/lit/ - Literature

I'll show you a real man's balls!

I don't see how it's much relevant for today. Interesting as a historical document, and not much else.

>>3973451
>I don't see how it's much relevant for today. Interesting as a historical document, and not much else.
lol

Was Socrates suggesting a cycle of the polis?

Timocracy-->Oligarchy-->Democracy-->Tyranny

Then repeat?

Seems like the states (and the western world in general) has begun Tyranny mode.

>>3973453

He's right though. It's been so long that even if it was the origin of a lot of novel ideas, it's still been replaced in depth and sophistication by other political theorists and other works.

Besides, almost no one believes that people are inherently suited to different societal castes. Those who do tend to think they'd be the ones ruling.

They wouldn't

>>3973460
>Besides, almost no one believes that people are inherently suited to different societal castes.

You sound like someone who hasn't read or understood the book. Squawking like a parrot.

Socrates says that people prove what societal roles they should undertake. He admits that sometimes better "guardians" are born from merchants than from actual guardians. He calls for the collectivization of parental instruction and education.

I'm kind of against that, as I believe in the nuclear family unit.

Socrates called for a sort of total academic theocracy form cradle to grave. Brave New World actually.

So there you go you falsely posturing hipster who didn't actually read the book.

>>3973473

Fuck off with internet credibility squabbles, no one gives a shit whether you think I've read the book or not.

I didn't say being inherently suited to different castes was solely a matter of birth, now, did I?

Even if you "prove" what role you fit best into, the fundamental ideas of crude castes dividing up roles in society is profoundly ill-conceived.

People are not neat little cogs, to fit into your political machine, autist.

>>3973473
>I believe in the nuclear family unit

>>3973480
Wow, you're quite butthurt that I called you out on your stupidity.

Also

>>3973480
>Even if you "prove" what role you fit best into, the fundamental ideas of crude castes dividing up roles in society is profoundly ill-conceived.

You do realize that that's essentially what society is now (in the west anyway). Elementary school, secondary school, and universities "guide" us into being cogs for the great mechanism that is "the system".

Also
>>3973480
>autist.
Wow, that's a really classy way of defending your lack of education. By clearly outlining what Socrates said in Plato's Republic, this makes me an autist.

hahah bow your head in shame. Oh, and it's too late for you to be all like "lolz I trollz you". You've already passed that point.

>>3973487
Pic related is for you.

>>3973491

Lack of education. That's a good one. You must be a blast at parties.

If you genuinely think that western liberal democratic capitalist states resemble the society laid out in the Republic then I can I suggest you need to lay off the counter-cultural coolaid?

The market system might be inegalitarian, but it's a far cry from from a fucking caste system, and there's a great deal more negative liberty.

Thinking that citizens/society conform to your idea of a clearly understandable system with parts that behave just so is actually pretty autistic, yes. Did you also order your blocks by size and colour as a child?

>>3973460
merchant caste here, anybody who isn't delusional understands that people are suited towards different societal roles

>>3973553

That's about as interesting as saying that people have different skill sets. Obviously they do.

The difference is whether the suitability is determined solely by nature or also the result of circumstances and choice.

It's the difference between: "Welp, I've measured your head and you're clearly a guardian, off you go to become a soldier" and "I'm pretty interested in physical fitness, and I'm attracted to the structure of military life. I think I'll pursue a career as a soldier".

>>3973563
the vast majority of it is determined by nature and circumstances (which are connected to nature. why don't liberals understand this? there is no gene expression without environment. nature=environment.)
and honestly, assigned roles where people actually do useful activities for society sounds better to me than having 70% of the population do useless shit like mcdonalds and kmart work while 2% tries to outjew the rest of the world with finance and marketing tricks and the rest sits at home and jacks off to anime porn.

there is a reason why all of the most successful societies in human history had similar ideas on social organization. it's only in the modern era where we have the insulating factors of technology and material abundance that we can put your childish worldview into action.

>>3973570

Of course nature and circumstance are related, you colossal fool, who said they weren't? It's the interplay between the two that determines the result. Hence, it's stupid to try and herd people into some field based on their innate aptitude. They HAVE no innate aptitude, whether an aptitude emerges or not depends on the myriad vagueries of their circumstance.

So tell me, if this is the case, how exactly do you propose to separate the gold and the silver? Because it's not like people are born with labels stamped on their heads.

Glib question: if these societies were so fucking successful, where are they now? And what metric of success are you even using? Fuck off with your appeal to history.

Jobs at McDonalds and K-Mart exist because there is a demand for those services. The world of finance exists because people want loans for their companies, mortgages for their homes, and growth for the economy at large.

You think people could be doing more useful stuff with their time? Tough shit, you don't get to decide what counts as useful labour and what counts as a waste of time. When people try to do that we get centralised economic planning and we all know how well that works out.

Also your stats are fucking bullshit, it's obvious you pulled them out of your ass.

You exhibit the same defects in your thinking as as all totalitarians. You think if you can just get enough power, enough control, everything will fall into place like clockwork.

Well the world doesn't work like that, you vainglorious idiot.

Plato's Republic was not about the correct form of government. He just used a thought experiment for explain what justice means.

>>3973451
this thread and in particular the arguments in it about the book to me proves the usefulness of the book despite the enormous gap between us and Plato. it also touches upon interpretation of the the text itself. dismissal of the dialogue based on historical relevance already puts limits on what it can possibly teach us. Problem: philosophy, real undogmatic philosophy needs to be taught. this problem is further compounded by the fact Plato has to attempt to do it with books. how does he attempt to reconcile this? by saying different things to different people. some might interpret Socrates' city in speech as serious regime reform while others might use it as an opportunity to philosophize for themselves; to see if his city is possible at all and to look for the reasons if it is shown not to be.

>>3973583
saying different things to different people, this is Plato's real 'caste system' if there is one at all.

>>3973583

Consider though, that almost anything can serve as a jumping off point for a discussion. And indeed, on a board like /lit/, almost anything will.

I don't think this is indicative of the particular relevance of Plato.

>>3973581

So, the best form of government is non-identical with the most just?

Seems odd.

Aristotle > Plato

>>3973587
I said it proved its usefulness, not its relevance. the content of the book spurring on further discussion and arguments; what it was crafted to do.

>>3973600

The issue is its comparative usefulness though. Why should we prefer the Republic to A Theory of Justice, or Anarchy, State, and Utopia when it comes to provoking debate in political philosophy?

>>3973607
The Republic is not about political philosophy. It is about justice.

>>3973614

And you think those two topics aren't intimately related?

>>3973614
if we're being honest, The Republic is about everything

>>3973618
They are different topics.
If you want to cook a meal then a cooking book is more useful for this purpose then a chemistry book.
Does this mean the chemistry book has less value?
No, it doesn't even tough chemistry and cooking are related. For other purpose the chemistry book is more useful.

>>3973629

Oh, it's about the rain that falls onto the cheek of a tearful French lover?

Or the merits of Daylight savings?

What a useless thing to say.

>>3973640
I mean it touches on a vast number of perennial topics in philosophy which makes it a great introductory text as such but if you want to be a pedant then that's fine lol

>>3973643

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

>>3973651
Shut up faggot. No one cares what you think.

>>3973636

Which is fine, except if the cooking of a meal here means the application of justice, then political mechanisms are inevitably a part of making that particular stew.

I don't think the two are are separate as you believe.

>>3973640
what do you expect from someone that nicks himself "blood rainbow"?

>This thread

This is why we can never discuss anything on /lit/.

One person who read the book (OP) tries to discuss it, then a person who vaguely read the wiki article or parrot squawks what his professor said comes in the thread with the ulterior motive of being contrarian regardless of the direction of discussion, prompting other people who vaguely know little about the book to spout bullshit, which then devolves into attacking each other on the basis of semantics.

This is why this place is shit.

I read the book, and it seems to me nobody else has (or if they did, they really didn't understand it).

If you've ever read Quigleys Tragedy and Hope, you can draw a lot of parallels to plato's republic. In Tradgedy and Hope, Quigley attempts to explain the life cycles of civilizations, with many theories that seem to echo Socrates/Plato.

You guys probably wouldn't know anything about that because you guys are a bunch of nincompoops unworthy of associating with or discussing anything. I remember why I don't come here anymore.

>>3973750

>Self important ranting

Then please, by all means, leave.

You will not be missed.

>>3973755
Enjoy the shit pit you are founder and king of.

>>3973760

I shall, thanks.

Still here?

>>3973577
>Of course nature and circumstance are related, you colossal fool, who said they weren't? It's the interplay between the two that determines the result. Hence, it's stupid to try and herd people into some field based on their innate aptitude. They HAVE no innate aptitude, whether an aptitude emerges or not depends on the myriad vagueries of their circumstance.
if all you're going to do is get butthurt and post insults i suggest you return to /b/ or reddit
>So tell me, if this is the case, how exactly do you propose to separate the gold and the silver? Because it's not like people are born with labels stamped on their heads.
i'm not proposing any way. there are plenty that have been successful.
>Glib question: if these societies were so fucking successful, where are they now? And what metric of success are you even using? Fuck off with your appeal to history.
degenerated into modern societies who can create only parrots incapable of thought
>Jobs at McDonalds and K-Mart exist because there is a demand for those services. The world of finance exists because people want loans for their companies, mortgages for their homes, and growth for the economy at large.
strong high school economics understanding of the world. i can't even believe that you would post this. you're messing with me, right?
>You think people could be doing more useful stuff with their time? Tough shit, you don't get to decide what counts as useful labour and what counts as a waste of time. When people try to do that we get centralised economic planning and we all know how well that works out.
actually, i do get to decide on my own aesthetic values. haha. crazy shit.
>You exhibit the same defects in your thinking as as all totalitarians. You think if you can just get enough power, enough control, everything will fall into place like clockwork.
when did i say anything about power? what?

typically example of a modern "intellectual" totally incapable of internal reflection or any real thought. you see somebody who disagrees with you and respond with rage, even though you have no understanding of their position.

>>3973473
> Brave New World actually.
This. I'm reading The Republic right now (book IV right now), and I keep thinking of BNW

>>3973814

Oh do fuck off with your pseudo-intelligent put downs. You're the one who accused me of squawking like a parrot and being a posturing hipster for offering my opinion in a perfectly neutral way, so don't try and take the moral high-ground now you insufferable hypocrite.

I don't insult you because you disagree with me, or because I can't understand the intricate subtleties of your view (such as it is).

I insult you because you write like an arrogant snob. Which is suspect is what you are.

I'm out.

>>3973563


even your straw man un-dos your position. you deride the inevitability of 'castes', then in the same breath elucidate the fundamentals of their genesis.

>>3973894
if you would be so kind as to state my point of view in your own words, i'd greatly appreciate it. if you get anywhere near what i am thinking, i will admit defeat and drop the discussion.

>>3973903

Frankly, there's enough ill will here that I don't trust you not to move the goalposts even if I did get it more or less right. And in any case I've lost my taste for this debate entirely.

You soured the discussion with your slurs and insinuations, just own the result and let the conversation die.

I'm reading it right now and the society Socrates has built honestly sounds terrible. I haven't agreed with anything he's proposed in a while.

Best part of the book so far was when he proved all dogs were philosophers.

>>3973929