they leaned more to the hard philosophy or literary side. 'Nothing much of value' seems far too dismissive of Plato.

It seems this has been a 'Problem' for readers since 1150 C.E., Averroes. From p12-13 of this fascinating dissertation: The Psychology of Plato's Republic: Taking Book 10 into Account
Daniel Mailick
The Graduate Center, City University of New York

One hundred years ago, Shorey held the same opinion, saying that Book 10
was "technically an appendix”.2

Many of the best-known 20th century commentators feel much the same way. Reeve begins his chapter preface to Book 10 by saying “The main argument of the Republic is now complete”.3

Annas speaks for many when she says: “Book 9 ends the main argument of the Republic, and ends it on a rhetorical and apparently decisive note. We are surprised to find another book added on”.4 She goes on to characterize Book 10 as “an excrescence”, “gratuitous”, “clumsy”, “full of oddities”, and overall, as a “coda” or “appendix...added to a work essentially complete already”.5

On the other hand, many commentators of note have argued that the Republic, like many texts, was composed as a ring composition.6 — Academic works

I am attracted to the latter interpretation. The dissertation conclusion convinces me of Book 10's value. (pdf 274- 283) It is an end come full circle. About how to live the best possible life.

In book 2 Socrates said:

Do you not know that the beginning of any work is most important …
((377a) — Fooloso4

As is the end.

Thanks for helpful response and best wishes. :flower:

Now to Go to Hell :fire:

@Paine is to blame! :halo:

Your introduction of how well the eggs can be understood through time prompted me to think about how different a book the Inferno by Dante was for the generations closest to it.
— Paine

Yes, the transcript above pulled me in. [The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I ]
As have you! I think I now want to explore Dante...perhaps later and elsewhere. :sparkle:

The idea of a 'knowing' audience who would immediately recognise any 'easter eggs' made me think of 'intertextuality'. The way that all texts can use other texts either explicitly or implicitly to capture or enrapture the audience. - Amity — TPF - Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book 1

[emphasis added]

Decades ago, I heard of Dante's Inferno when learning Italian but was never attracted to it. Same with poetry. I thought both too 'heavy'.
Now, I love to read and listen to them both. L'italiano is manna to my lugs.
Like Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda, I am seduced by the male tongue.
Listen here: https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/sound/bausi-readings/

1. Parallel Italian/English texts helped me follow a fascinating commentary on 2. Inferno 1 - The Divine Comedy. The importance of the first line and intertextuality.

1.

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
Midway upon the journey of our life — ThoughCo - Dante's Inferno in Italian and English

2.

[9] The poet has combined biblical and classical motifs to create a uniquely hybrid “middling” textuality. “Nel mezzo” marks a middle-point/meeting-point of cultural imbrication: “Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita” (Midway upon the journey of our life [Inf. 1.1]) evokes, as critics have long noted, both biblical and classical precedents, both Isaiah 38:10 (“In the middle of my days I must depart”) and Horace’s injunction in Ars Poetica to commence a narrative “in medias res” (in the midst of things [Ars Poetica, 148]). The mid-point thus boasts both classical and biblical pedigrees.

[10] To the above well-known intertexts for “Nel mezzo”, I will add two Aristotelian texts: the passage in the Physics where we find Aristotle’s discussion of time, and the passage in Nicomachean Ethics where we find his definition of virtue.

[11] In the Physics, Aristotle describes time as “a kind of middle-point, uniting in itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future time and an end of past time” (Physics 8.1.251b18–26).[1] In his philosophical prose treatise, Convivio, written before the Inferno, circa 1304-1307, Dante shows that he is acquainted with Aristotle’s writings on time, citing the Physics as follows: “Lo tempo, secondo che dice Aristotile nel quarto de la Fisica, è ‘numero di movimento, secondo prima e poi’” (Time, according to Aristotle in the fourth book of the Physics, is “number of movement, according to before and after” [Conv. 4.2.6]).
— Columbia.edu - Digital Dante - Inferno 1 -

Digital Dante is an amazing site to explore.

The Russian poet Osip Mandelstam wrote: “It is unthinkable to read the cantos of Dante without aiming them in the direction of the present day. They were made for that. They are missiles for capturing the future.” Digital Dante endeavors to live up to Mandelstam’s mandate, aiming Dante’s missiles in the direction of the present day.

Dante's missiles aimed at the future.

So @Paine, even though any 'easter eggs' would perhaps be better recognised by readers of the past, there might be hope for the present reader to reach an understanding. Thanks for the inspiration.

Time for me to break off for a while. A lot of reading to catch up on...

Thanks y'all. Forgot about those. Nice poem, Baden. I'm about to go to bed but will read this thread soon (hopefully). — Noble Dust

Great to hear from you again! I can hardly believe that you could forget your stories in TPF. Because they, and others, have certainly impacted me. As you can see.

Right from the get-go, you encouraged me with a quick and easy 'How to...' think as I read and then comment accordingly. That helped me enormously to get into the flow.
You and @hypericin were instrumental in the organisation of The Literary Event, Dec 2023. :up:
Not sure how things stand for any event this December? My questions remain unanswered...guess nobody cares much :chin:

BTW, this seems to have turned into a self-indulgent blog. So, beware all ye who enter here! It won't be for long.I don't believe in >10 pages. So tedious...
Take care :sparkle: :flower:

I decided I will start a thread on book 10, commenting as I go along. — Fooloso4

Well. That should be interesting...but perhaps a bit of a spoiler?
Strangely enough, I had thought to head to the end but decided not to.
It might mean that I don't bother to read the rest, building up to the climax.
Or is it indeed 'the end'?

:up: Thanks again :smile:

You've mixed up the order of the paragraphs, which is important. Maybe that's why you're confused — Jamal

Have I? Oh dear :yikes:
That's what comes of not paying attention and reading carefully, I suppose.

I think it is the idea of Simonides as an 'ideal poet' in contrast with Homer that I don't understand.

and also this:

So the targets are people like Polemarchus who ascribe erroneous notions of justice to wise people, something Socrates gets across bluntly by ascribing them instead to bad guys; and generally those who rely on cultural authorities, whether these authorities are poets or sages, without having thought about them deeply. — Jamal

[emphasis added]

Perhaps, I need to return to the passage...

Your introduction of how well the eggs can be understood through time prompted me to think about how different a book the Inferno by Dante was for the generations closest to it. — Paine

Yes, the transcript above pulled me in. [The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I ]
As have you! I think I now want to explore Dante...perhaps later and elsewhere. :sparkle:

The idea of a 'knowing' audience who would immediately recognise any 'easter eggs' made me think of 'intertextuality'. The way that all texts can use other texts either explicitly or implicitly to capture or enrapture the audience.

It's about recognising or understanding a reference - that 'Aha!' moment which brings more meaning to the reading or visual. It can widen the personal and cultural experience. There is also the challenge of keeping alert. Being and becoming aware of what is going on at various levels.

I am now more aware of how Plato uses the cultural elements of that time to connect with his audience.
His means of persuasion. Particular themes or messages are emphasised by drawing on existing texts.

We already touched on Cephalus and Plato's insertion of Sophocles and Pindar:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/936223

I remain a bit confused by this:

The crucial thing is that the real Simonides is unimportant. The new element is that because of this he can function as a blank canvas onto which Plato can project his ideal poet, in contrast with Homer, who is problematic. This is quite compelling, and it's actually sort of compatible with the first interpretation, although it does bring the ascription of irony into question (or it would make it an even more complex kind of irony). It doesn't matter what the real Simonides might have said, but it does matter what Homer said, because Homer loomed so large in the culture, and comes in for direct criticism later in the Republic. [...]

So the targets are people like Polemarchus who ascribe erroneous notions of justice to wise people, something Socrates gets across bluntly by ascribing them instead to bad guys; and generally those who rely on cultural authorities, whether these authorities are poets or sages, without having thought about them deeply.

I came across another interesting interpretation in a paper entitled "Socrates on Poetry and the Wisdom of Simonides." The idea is that Plato is not interested in Simonides as a historical figure but is rather making him stand as his ideal poet. This is in contrast to Homer, who by this point in the the conversation with Polemarchus has already been mentioned dismissively: — Jamal

...they're all important, although book 10 is weird and some would say adds nothing of much value to the whole work's argument. — Jamal

Hmm. I'd have thought it would be the main conclusion. Plato never fails to perplex and surprise. I like weird. Later...

Thanks for further clarification and pointing out that:

...the allusions or allegories in Book 1 of the Republic are woven in with the central themes of the work and contain everything that's to come in microcosm. — Jamal

I didn't know that. So, just another 9 Books of the Republic to read ?!
Are they worth the effort? Some more than others?
I guess it depends on the readers' interests and fondness for layered puzzles.

Sorrowfully, it was a discussion with which I am not pleased. We both already discussed this issue through PM and I promised it will never happen again (and it won't!). — javi2541997

Believe it, or not, my post was not specifically addressed to you. I didn't want a re-hash of our 'previous', related to your story. It's unfortunate that you brought it to attention.

Your chosen quote in context:

I don't think enough people are given enough credit for that. It took me a while to fully appreciate the importance of TPF's Literary Event. Looking again - with more attention, experience and knowledge - I am amazed at how much I missed. Still do.

Possibly that was due to the competitive element and the initial time pressure. Some authors were impatient to get to the results. Who would be the winner. The increasing amount of entries. The pedantic and passionate arguments about grammar, voting, with null points given to a piece not considered a story. And so on. — Amity

The main point being that, for me, more attention could have been given to the stories, leading to increased appreciation. I think that each participant deserves this. But it's not always possible.

Yet this is the past, and the next contest will be even better (I am talking about my behavior). It is obvious that we will read great stories because the level of writing and imagination here is high and top. — javi2541997

Of course, it's the past. And what will be, will be...
Best wishes to all :flower:

the man sitting next to me with the paper plate
— Noble Dust - A Sort of Duel

That man sitting nigh with the paper face — Baden

Bridging the gap of time, space and person. Your poem is a tribute to @Noble Dust. The poetry within his and many other TPF stories. The creative worth and hidden depths. How imagination can take a simple description and bring forth more sensations and thoughts. Mind-merging moments.

I don't think enough people are given enough credit for that. It took me a while to fully appreciate the importance of TPF's Literary Event. Looking again - with more attention, experience and knowledge - I am amazed at how much I missed. Still do.

Possibly that was due to the competitive element and the initial time pressure. Some authors were impatient to get to the results. Who would be the winner. The increasing amount of entries. The pedantic and passionate arguments about grammar, voting, with null points given to a piece not considered a story. And so on.

I remember another beauty by @Noble Dust. I didn't appreciate it on a first read. However, when the feedback kicked in, I was drawn back to defend choice of words. ND held his own.
Buried Treasure. Indeed!

An excerpt:

As she sprints, she spies a bumble bee and nimbly sidesteps its path. The pollen fills her head. Her eyes dart back to Henry. She hears a crow caw to its mate in the oak overhead. She looks up and is blinded by late afternoon sun. She falters but keeps pace. Her chest thrills with the life around her. The sun’s rays bounce off the friendship rock ahead. She leaps over with somber respect. To her left the big anthill tugs at her attention but she presses on. As she passes, she sees order within the chaos of countless ant paths and errands. A conveyor belt carries in two dead flies. — Buried Treasure by Noble Dust

One of my comments:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768204

The meaning of the story, ND's feedback makes clear. The treasure more than a buried skull.
From his 'About' profile: Sly sidestep of the bumblebee

@Baden I hope ND reads your poem and is as moved by it, as I am.
The man with no hat. No blue hair. But who:

Stinks like seaweed on the shore
Stinks like never, nevermore — Baden

Material surface level and then going underground, to the secret spiritual.

Relief and sweet and sacred things — Baden

The sense and sensibility. The whole-iness of it all. :fire:

Poets and Tyrants. Toast and Easter eggs

I've been enjoying Jamal's discussion and the discovery of 'literary easter eggs'. A different approach or angle to reading the Republic, Book 1. I'm in two minds about it. More can be read, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/936532

Enough of Plato for the time being.
Kicking the autumn leaves and feeling the cool air, I thought of gold-spun jumpers
Warm and comforting, like toast.
And Toast has more
It has poetry.

Take a moment and look.
If you don't like poetry
All the more reason.

https://www.toa.st/blogs/magazine/an-ode-to-poetry-book-club

I’m often asked where to begin with poetry: how to discover new voices, how to interpret subtext, how to climb inside a poem’s skin so you can see how it breathes. I think many of us are discouraged by education’s insistence on there being a ‘right’ response to poetry, which can make us wary of the form in later life.

I remember a poet speaking about this in the bookshop where I used to work, telling me how his son was asked during a comprehension test why a character in a poem was wearing a blue hat. The answer the examiner wanted was, ‘He’s wearing a blue hat because it’s raining’, but his son wrote, ‘He’s wearing a blue hat because he supports Chelsea.’ His son was marked down and told he was wrong. And that’s boring, isn’t it? Poems should present windows, not boxes to tick.

[emphasis added]

The tyranny of the tick box.
There is no 'right' response. It's about your interaction with words and what they mean, to you.
It's also fascinating to hear from the poet/author about their intention and how other readers react.

This took me back to @Noble Dust's short story - 'A Sort of Duel'.
Excerpt:

Oh and by the way, the man sitting next to me with the paper plate and pencil is dressed in khakis and a polo; I think his shoes were recently shined. And, I kid you not, his hair is dyed blue; I have no idea why. It doesn’t fit his look at all. So they’re both writing and writing, getting more and more furious by the minute; blue-hair next to me is starting to breathe heavy like he’s shagging but out of shape which makes no sense because he’s very svelte. I’m sort of freaking out at this point, but some weird part of me wants to see what he’s writing so I oh-so-subtly just sort of cock my head to the left a bit and do a little side-eye thing but blue-hair immediately catches me and gives this possessed look, like “what the bloody fuck are you doing?” — Noble Dust - A Sort of Duel

I remember being intrigued by the duality and making suggestions as to why the guy had blue hair.
Similar to the son's association of the 'blue hat' with Chelsea, I thought of a Rangers supporter (v Celtic supporter - green).
Feedback from: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726961
Those were the days...

I didn't think primarily of factionalism so much as power vs persuasion, irrational vs rational, etc., but it's a good example. — Jamal

No, neither did I but it makes sense when you think about it. The factions of dissenting groups within a bigger organisation. The power struggles of poets v philosophers. Political justice within different societal structures. The tripartite mind. The rational part (philosophers) must rule, according to Plato.

@Fooloso4 made the point earlier:

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.

Socrates asks Polemarchus :

Could we not persuade you that you should let us leave?
(327e)

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

[emphasis added]

The question:'How do you persuade those who refuse to listen?' - still relevant after all these years...
Divide and Rule. Where is the justice? Who are the 'just'?

I've done some thinking and now I have a slightly different angle. I see that while I started out with a good intuition, it went a bit wrong on its way to conceptual crystallization. — Jamal

I'm curious. Does that mean your focus has now turned away from the 'literary easter egg'? Or what?

t's probably an eccentric focus. It's a bit like a literary easter egg.
Another way of saying this is that my focus is more important from a literary than from a philosophical point of view. — Jamal

I was intrigued by your novel and extraordinary approach to discussing Plato's Republic, Book1.
However, I was concerned that any Easter Egg Hunt would narrow the reading. Hidden treats are sometimes not as delicious as we might hope for. Too many can ruin the appetite for the main meal.
I suppose, though, they capture interest and imagination...and that can lead to deeper exploration.

I searched for 'literary easter egg' with regards to Plato. And found this podcast and transcript.
You need to scroll down to find the passage starting:

Besides the meticulous care with which every sentence of this work is crafted, the book is also full of what we might call Easter eggs. You know how certain movies have these little cool features that the director likes to hide throughout the film, and then die-hard fans will watch the movie dozens of times to find them all?... — The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I

He gives examples but I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind.

The whole transcript, with its informal but informed style, is worth a read.
The philosophy behind it is to make the Classics accessible.

The Classics shouldn't be just for people lucky enough to go to certain schools. Everyone should be able to know about the ideas and events that inspired the founders of this republic. Let's declassify the classics.

The host of the podcast, Lantern Jack, holds a PhD in ancient philosophy from Princeton University.

Now, at this point in the Republic, the problem with poets has not yet come up
— Jamal

But it has been brought up! Cephalus opinions about such things as justice are shaped by the poets. Consider how frequently the poets are appealed to. — Fooloso4

Earlier, I referenced the powerful influence of poets. Perhaps understanding poetry as historical narrative in its social and personal context is preferable to taking part in the rhetorical argumentation of philosophers which often lead to no conclusion. Although interested and encouraging, Cephalus has other priorities.

He provides us with an example of the importance of poetry in the lives of Ancient Greeks. Their focus on the spiritual and Gods. Distinct from the rational but that doesn't mean he is irrational, or 'useless' in the Dialogue, just unwilling to take that particular path.

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. — Amity

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' — Amity

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: