...at Politeia.com
Every discussion must have a beginning, so why don't we begin with what may be the first great work of political philosophy, Plato's Republic. I propose that we start with a question about Book One, and one that we can return to as often as we please.
Why does Thrasymachus blush?
When Thrasymachus enters the conversation in Book One, the force of his cynicism--or perhaps we should call it his worldly wisdom, for he is not unwise--seems to suggest that he could never be brought to feel shame. No assertion could be so shocking that he would shrink from it. In fact, shocking statements seem to be his stock in trade. Moreover, his confidence appears to be more than proof against refutation, since he does not seem to be above saying what he does not really believe in order to prevail in an argument.
And yet he blushes before Socrates. I suspect that an understanding of how he has been made to blush--what device has Socrates used to bring it about?--and where in his character the capacity to feel shame was hiding will turn out to be useful in reading the later books of the Republic, and for thinking about political philosophy in general.
To participate in the discussion, sign on to the listserve through the form below. Visit our FAQ page to learn more about the mailing lists.
If you need to find a copy of the Republic, or any other work in political philosophy, see my reviews page--who knows, maybe there will be something helpful. There you can read about particular translations and order them directly from Amazon.com.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributions to the Forum:
Socrates humbles Thras. As much as he has clamored and made a show about the Socrates' naivity and the absurdity of his arguments, Socrates has proven that it is Thras. who is absurd. He does the same to Polemarchus, but it is interesting that their responses are much different. Polemarchus is a warrior, not a rhetorician... he gets in way over his head w/ Socrates. It seems he values what is his own more than truth - his father, his inheritance, a view of justice which supports his lifestyle... yet when he is proved wrong by Socrates he embraces this new idea and is ready to "do battle" w/ Socrates - even defending him against Thras. Thras is a different sort of man... he makes war with words. He is witty and a powerful speaker. Yet when Socrates outwits him with words, he blushes... he knows he has lost and yet he is even more proud than Polemarchus so he cannot embrace the new idea(although he relents some). These are a few of my thoughts anyway... I'm not quite sure why Socrates is able to make Polemarchus Listen when he doesn't want to, but unable to do so with Thras.
dmonk, dmonk@acad.udallas.edu
I do find Plato's Republic a very long read and it can be hard to understand. I need some help in understanding what Plato's Myth of Metals is commonly referred to as and why it is necessary? I do believe it is an allegorical myth, which refers to the Guardian's living manner, but how does it relate to the important truths of the imagination? If imagination is mythical and fictional, how can it be truthful? Does each Metal have a specific meaning? Such as gold, silver, bronze, and iron? And how are these metals referred to as myths?
Lanca Lalo, phono_funktion@hotmail.com
I think that Thrasymachus is made to blush not because of Socrates' questioning, but due to the fact that he appears to be losing the argument in front of his fellow peers. He still remains adament that his understanding of justice is correct though. His blushing is largely due to his humility rather than his incorrectness.
biner, binerbaby@hotmail.com
What do you think about Adeimantus and Gloucon's case for injustice in section 4 part 1, and how does socrates respond to this?
Andrew Kras, captainoftheship@yahoo.com
Well I don't have an opinion on this, but I do have a problem. I need to find out what is the Cave and what does it means. Please help me!!! :(
Giovani Arenas, giovaniarenas@hotmail.com
Plato hardly seems to advocate the forms of democracy which an increasing proportion of the world subscribe to. Ignoring the semantics of democracy, is it possible now to argue that the manipulation of societies masses by the markets, and the lack of motivation and cohesion in respose to environmental degradation is a compelling arguement for Plato's 'Pilots of society'proposition??
Chris Andersen, chrand-8@student.luth.se
I am interested in Plato's views on education. I have concluded that he thinks that education eradictes evil. i t seems almost religious to say that but on reading his works you will find that he gives edcation all the credit for goodness in man. I need someone to who knows his works to comment on this.
Jelly, jjailall@mindspring.com
I have just read the Republic, and I am writing a paper on it and the connection between it and society as a whole (government, socially and the technological age), do you have any ideas as to websites I should check out or books etc. Thank you, your help would be much appreciated !
Amit, zeus246969@aol.com
I can't really see the different ideology between Plato and
Aristotle .What is the attitudes of these
two writers to equality and democracy? Can anyone out there make
it clear to me? I will very much appreciate your effort in
helping me. Thanks.
Doohan doohan_98@yahoo.com
As a high school student and debater I have come to appreciate the Republic for it's educational and philosophical values. Next year's topic for debate is education reform in secondary schools. I am attempting to write a case where Plato's views towards education are expressed. Any help with links or websites would be great. Thanks for the vine.
Johnathon Aylor playadeuce@hotmail.com
I don't really understand the difference of the attitudes between Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Politics)... in the view of democracy and equality. Can somebody help me?
Tedy ltgcool@cheerful.com
Tedy, if you could be a little more specific
about the difference that puzzles you between Plato and
Aristotle, you might get more informative, or at least relevant,
responses. In the simple sense, it seems clear that Aristotle
prefers oligarchy (i.e. a franchise based in part on
property ownership) to aristocracy, and certainly to the "philosophic"
aristocracy Socrates imagines in the Republic. But that needs
qualification in two senses. Aristotle may only be thinking of
the regime that would be best in a specific set of circumstances,
namely, Athens under Macedonian domination. Also, Socrates
imagines an "ideal" state, but that isn't the same as
recommending it for adoption by any particular population. It would probably be worth
trying to work out exactly what Socrates really intends for this
ideal. If it isn't a recommendation, then what is it? Jacques
Duvoisin jaduvoisin@yahoo.com
To all Plato's faithful readers:
I heard a rumor saying that Plato's Republic was once a
banned book, is that true? If it is how can I prove it? The
reason behind this rumor is because the Republic is said to be
anti-democratic since Plato's philosophy is class-based system,
whereas democracy is not a class-based system since it represents
equality. No offence abot the rumor, please.
Rgds/HC Harry Cahyadi hc97@hotmail.com
Harry, it seems to me that information about the publication history of the Republic will not be enough by itself to help us answer the question about the book's "politics." Is it really anti-democratic? The ideal city imagined in books 2-4 is certainly undemocratic, but whose city is that? I would suggest that it is not really Socrates' city but Glaucon's. Sure, Socrates does most of the talking, but isn't he describing the sort of city that Glaucon might favor, a city more like Sparta. One might wonder what had happened in Athens to cause the flower of its youth, men like Glaucon and Adeimantus, to imagine the best city to be more like the enemy than their own. Moreover, we might find it appropriate in books 7-9 when that ideal city is shown to devolve, as if by a law of nature, from an aristocracy into a tyranny.
So, then, what sort of ideal city would Socrates have imagined in his own right? Would it have been a class-based aristocracy, or perhaps something more democratic? One place to look in order to find that out is Socrates' treatment of Thrasymachus in book one. The sophist is a sort of creature of democracy, who exploits its freedoms in order to sell a dream of tyrannical power to his customers. This is suggested clearly enough by Thrasymachus' own statements--although one might still wonder why the dreams of democratic citizens tend so readily toward tyranny. But what about the argument Socrates uses to refute Thrasymachus? Is there perhaps a clue there to his politics? Thrasymachus' position collapses when he refuses to admit that the tyrant can make mistakes while Socrates distinguishes between any artisan's craft and his ability to earn a living. The craft tends toward the benefit of something other than the artisan himself, necessitating a secondary process whereby a wage is earned. This argument is designed to force Thrasymachus to recognize both that the true ruler rules for the benefit of others and that as a practical matter power, by a sort of inner-logic, can only maintain itself through a similar selflessness. The image of the unselfish ruler is painted much more extravagantly later when he appears as the philosopher-king, but the paradox is the same. The real question is this: what are the politics of this image of unselfish rule? If the Republic as a whole shows that no particular regime can always acheive this, then how should we characterize Socrates' politics? Jacques Duvoisin, jaduvoisin@yahoo.mail
I just finished reading Plato's republic and I tried to compare it to Sophocle's Antigone. I was trying to answer the question "would Plato have allowed the guardians of his IDEAL CITY to read the Antigone? " What do you think about this and why do you choose your stance? Mellessa mellessalm@aol.com
I'm not sure how useful my opinion of this is but I would rather phrase the question "would Glaucon allow the guardians to read the Antigone?" It has always seemed to me that the ideal city is really Glaucon's. It is probably worth observing, however, that Plato was probably influenced by Sophocles' depiction of Antigone in his depiction of Socrates. I'm thinking mainly of the image of Socrates as someone who runs afoul of the city because he insists upon an appropriate attitude toward death, and who as a result ends up preferring death to life on the city's terms. I don't know if that helps us think about the Republic, but it does suggest something about Plato's thinking about Socrates, and about the relationship between his own undertaking in the Republic and that of the poets he imagines Socrates and Glaucon criticizing. Jacques Duvoisin, jaduvoisin@yahoo.mail
