/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19792189]

Quite simply the most retarded shit I have ever read. You would be better off reading Horia Belcea.

>inb4 noooo!!!1! You don't get it. It's an allegory bruh!!!1!
Hard cope. Be honest, you don't even believe this. It's pure, unadulterated copium.

[Anonymous No.19792200]

Stop making low-effort threads

[Anonymous No.19792203]

filtered /t

[Anonymous No.19792208]

>>19792189
Apart from you being filtered, what do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.19792210]

>"people" like OP browse this board

[Anonymous No.19792213]

>>19792189
>>19792208
This, elaborate please OP

[Anonymous No.19792221]

>>19792189
t. poet

[Anonymous No.19792231]

>>19792208
>>19792213
90% of what is written from book II onwards? You have to be insane to take this seriously.

>inb4 you don't get it, when Plato writes that marriages should be arranged by the state, that only the two kinds of music Plato likes should be allowed in education and that laughter should be banned in education, it actually means [ESOTERIC MENTAL GYMNASTICS]

[Anonymous No.19792232]

>>19792189
>brainlet gets frustrated while reading and having to think, his urge to cast judgment starts making his fingers itch
>'cope'
Why, sometimes, it is so abundantly clear that certain people can only think in memes? I can't imagine acting this reactively to Republic. It's a fucking book. Just read it and think about it. Not everything has to amount to a twitter flame war.

[Anonymous No.19792237]

>>19792231
The Republic is effectively the original blue-print for the totalitarian state. All I can say in Plato's defence is that he did not live to see his ideas put into action.

[Anonymous No.19792241]

>>19792231
>I have to agree with every word written by a guy who lived 2000 years ago or im gonna get angry
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19792247]

>>19792232
He isn't wrong though. Plato was the Marx of his day.

[Anonymous No.19792255]

>>19792241
Hard cope.

[Anonymous No.19792260]

>>19792247
>Plato was the Marx of his day.
shit thats pretty good. i dunno. i think he's neat

[Anonymous No.19792262]

>>19792247
Marx is pretty famous for being vague what socialism or communism actually entail. His descriptions don't go to such minutiae as Plato.

[Anonymous No.19792266]

>>19792208
The prose

[Anonymous No.19792268]

>>19792231
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Read this.

[Anonymous No.19792271]

>>19792260
Thanks, brah.

[Anonymous No.19792274]

>>19792266
Kek

[Anonymous No.19792278]

>>19792268
>Socrates spouting ten paragraphs of dogma and his conversation partner saying "yes" is
>a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation

[Anonymous No.19792287]

>>19792278
Yeah, people who unironically praise the use of the dialogue in Plato's works are people who haven't read Plato.

[Anonymous No.19792304]

>>19792237
Retard, the Republic is a psychological work.

[Anonymous No.19792310]

>>19792231
>[ESOTERIC MENTAL GYMNASTICS]
> The Laches is about if kids should learn HEMA.

[Anonymous No.19792311]

>>19792231
Based and correct

[Anonymous No.19792315]

>>19792304
>this shit again

[Anonymous No.19792317]

>>19792287
I agree

[Anonymous No.19792319]

>>19792287
I'm not praising it or otherwise, I'm saying that the dialectical device presents arguments which are not necessarily the argument held by the author.
You don't even know if everything by Socrates in The Republic is what Plato holds.
Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself and have to explain every meaning to every word when there's football to watch. Help yourselves a bit, eh.

[Anonymous No.19792321]

>>19792315
It's not supposed to be an instruction manual

[Anonymous No.19792322]

>>19792304
There's those mental gymnastics...

[Anonymous No.19792338]

>>19792315
>>19792322
And you are still retarded.

[Anonymous No.19792343]

>>19792322
> Everyone disagreeing with me is coping

[Anonymous No.19792347]

>>19792338
Imagine simping for Plato.

[Anonymous No.19792353]

>>19792343

[Anonymous No.19792358]

>>19792322
But why are you trying to read literally someone who very clearly ALWAYS does not expresses himself literally? You are literally choosing to fail reading Plato.

[Anonymous No.19792363]

>>19792343
>this literal instruction manual copying point by point the structure of Spartan society is actually a "psychological work" because... It just is, okay?

[Anonymous No.19792367]

>>19792358
Who the fuck does this 'Plato' think he is? Write plainly you pretentious twat!

[Anonymous No.19792368]

Why are we being raided by anti-Platonists?
Did they get confused with anti-natalism or something?
I should not worry, thus far they've said that they don't like book because book sucks.
Stupid, petulant, toddlers.

[Anonymous No.19792373]

>>19792363
They can't accept the fact the Plato was Greek Hitler.

[Anonymous No.19792377]

>>19792368
A well rehearsed cope, that.

[Anonymous No.19792388]

>Socrates: so by logic this appears to be the state of things, wouldn't you agree
>Thrasymachus: actually Socrates I think that...
>Socrates: YOU ARE A GIGANTIC FAGGOT AND YOU MOTHER SUCKS DONKEY DICK!
>Thrasymachus: yes, of course, how coild it be otherwise?

[Anonymous No.19792401]

>>19792377
No, I'm being serious.
I said:
>they've said that they don't like book because book sucks

I'll stand by this until proven otherwise. I wonder, do you come to this board to make yourself feel less intelligent, is it masochism?

[Anonymous No.19792410]

>>19792401
*sighs*

[Anonymous No.19792416]

>>19792255
How is that cope? You should never read a book and come out affirming every single belief.

[Anonymous No.19792422]

>>19792363
> " [which explicitly and multiple times states this is about the organization of the soul]"
Ftfy

[Anonymous No.19792452]

>>19792422
Absolutely retarded take. Ancient Greeks believe in the correspondence between the microcosmos and the macrocosmos; they believe the perfect society is a reflection of the perfect individual on a bigger scale. This notion survives until the Hellenistic period ("As above, so below" in the Hermerica, for example) and even Plato uses as an example, in this or another book (no, I will not bother to look it up, this load of bullshit is not worth it) the image of a man reading something in big print because he is unable to read the same text in small print. In other words, as you brainlets say

>filtered

[Anonymous No.19792453]

>>19792452
>Hermerica
Hermetica*

[Anonymous No.19792474]

>>19792452
I'd add to this fractals, the electrons circumambulate around the neutron in like manner as the planets around the sun.

[Anonymous No.19792526]

>>19792304
>Joey Salads Republic

[Anonymous No.19792762]

>>19792322
how is it mental gymnastics if Socrates clearly states he is only talking about the state to compare it to the soul over and over again. It's so in your face that you can't even call it allegory

[Anonymous No.19792939]

>>19792189
This book makes Platofags cope so hard that my edition has an introduction that basically says "akshually, it's satire" like the 4chan banner from /pol/. Kek

[Anonymous No.19793017]

The parts where he takes absurd conclusions from seemingly innocuous premises are the best ones. The bad thing is that all arguments are just plain stupid and fallacious

[Anonymous No.19793967]

>>19792231
>>19792237
>>19792315
>>19792322
>>19792363
>>19792452
Book 2 368c-369d
>"It looks to me as though the investigation we are undertaking is no ordinary thing, but one for a man who sees sharply. Since we're not clever men," I said, "in my opinion we should make this kind of investigation of it: if someone had, for example, ordered men who don't see very sharply to read little letters from afar and then someone had the thought that the same letters are somewhere else also, but bigger and in a bigger place, I suppose it would look like a godsend to be able to consider the littler ones after having read these first, if, of course, they do happen to be the same."
>"Most certainly," said Adeimantus. "But, Socrates, what do you notice in the investigation of the just that's like this?"
>"I'll tell you," I said. "There is, we say, justice of one man; and there is, surely, justice of a whole city too?"
>"Certainly," he said.
>"Is a city bigger than one man?"
>"Yes, it is bigger;" he said.
>"So then, perhaps there would be more justice in the bigger and it would be easier to observe closely. If you want, first we'll investigate what justice is like in the cities. Then, we'll also go on to consider it in individuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler?"
>"What you say seems fine to me," he said.
>"If we should watch a city coming into being in speech," I said, "would we also see its justice coming into being, and its injustice?"
>"Probably," he said.
>"When this has been done, can we hope to see what we're looking for more easily?"
>"Far more easily."

Book 9 591d-592b
>"Rather, he looks fixedly at the regime within him," I said, "and guards against upsetting anything in it by the possession of too much or too little substance. In this way, insofar as possible, he governs his additions to, and expenditure of, his substance. "
>"That's quite certain," he said.
>"And, further, with honors too, he looks to the same thing; he will willingly partake of and taste those that he believes will make him better, while those that would overturn his established habit he will flee, in private and in public."
>"Then," he said, "if it's that he cares about, he won't be willing to mind the political things."
>"Yes, by the dog," I said, "he will in his own city, very much so. However, perhaps he won't in his fatherland unless some divine chance coincidentally comes to pass."
>"I understand," he said. "You mean he will in the city whose foundation we have now gone through, the one that has its place in speeches, since I don't suppose it exists anywhere on earth."
>"But in heaven," I said, "perhaps, a pattern is laid up for the man who wants to see and found a city within himself on the basis of what he sees. It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere. For he would mind the things of this city alone, and of no other."
>"That's likely," he said.


>It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere.

[Anonymous No.19793986]

I sense a lot of scared sophists in this thread. It's ok guys, believe whatever you want for whatever reason, children are respectable and they do this all the time

[Anonymous No.19793989]

>>19792237
>Noooo, Plato is Based! we need cuckoldry EU-Canada philosophy

[Anonymous No.19794030]

>>19792278
>>19792287
If you're reading quickly, then it's true that it doesn't often look like there's anything but Socrates and "yes men," and there are translations that admittedly make that worse by just simplifying responses to Socrates or even occasionally removing them. But the Republic is an exceptional example of Socrates having conversations with different varieties of characters. Cephalus laughs off Socrates and leaves to make sacrifices. Polemarchus is the only interlocutor who seems to wholly buy what Socrates argues with him, and even then, at the beginning of book 5 he has a secret conversation with Adeimantus to force Socrates to answer something he was avoiding. Thrasymachus argues forcefully with Socrates until he tires out, and then it's ambiguous whether he agrees with Socrates or not. Cleitophon leaps to Thrasymachus' defense, gets swatted off by Thrasymachus himself, and is the only speaker who leaves the conversation still holding the views he started with. Glaucon and Adeimantus are both differentiated from each other (Glaucon is more experienced in music and math, more interested in luxuries and fancy things, and is the speaker Socrates directs all of the metaphysical tangents to; Adeimantus is more openly a Spartan sympathizer, loves poetry, focuses more seriously on the gods, and is more willing to disagree with Socrates), and it's their combined challenges that force Socrates to take up the city development experiment. Hell, Glaucon hears Socrates initial pitch for a city, calls it a city of pigs for lacking fancy couches and food relishes, and so gets Socrates to introduce the guardians. Almost everyone at the beginning of book 5 pressures Socrates to address something they thought was left out.

Thos is true of the other dialogues as well. Protagoras, Gorgias, Euthydemus, Meno--Socrates gets strong resistance in these, and he doesn't come out having necessarily convinced tje people he talks to.

[Anonymous No.19794181]

>>19794030
Well said, it's hard to actually read these texts (which explains the general lackluster responses and understanding of the other posters)

[Anonymous No.19794231]

God, you would think that OP would be the dumbest faggot in this thread but there are people who unironically think that saying "le republic was a psychological work" invalidates whatever political implications are entailed by Kallipolis. Literally the most sóyest and most inane position one could take, especially outside of academia where faggots can't help but cope whenever their world-views come into friction with their beloved Ancients' views, to whom they've devoted their entire life to studying. You'd think /lit/ of all places would understand this but it seems like the literal pedo-homosexuality of the Greeks is an easier pill to swallow for /lit/ than the Great-Reset tier designs of dear old Socrates and co very obviously and plainly stated in the text. Dumb faggots.

[Anonymous No.19794239]

>>19794231
>book says "we're only looking at cities for reason x"
>book reiterates this at the end, expressly says it doesn't matter if the city exists
>expert /lit poster who didn't read any of it:"u guys gotta stop coping so hard"

[Anonymous No.19794293]

>>19794239
>book sets out to examine justice
>describe justice in terms of people
>interlocutors decide that cities are so perfect an analogy to people that to examine justice could just as well be done in terms of them, and all the better for the demonstration because in terms of scale larger = easier to see.
>book sets out to create a just city
>just city is Great-Reset tier
>it's utopic obviously, but then again the argument is theoretical so it doesn't hinge on a Kallipolis ever existing or having existed.
Oh yeah, but the city was just for illustration guys, don't mind it. All the same though...a philosopher-king would be really amazing, let's encourage this specific-form of government for no reason outlined in this text at all.

[Anonymous No.19794300]

>>19792231
>laughter should be banned in education
Problem?

[Anonymous No.19794310]

>>19794293
>.a philosopher-king would be really amazing
Kings frequently and substantially existed throughout history after and we'll after Plato, and a king is a philosopher king whether their philosophy is good or bad, whether they care or consider or know about philosophy or not

[Anonymous No.19794316]

>>19794310
>and a king is a philosopher king whether their philosophy is good or bad, whether they care or consider or know about philosophy or not
God, please just stop, you have no idea what you're talking about, so stop. Don't know why you accused me of not having read it, just seems like projection now.

[Anonymous No.19794322]

>>19794293
He doesn't say "It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere" because it's theoretical; he says it because the point is the individual soul can use it as a model for ordering oneself justly.

>a philosopher-king would be really amazing, let's encourage this specific-form of government for no reason outlined in this text at all.
It's explicitly called laughable when Socrates introduces the idea, and then he emphasizes how much the philosopher wouldn't want to do it and would have to be unjustly compelled to take the position.

Mind, that whole degeneration of regimes thing that takes up all of books 8 and 9? Happens because Socrates says the perfectly wise guardians (who are chosen for their memory) will inevitably and necessarily forget a mathematical formula for breeding. I.e., he literally says "the perfect regime" will necessarily degenerate.

[Anonymous No.19794339]

>>19792247
Plato is pure soul. Marx is peak soulless. They couldn't be more different.

[Anonymous No.19794361]

>>19794339
this

[Anonymous No.19794406]

>>19794322
>he says it because the point is the individual soul can use it as a model for ordering oneself justly.
Yes...because *the city is just*...you see that right? it's his utopia. You're simply rephrasing what I've just said.
They explicitly state that such cities might not exist but that such an ideal is something we should strive for, since it's approximations do or can exist.

[Anonymous No.19794540]

>>19794316
That was my only response in this thread, I didn't accuse you, tell me what I said that was incorrect please

[Anonymous No.19794593]

>>19793967
This doesn't mean what you think it means, faggot. Again it's not an allegory for the perfect man. It is both the description of the perfect man AND a description of the perfect political system.

[Anonymous No.19794619]

>>19792373
In his political beliefs, he pretty much was. I don't know how this fact isn't obvious to everyone.

[Anonymous No.19794647]

>>19792287
>>19792278
Not that anon and I haven't even finished the republic but isn't most of the book just him saying "yes" to most of the statements put forth?

[Anonymous No.19794809]

Is this the 'classic' that says that the state should own and control reproduction?

[Anonymous No.19795004]

>>19792247
>Marx

If anything, Thrasymachus was the pre-Marx here. The material basis of society (rule by the powerful, for the powerful {the advantage of the stronger}) is reflected in the culture/moral superstructure (justice). This idea struck me the first time I read it- the material basis of his society was naked violence. He's calling out Plato's bourgeois morality basically.

The idea of justice served the winners of violence in ancient Greece like it serves the winners of capital, as Marx might have said somewhere.

[Anonymous No.19795383]

>>19794406
>Yes...because *the city is just*...you see that right? it's his utopia. You're simply rephrasing what I've just said.
You just fucking said he says "It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere" *because* it's "theoretical", and I corrected that reasoning. It's dismissed for the reason given; because it *doesn't matter* if the "utopic" city is ever founded outside of the soul as long as the soul models it. The "justness" of the city can be modeled in soul because the "justness" is in the arrangement of the three parts of soul.

Speaking of utopic, go ahead and cite where Plato says this is his utopia and dream city faggot.

>They explicitly state that such cities might not exist but that such an ideal is something we should strive for, since it's approximations do or can exist.
The "approximation" is *in the fucking soul*, the ideal is *a pattern laid up for the man who wants to see and found a city within himself on the basis of what he sees*, not an actual fucking city.

>>19794593
Lol the book explicitly says otherwise in those passages. The *point* of the city isn't even just to show justice in the soul, *but to answer Glaucon's question of whether the just man gets anything good for being just*, but faggots like you are such incapable readers that Glaucon's challenge is just inexplicably in the book and serves no purpose.

[Anonymous No.19795544]

>>19792247
This borders on blasphemy

[Anonymous No.19795553]

>>19792189
>Most retarded
>Hard cope
>Read this
That's not an argument, why are threads like this allowed?

[Anonymous No.19796050]

>>19794809
Yes, it's the book that makes Platofags cope

[Anonymous No.19796061]

>>19792189
You will come back to plato. The more you read the more you will come to conclusion that plato was right all along.

[Anonymous No.19796163]

Why do Platonists want their imagination to be regarded as absolute truth? What made them so tyrannical and insecure like this?

[Anonymous No.19796192]

Why did Socrates, the inventor of Logos, lend his pen to a Communist.
That's why we can't win.
The guys with true brains are way too kind, too pussified and diplomatic.

[Anonymous No.19796196]

>>19796192
Yeah and the meatheads just blow each other up

[Anonymous No.19796202]

>>19796163
They know Plato is pure copium but they need his illusion in order to avoid suicide. Hence the angry reactions when someone dares to question their incel fantasy.

[Anonymous No.19796203]

>>19796061
About what? All that I know of Plato is where he’s wrong

[Anonymous No.19796207]

>>19796202
I don't think you understand Plato

[Anonymous No.19796208]

>>19796192
>socrates invented a word

[Anonymous No.19796213]

>>19796208
>a concept is a word
Sluurp
>where's my bong at
Sliutp aaaah

[Anonymous No.19796220]

>>19796213
Heraclitus is using the concept of "logos" two hundred years before Socrates. If you think Socrates invented any concept by the name of "logos" you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.19796221]

>>19796202
>They know Plato is pure copium but they need his illusion in order to avoid suicide. Hence the angry reactions when someone dares to question their incel fantasy.

[Anonymous No.19796246]

>>19795004
Good take.

[Anonymous No.19796266]

>>19796220
Who buys his albums?

[Anonymous No.19796271]

>>19792189
>>19792231
>>19792237
>>19792278
>>19792287
>>19792322
>>19792363
>>19792939
>>19793017
>>19794293
>>19794310
>>19792373
>>19794619
>>19794647
>>19794809
>>19796202

[Anonymous No.19796287]

>>19792231
>[ESOTERIC MENTAL GYMNASTICS]
Damn, I wonder why LITERALLY THE WORLDS GREATEST IRONIST would first say that the proper role of the philosopher is to contemplate the ideas, then say that justice is everyone fulfulling their role and only their role, and THEN go into hilarious and painstaking detail about how philosopher's should fill the role of the sex lottery arrangers, border guards, music teachers, and otherwise control all minutiae of citizens lives - I wonder what that conjunction of facts could mean.

I swear to God Plato could have a disclaimer in his introduction saying every ironic sentence will be written in red ink, then written every ironic sentence in red ink, and you retards would still not be able to pick out the irony.

[Anonymous No.19796298]

>>19796163
2+2 is 4 bitch, deal with the tyranny of absolute apodicticity and irrefutable enlightenment blasting you so hard in the face that it blinds you

[Anonymous No.19796314]

>>19796298
2, + and 4 are just symbols in your psyche

[Anonymous No.19796325]

>>19796314
no

[Anonymous No.19796350]

>>19796325
Cope

[Anonymous No.19796357]

>>19796287
>LITERALLY THE WORLDS GREATEST IRONIST
lmao, C O P E

[Anonymous No.19796387]

Hahahahahaha If youre not on Socates side iyoyre tranny


Trannies trannies
Mods do something.

[Anonymous No.19796388]

>>19796350
With what?

>>19796357
With what?

[Anonymous No.19796396]

>>19795383
Are you retarded? The statement is a theoretical one, something that doesn't rely on there having been or ever being a real Kallipolis. We say that large bodies like planets tend towards spherical shapes due to the effect of gravity, but this would be true regardless of whether there ever actually existed an actual sphere or not.
>Speaking of utopic, go ahead and cite where Plato says this is his utopia and dream city faggot.
This is literally his perfect conception of a just city you braindead nigger.
>The "approximation" is *in the fucking soul*, the ideal is *a pattern laid up for the man who wants to see and found a city within himself on the basis of what he sees*, not an actual fucking city.
Read Book V again, it is quite clear that the objection is over whether such a city can actually exist, with Socrates holding that approximations of such a city *can* exist (though, again, his model of justice within a city doesn't hinge on whether one actually does or does not).
Why should Socrates' conception of justice within a city be ignored but his wholly analogous conception of justice within the soul be taken seriously? Do you really think Plato just decided to write his psychological treatise in a cryptic political analogy for no reason? Are you retarded?
Seriously, you're a gigantic faggot, brainwashed by academic pansies who can't cope with the fact that Socrates and co. where into designing dystopic hellscape societies.

[Anonymous No.19796411]

>>19796388
With being a Platonist

[Anonymous No.19796425]

>>19796411
I'm not though.

[Anonymous No.19796464]

>>19796425
So you don't want your imagination to be regarded as absolute truth?

[Anonymous No.19796639]

>>19796396
>into designing dystopic hellscape societies.
It was (and wasnt a different time) back then, his thoughts were probably pressured by the very real existential threats of surrounding people's attacking and conquering his city, which propelled his ideas of exchanging some of life's possible frivolities in exchange for seriousnesses, maybe

[Anonymous No.19796757]

>>19796357
In the Euthydemus, Socrates tells his friend Crito that they should become students of the sophists Euthydemus and his brother. Guess he really totally meant it, right?

[Anonymous No.19796964]

>>19796396
>Are you retarded? The statement is a theoretical one, something that doesn't rely on there having been or ever being a real Kallipolis. We say that large bodies like planets tend towards spherical shapes due to the effect of gravity, but this would be true regardless of whether there ever actually existed an actual sphere or not.
He's not talking about hypothesized physics chickenfaggot, he's overtly saying it doesn't matter whether the city could exist because the point from book 2 on was the individual soul of the Just Man and whether being Just is for yheir own good. And *again*, that's because from book 2, the point of the city wasn't to found a city, but to answer the question by settling on what Justice itself is.

>This is literally his perfect conception of a just city you braindead nigger.
So you keep asserting without any evidence or citations. Wikipedia isn't evidence, it needs to come from the book itself, and everything points to the perfectly just city as being founded on injustice, and *that Plato knows that*.

>Read Book V again, it is quite clear that the objection is over whether such a city can actually exist, with Socrates holding that approximations of such a city *can* exist (though, again, his model of justice within a city doesn't hinge on whether one actually does or does not).
Citation of where that's the issue. Looking back at book 5, I'm seeing more evidence for my view; Socrates claims the city is *Glaucon's* city at 461e ("So, Glaucon, this or something like it is the way of sharing women and children among the guardians of *your city.*") and 470e ("'What about it, then?' I said. 'Won't the city *you're founding* be Greek?"). Socrates' city (the one he calls "the city in truth") is the city of pigs in book 2.

>Why should Socrates' conception of justice within a city be ignored but his wholly analogous conception of justice within the soul be taken seriously? Do you really think Plato just decided to write his psychological treatise in a cryptic political analogy for no reason? Are you retarded?
How about because it's *what he emphasizes*? From book 5, 462c: "And this [people being able to say "mine" and "not mine] is precisely whichever city is in a condition closest to that of a single human being?" Socrates can return to looking at the individual because the class structure of the city is the pretence used for discovering the tripartite soul.

[Anonymous No.19796978]

>>19796396
>Seriously, you're a gigantic faggot, brainwashed by academic pansies who can't cope with the fact that Socrates and co. where into designing dystopic hellscape societies.
You literally can't accept what's said *on the surface of the text*.

Socrates says the city is improbable? Doesn't mean it.

Says the philosopher doesn't want to rule and has to be compelled? Totally Plato's ideal.

Uses the poets Hesiod for the noble lie and degeneration of regimes and Sophocles for the analysis of tyranny? Nope, he just hates poets.

Bans the form of poetry that most closely resembles the kind of writing of the Republic itself? Just an unnoticed contradiction and overinterpretation.

Socrates says democracy is the only regime whete the conversation in the Republic can take place? Nope, just unqualifiedly hates democracy.

Socrates' city gets rejected? Totally irrelevant, he loves the city he calls the "fevered city".

The Republic makes eros, *the* philosophic passion of soul in Symposium, Phaedrus, Lysis etc., into a mere appetite? Not weird, Plato just changed his mind with no explanation.

Cope, seethe, etc.

[that one capitalist. No.19796992]

>>19792189
you are fucking stupid. fuck sakes.

https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-republic/

[that one capitalist. No.19797000]

>>19792247
fuck off. don't compare plato to braindead marx

[Anonymous No.19797008]

>>19797000
why? Both are important.

[Anonymous No.19797110]

>>19796757
Your comprehension and imagination is rather shallow and limited

[Anonymous No.19797131]

>>19792231
Plato was a proto-commie.
I'm surprised how much Aristotle improved and refined his ideas.

[Anonymous No.19797140]

>>19797110
Lol cope

[Anonymous No.19797145]

>>19797131
America is a mixture of capitalism, socialism and communism

[Anonymous No.19797226]

>>19796978
>Socrates says the city is improbable? >Doesn't mean it.

Something being improbable doesn't mean it isn't worthy of pursuing it's direction, a perfect sphere


>Says the philosopher doesn't want to rule and has to be compelled? Totally >Plato's ideal.
He is rightly or wrongly presuming a true grand and great philosopher would have the best ruling? If that is the case he is saying, the best ruler should be the best ruler, and the best ruler would be the best philosopher


>Bans the form of poetry that most closely resembles the kind of writing of the Republic itself?
>Just an unnoticed contradiction and overinterpretation.

Plato already wrote the suposium and Homer was known, he more or less rightly considered the art of poetry to be completed, it had no more uses.

Then again though when referring to music he mentions some songs would have lyrics, lyrics may as well be poetry, just no more epics


>Socrates says democracy is the only regime whete the conversation in the Republic can take place?
>Nope, just unqualifiedly hates democracy.
People living in an ideal society would have no need for the conversation


Ok so what do you think Plato is trying to say? That democracy is the method of an ideal city (democracy can come to various conclusions on how a city may be ran, ones approaching some listed in descriptions of the ideal city) but an individual would be best to not design their soul on a conception of democracy, but model it after the concept of a theoretically perfect totalitarian city?

That greater freedoms allow for this or that, but he is sneaking in some personal anecdotes and tastes for living that he has learned work better for his own well being? Like only preferring center is ain kinds of music? And not getting carried away with consuming other random people's poetry?

[Anonymous No.19797227]

>>19796964
>He's not talking about hypothesized physics chickenfaggot
Is it really this hard for you to understand an analogy?
Socrates creates a just city to examine justice on a larger scale than the fucking soul, hence Kallipolis IS HIS JUST CITY YOU FUCKING NIGGER FAGGOT. He explicitly sets up a direct analogy between personalities and forms of government, some of which do exist (e.g. timocracy, democracy, tyranny, etc.). It just so happens that his most perfect conception of government doesn't exist but it could and should (according to him) in some approximate form. How are you getting filtered this hard? You're missing the point of the entire thesis of this book.
Again, in Book V. Socrates affirms that such a city can exist in some approximate form and is criticized for the utopic nature of his city in the greatest of the wave's of attack on him
> But still I must say, Socrates, that if you are allowed to go on in this way you will entirely forget the other question which at the commencement of this discussion you thrust aside: --Is such an order of things possible, and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to acknowledge that the plan which you propose, if only feasible, would do all sorts of good to the State. I will add, what you have omitted, that your citizens will be the bravest of warriors, and will never leave their ranks, for they will all know one another, and each will call the other father, brother, son; and if you suppose the women to join their armies, whether in the same rank or in the rear, either as a terror to the enemy, or as auxiliaries in case of need, I know that they will then be absolutely invincible; and there are many domestic tic advantages which might also be mentioned and which I also fully acknowledge: but, as I admit all these advantages and as many more as you please, if only this State of yours were to come into existence, we need say no more about them; assuming then the existence of the State, let us now turn to the question of possibility and ways and means --the rest may be left.
>[...]
>The approximation will be enough.
> We are enquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at these in order that we might judge of our own happiness and unhappiness according to the standard which they exhibited and the degree in which we resembled them, but not with any view of showing that they could exist in fact.
>True, he said.
> Would a painter be any the worse because, after having delineated with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was unable to show that any such man could ever have existed?
> He would be none the worse.
> Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State?
> To be sure.
> And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner described?
> Surely not, he replied.

[Anonymous No.19797362]

>>19797145
Middle school children are not allowed on this board

[Anonymous No.19797397]

>>19796978
Based as fuck post my man.

[Anonymous No.19797403]

>>19797227
Lol quite a bit you left out. Here's the whole passage with citation, and asterics around what I think is pertinent:

More Republic proofs

Book 5, 471c-473a
>"Let it be given," he said. "And this and what went before are fine. But, Socrates, I think that if one were to allow you to speak about this sort of thing, you would never remember what you previously set aside in order to say all this. *Is it possible for this regime to come into being, and how is it ever possible? I see that, if it should come into being, everything would be good for the city in which it came into being.* And I can tell things that you leave out-namely, that they would be best at fighting their enemies too because they would least desert one another, these men who recognize each other as brothers, fathers, and sons and who call upon each other using these names. And if the females join in the campaign too, either stationed in the line itself, or in the rear, to frighten the enemies and in case there should ever be any need of help--l know that with all this they would be unbeatable. And I see all the good things that they would have at home and are left out in your account. Take it that I agree that there would be all these things and countless others if this regime should come into being, and don't talk any more about it; rather, let's now only try to persuade ourselves that it is possible and how it is possible, dismissing all the rest."
>"All of a sudden," I said, "you have, as it were, assaulted my argument, and you have no sympathy for me and my loitering. Perhaps you don't know that when I've hardly escaped the two waves you're now bringing the biggest and most difficult, the third wave. When you see and hear it, you'll be quite sympathetic, recognizing that it was, after all, fitting for me to hesitate and be afraid to speak and undertake to consider so paradoxical an argument."
>"The more you say such things,'" he said, *"the less we'll let you off from telling how it is possible for this regime to come into being.* So speak, and don't waste time."
>"Then," I said, "first it should be recalled that we got to this point while seeking what justice and injustice are like."
>"Yes, it should," he said. "But what of it?"
>"Nothing. But if we find out what justice is like, will we also insist that the just man must not differ at all from justice itself but in every way be such as it is? *Or will we be content if he is nearest to it and participates in it more than the others?"*
>"We'll be content with that," he said.

[CONT.]

[Anonymous No.19797405]

>>19797397
samefag.

[Anonymous No.19797411]

>>19797227
>>19797403
>*"It was, therefore, for the sake of a pattern," I said, "that we were seeking both for what justice by itself is like, and for the perfectly just man, if he should come into being, and what he would be like once come into being;* and, in their turns, for injustice and the most unjust man. Thus, looking off at what their relationships to happiness and its opposite appear to us to be, we would also be compelled to agree in our own cases that the man who is most like them will have the portion most like theirs. *We were not seeking them for the sake of proving that it's possible for these things to come into being."*
>"What you say is true," he said.
>"Do you suppose a painter is any less good who draws a pattern of what the fairest human being would be like and renders everything in the picture adequately, but can't prove that it's also possible that such a man come into being?"
>"No, by Zeus, I don't," he said.
>"Then, what about this? *Weren't we, as we assert, also making a pattern in speech of a good city?"*
>"Certainly."
>"Do you suppose that what we say is any less good *on account of our not being able to prove that it is possible to found a city the same as the one in speech?"
>"Surely not," he said.
>"Well, then, that's the truth of it," I said. "But if then to gratify you I must also strive to prove how and under what condition it would be most possible, grant me the same points again for this proof."
>"What points? .
>"Can anything be done as it is said? Or is it the nature of acting to attain to less truth than speaking, even if someone doesn't think so? Do you agree that it's so or not.
>"I do agree," he said.
>*"Then don't compel me necessarily to present it as coming into being in every way in deed as we described it in speech. But if we are able to find that a city could be governed in a way most closely approximating what has been said: say that we've found the possibility of these things coming into being on which you insist.* Or won't you be content if it turns out this way? I, for my Part, would be content."

[Anonymous No.19797475]

>>19797227
>>19797403
>>19797411
So that approximation you're pointing to, that Socrates says he's content with?

*IT'S THE PATTERN OF THE CITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL'S SOUL.*

The possibility of the city's existence is, as Socrates reminds, irrelevant to the thing sought out in book 2, what justice *is* in the just man's soul and whether it's good for him or makes him happy.

>Is it really this hard for you to understand an analogy?
Lol, real funny coming from the guy who can't grasp the city-soul analogy.

>Socrates creates a just city to examine justice on a larger scale than the fucking soul, hence Kallipolis IS HIS JUST CITY YOU FUCKING NIGGER FAGGOT.
1) No, again as quoted explicitly abbove from book 2, the move from individual to city is *so that* a move back to the individual can be made. That's *explicit*. 2) Lol that doesn't follow as an argument besides. Your quoted passage from book 5 literally says the exact opposite of your point.

>He explicitly sets up a direct analogy between personalities and forms of government, some of which do exist (e.g. timocracy, democracy, tyranny, etc.).
Yes, *because he moves from city to individual soul types*.

>It just so happens that his most perfect conception of government doesn't exist but it could and should (according to him) in some approximate form.
Again, not what he says, not anywhere. What he *does* say is that the individual should order their soul like the city.

>How are you getting filtered this hard? You're missing the point of the entire thesis of this book.
When your big quote says the opposite of what you think, I don't think I'm getting filtered.

[Anonymous No.19797558]

>>19797403
>Lol quite a bit you left out.
Not at all. Here is the text I left out:
> If I loiter for a moment, you instantly make a raid upon me, I said, and have no mercy; I have hardly escaped the first and second waves, and you seem not to be aware that you are now bringing upon me the third, which is the greatest and heaviest. When you have seen and heard the third wave, I think you be more considerate and will acknowledge that some fear and hesitation was natural respecting a proposal so extraordinary as that which I have now to state and investigate.
> The more appeals of this sort which you make, he said, the more determined are we that you shall tell us how such a State is possible: speak out and at once.
> Let me begin by reminding you that we found our way hither in the search after justice and injustice.
> True, he replied; but what of that?
> I was only going to ask whether, if we have discovered them, we are to require that the just man should in nothing fail of absolute justice; or may we be satisfied with an approximation, and the attainment in him of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men?
Not very relevant, except perhaps the last one (although "the approx. is enough" is enough I think). It was omitted for space. The text clearly affirms my position and not yours.
>>19797403
>>19797411
>>19797475
The book is about justice you stupid nigger, not "the soul". He examines justice within people as within cities. The city-personality relation isn't just some useful analogy made up for the sake of demonstration, it's a literal mapping from personalities to states and this is explicit.
The city isn't just some analogy for the soul which demonstrates what is right for the soul, but not necessarily what is right for a state; it necessarily demonstrates both because of the mapping that exist between the two (one is just an upscaled version of the other). Denying that such a city exist does not deny that such a mapping exists, just that the corresponding state for the just soul doesn't exist; indeed, the just soul doesn't have to exist either, because it's simply an ideal. You have to show me where in the text they deny that such a mapping exists. I have already showed you were they set up such a mapping.
Socrates explicitly says that approximations of the just state can exist. How are you getting this filtered.

[Anonymous No.19797594]

>>19797226
>Something being improbable doesn't mean it isn't worthy of pursuing it's direction, a perfect sphere
That's true, but I'd qualify it with what I said to the other anon just above, that what's sought is the soul patterning itself.

>He is rightly or wrongly...
That's true as well. But what I'm pointing to is the inner tension with that idea. Justice in the city is defined two ways: "one man, one job", and "minding one's own business and not being a busybody". The latter definitioncomes from the former. If you take those definitions seriously, then making the philosopher rule has to ignore either principle: the philosopher's "job" is being a philosopher, but they have to take on two, being a philosopher and a ruler. The guardians, in having to compel him, aren't minding their own business. What's more, being a ruler is fundamentally minding the business of others. Therefore, injustice is necessary in having a philosopher king.

>Plato already wrote...
>Then again...
I don't think that's his argument. The argument turns on the education of the guardians, and whether the depictions of the gods in existing poety would accomplish educating guardians the necessary way. Besides that, poetry *is* allowed, and actually even epic poetry (that's the "narrative type" Socrates talks about).

>People living in an ideal society would have no need for the conversation
But see, that would mean destroying the conditions in which the conversation of the Republic could occur. Democracy is by all means a defective regime to Plato, but his problems with it don't get in the way of his recognizing that it has more room for philosophy; Socrates wasn't put to death until he was 70, if he'd been anywhere else doing what he did, he'd have been put down much sooner.

It's maybe worth noting that if what Socrates does (his question-answer style conversations) is part of his philosophizing, it doesn't look like there's room for it in the city of the Republic.

>Ok so what do you think Plato is trying to say?
I think he's showing what the desire for justice is and what its demands are. He spends a lot of energy pointing to Eros as the philosophical passion of soul (Symposium, Phaedrus, Lysis, allusions in Rival Lovers and Theages), but Republic looks at the passion of soul for justice, Thumos. I do think he means what he says when suggests using the city as a model for ruling oneself, but perfectly ruling oneself off the model of what sounds like a totalitarian city is different than demanding the existence of a totalitarian city. Especially when justice is "minding one's own business", which seems to capture Socrates' political activities in a nutshell--you aren't bothering or harming anyone. Plus, it's not as if the "founders" of the city don't know what the old poetry says, they just don't talk about it.

[Anonymous No.19797687]

>>19797558
>Not very relevant, except perhaps the last one (although "the approx. is enough" is enough I think). It was omitted for space. The text clearly affirms my position and not yours.
Lol no it doesn't, get the dicks out of your eyes and read again:

>"But if we find out what justice is like, will we also insist that the just man must not differ at all from justice itself but in every way be such as it is? *Or will we be content if he is nearest to it and participates in it more than the others?"*
WILL WE BE CONTENT IF THE JUST MAN IS NEAREST TO IT?
>*"It was, therefore, for the sake of a pattern," I said, "that we were seeking both for what justice by itself is like, and for the perfectly just man, if he should come into being, and what he would be like once come into being;* and, in their turns, for injustice and the most unjust man. Thus, looking off at what their relationships to happiness and its opposite appear to us to be, we would also be compelled to agree in our own cases that the man who is most like them will have the portion most like theirs. *We were not seeking them for the sake of proving that it's possible for these things to come into being."*
WE'RE LOOKING TO THE PATTERN OF THE CITY *FOR* THE JUST MAN TO PATTERN OFF OF
>"Do you suppose that what we say is any less good *on account of our not being able to prove that it is possible to found a city the same as the one in speech?"
THE ACCOUNT ISN'T LESS GOOD JUST BECAUSE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CITY CAN'T BE PROVEN

As for the "proof" of the possibility of the city at the end of the passage?

>"Can anything be done as it is said? Or is it the nature of acting to attain to less truth than speaking, even if someone doesn't think so? Do you agree that it's so or not."
Followed by the dismissive
>*"Then don't compel me necessarily to present it as coming into being in every way in deed as we described it in speech. But if we are able to find that a city could be governed in a way most closely approximating what has been said: say that we've found the possibility of these things coming into being on which you insist.* Or won't you be content if it turns out this way? I, for my Part, would be content."
NOTE THAT IT'S "*if* we find" CONDITIONAL STATEMENT, I.E., THEY HAVEN'T AS OF THEN

And by the end of book 9 Socrates insists it's irrelevant lol

As for the rest, lol, I never denied the analysis of cities and individuals, I've repeated that over and over, but you keep nigger reading away every explicit passage that the point of the city analysis is *for* souls. Getting assmad and going "nuh uh" isn't going to change that Socrates explicitly introduces the city to look at souls eventually in book 2, that he denies the relevance of the possibility of the city to the inquiry into souls in book 5, and that he reiterates in book 9 that the point is to model the soul off of the city they just described, not to make an actual city or propose actual constitutional changes.

[Anonymous No.19797792]

I haven't read the Republic, but I have a general knowledge of the kind of political organization they are making the case for. Is it reasonable to say that China is turning into the Platonic state? They are banning art considered to misguide youth, place the greatest emphasis on uniformity and loyalty. It can even be said that they are lead by philosophers. Unlike Western leaders, who either only think in economic terms or are just motivated by personal gain, their elite adhers to principles beyond economy, based on a particular philosophy, Marxism.

[Anonymous No.19797818]

>>19797687
Dude, you're braindead, I'm done with you. You can't read and you suck at arguing.
The mapping is reciprocal, hence what makes a just soul is reflected in a just city and vice versa. The mapping isn't just some bloated analogy for the soul, it's an actual relation that is meaningful. The entire point of the detour into discussing the just state was because such a meaningful mapping existed, and because larger=easier to see. The existence of the ideal city or the ideal soul is irrelevant to the fact that such a mapping exists, that there are degrees from the perfectly just to the perfectly injust, and that within the points on this continuum exist personalities and corresponding form of governments (many of which are known to exist, such as Aristocracy). Clearly then Kallipolis is Socrates' ideal absolute state, a form of government that every state should strive to be, just as a Tryannical government is a form which every state should continue to avoid; and that it also has an analogues form within souls.
Denying that Kallipolis exists or can exist does not negate the fact that it Socrates' Utopia. Affirming that the existence or non-existence or plausibility of Kallipolis' existence is irrelevant to Socrates' overall thesis (as I have done about a billion times by now) again does not negate the fact that it Socrates' Utopia. Neither do either of the aforementioned opinions negate the fact that Socrates believed that we should strive for this form of government. That we should strive for this form of government is apparent in the fact that it is the most just state; and as Socrates mentioned, approximations of these absolutes do exist, and Socrates is content with an approximate form of them.

[Anonymous No.19797907]

>>19792189
yeah its a piece of shit

I personally think it was forged by the Medici family during the Renaissance cuz no philosopher would ever write something so stupid

[Anonymous No.19797944]

>>19797818
Lol no one disagreed on the mapping of souls to cities, not at any point. What was at stake the whole goddamn time is whether Plato wanted the city to really exist and whether it's an ideal for him *as a city*. Throughout I've been pointing with many passages that it neither needs to actually exist, nor is it's value to Plato *as a city*, but *as a model for the individual's soul*, which is a world of distance away as a position. You still insist it's *Plato's* ideal when book 5 has Socrates call it *Glaucon's* city, suggesting he's distancing himself from it in light of Glaucon's demands. Hell, you're still ignoring the city that's explicitly Socrates': the city of pigs in book 2.

The Republic isn't just about justice, and cities, but about *whether it's good for the just man to be just*, which is why books 5-7 spend so much time culminating toward the Idea of the Good. And what's at stake in those books isn't just cities, but philosophy, which the demand for justice mutilates into perfect wisdom instead of seeking for wisdom. It's the most consistent thing in Plato's depiction of Socrates that he either claims not to know, or he claims knowledge *only* of erotics; it's all in Symposium 177d, Phaedrus 257a, Lysis 204b-c, and Theages 128b, and his erotic knowledge, as per Symposium, is knowledge of where he's in want of knowledge. The city of the Republic, demanding total wisdom from the philosopher, wouldn't tolerate a Socrates who says:

>“For here is the way it is, not one of the gods philosophizes, any more than he desires to become wise— for he *is*— and whoever else is wise, he does not philosophize either” (Symposium 204a)

Or

>Socrates: If he has composed these things, knowing where the truth lies, and being able to assist, when he goes into refutative examination of the things that he has written about, and has the power, when he himself speaks, to show forth the written things as slight— such a man must not be said to be named after these things, but named after those things that he has taken seriously.
>Phaedrus: What names, then, do you distribute to him?
>Socrates: To call him wise, Phaedrus, to me at least seems to be a big thing and to be fitting for god only. But either philosopher or some such thing would fit him better and would be more harmonious. (Phaedrus 278c-d)

See 492a: the *city* is the greatest sophist, and *it doesn't matter which city*. This is true of the Kalliopolis no less than a democracy or tyranny. Kalliopolis isn't Plato's ideal, *because philosophers want to keep inquiring, not give that up for ruling*.

[Anonymous No.19798051]

>>19797944
And last proof the focus is the soul:

Book 4, 443c-44a:
>"But ***in truth justice was, as it seems, something of this sort; however, not with respect to a man's minding his external business, but with respect to what is within, with respect to what truly concerns him and his own.*** He doesn't let each part in him mind other people's
business or the three classes in the soul meddle with each other, but really sets his own house in good order and rules himself; he arranges himself, becomes his own friend, and harmonizes the three
parts, exactly like three notes in a harmonic scale, lowest, highest and middle. And if there are some other parts in between, he binds them together and becomes entirely one from many, moderate and harmonized. Then, and only then, he acts, if he does act in some
way-either concerning the acquisition of money, or the care of the body, *or something political*, or concerning private contracts. In all these actions he believes and names a just and fine action one that preserves and helps to produce this condition, and wisdom the knowledge that supervises this action; while he believes and names an unjust action one that undoes this condition; and lack of learning, in its turn, the opinion that supervises this action."

[Anonymous No.19798060]

>>19797362
America is a mixture of capitalism, socialism and communism

[Anonymous No.19798534]

>>19797944
How does the bringing up of guardians and breeding practices and guardians and all that relate to the soul?

[Anonymous No.19798571]

>>19798051
>Then, and only then, he acts, if he does act in some
>way-either concerning the acquisition of money, or the care of the body, *or something political*, or concerning private contracts. In all these actions he believes and names a just and fine action one that preserves and helps to produce this condition, and wisdom the knowledge that supervises this action;

But this sort of only personal internal concern does not nessecarily produce justice, a just city outside or the individual, and an increased amount if injustice outside the individual can effect the ease or amount of accessible justice inside the individual?

What you quoted there amounts to: do not consider anyone but yourself, do what you must to aquire money.

He is not concerned with the just city ad a means of maximilizing the amount of citizens that can self achieve their internal justice?

And he does not consider that by individuals only considering their internal justice,will produce the most just city?

[Anonymous No.19799022]

>>19798534
Very good question. There's a few ways in which the guardians are related by analogy to the soul, and then there's a manner in which the breeding program relates.

The guardians 1) are the class of the city that of the soul's virtues represent either Courage or Wisdom (if they're the military guardians or ruling guardians); 2) in the tripartite soul, they're the class that stands in for the faculty of "Spiritedness"/Thumos or "Calculation"/Logismos (same deal between military or ruling); 3) the education of the guardians sets the stage for the later education of the philosopher king (you don't have to necessarily buy whatever Plato says about it, but education always relates to the soul, since it's something in the soul that learns; even gymnastics in the Republic seem to have an effect on the soul).

So the guardians as a class are taken to be directly analogous to two kinds of elements pertaining to soul, and their education pertains to the shaping of soul (which Socrates seems to take to be possible in general).

Now the breeding question is great because it's one of the hardest to imagine elements to square with the "city is an analogy of the soul" reading. First two observations that don't directly get at it the way you're asking for, but which are nonetheless interesting: 1) Socrates *has to be forced* to address breeding at the beginning of book 5; at the end of book 4, the correspondences between the classes of the city to virtues in the soul were found, and he was going to move on to the degeneration of the regimes and the kinds of souls associated with each. So his take on it becomes dependent on what the crowd wants him to fill in. 2) It's in part parodying Aristophanes' comedy Assembly of Women (Aristophanes' Frogs and Birds are also relevant to the Republic as sources of parody).

Now, as it pertains to the soul, breeding is related to Eros, which I belaboured above as the philosophical passion. If Eros almost everywhere else is praised in its philosophical form in Plato, in the Republic it's severely circumscribed, and placed in the Appetitive part of the soul (i.e., it's treated like a mindless appetite like any other). Now, *why* Eros gets reduced is a much bigger question, but in short, breeding of the guardians is analogous in the soul to moderate control of passions, like that for sex, and the communism of women is analogous in the soul to a certain disattachment to people. (Consider Socrates *as a lover* in the Symposium.)

[Anonymous No.19799025]

>>19792189
>i'm so clever for calling 2600 year old wisdom; literally the foundation of modern political philosophy retarded

[Anonymous No.19799122]

>>19798571
>But this sort of only personal internal concern does not nessecarily produce justice, a just city outside or the individual, and an increased amount if injustice outside the individual can effect the ease or amount of accessible justice inside the individual?
Well, how not? He's defined Justice as "minding one's own business"; would the individual acting this way not be doing so?

>What you quoted there amounts to: do not consider anyone but yourself, do what you must to aquire money.
I hadn't taken it that way; does he not say that the just man acts according to what preserves the harmony of the soul? That might sometimes require making money, but also might require sometimes ignoring money if it looks like it'll disrupt the harmony of the soul. It absolutely does look selfish, but there's a long argument to be had over why and whether it's always selfish.

>He is not concerned with the just city ad a means of maximilizing the amount of citizens that can self achieve their internal justice?
I don't think he thinks that's possible, or it's at least implausible. If the account of the soul holds true, then it'd be very difficult to turn every individual towards a just disposition of soul. You'd have to diagnose whether someone has too little calculation or spiritedness and too much appetite, and so on, and then figure out what kind of education or regimen will set them straight, right? The mass education of the city seems to let everyone try and tap out based on how far along they can naturally come without help, but it'd be a lot of work to aim for the highest order of soul for one person, let alone many.

>And he does not consider that by individuals only considering their internal justice,will produce the most just city?
Lol, working that out would give you the funny result that everyone would be a philosopher, and there'd be no one to grow food, make shoes, defend the city, etc.

So the just city as a whole is analogous to the just man, right, because he has his faculties of soul ordered in the proportions of the city's classes? But the only kind of person *in the city* who resembles this would be the philosopher; the justice of a money-maker is different in kind, their justice is not trying to do anyone else's job and staying in their class. This is why the Republic has a paradoxical character to it. The argument (and you can disagree with Plato on it) is that the philosopher turns out to be the only truly just man, the classes just have their class virtue, like moderation, courage, or wisdom. That points to the difference between the just *city* and the just *man*. Plato doesn't seem to think you can have individual class members with just souls, only a just orientation to the other classes.

[Anonymous No.19799268]

>>19799122
>>19799022
Ok very cool thanks. And it is interesting that the concept, justice, is so the main point (though he also goes into the good and all)

Wouldn't one suppose he was so concerned with the city, because it is rare for a man to completely solitarily live, that nessecarily there is a strong relation to the individual and the group?

He found he could not only theorize on the nature of an individuals soul without considering the nature of the organization of city that individual belongs to. As you mention everyone cannot only be a philosopher, and the farmer needs the guardian and the guardian needs the farmer.

So it seems almost unavoidable for Plato if he were interested in the nature of individuals souls to not nessecarily be interested in the nature of the society of souls.

Which leads him to grapple with the methods, the grounds on which to satisfactorily determine what type of society would be best (for who, for how many) to live in. And to prove on an each member of society basis what would be best for an individual (in any society?), In the best possible society.

The best possible society one would think would emptyly a priori tautologically be proclaimed to be the most just, most good society.

Plato had to define most just and most good, and work backwards filling in all the blanks, while considering the needs of different roles of people to fundamentally make, society, and peopleness function.
And function; best. And what are the methods of determining that best.

[Anonymous No.19799286]

>>19792189
why when faggots make boards like this they never elaborate in the og post?

[Anonymous No.19799851]

If the same Plato and Socrates and Aristotle from ancient times were time travelled to today, and given a year to study history and the state of the world, and then a year to have weekly 3 hour long televised debates/speeches with people of their choosing what do you think would happen, what would they conclude? Or if they didn't want to do that, where would each of them try to get a job?

[Anonymous No.19799894]

>>19799268
>So it seems almost unavoidable for Plato if he were interested in the nature of individuals souls to not nessecarily

Typo: individuals souls to *** nessecarily

[Anonymous No.19800071]

One might say, cool beans

[Anonymous No.19800290]

>>19792247
>X was y of Z.
Kys.

[Anonymous No.19800299]

>>19793986
Plato was scared of the sophists. The sophists were never scared of Plato. That's why Plato went out of his way to demonize them. Wise men don't fall victim to philosophers.

[Anonymous No.19800334]

>>19792388
I'd rather read more of this

[Anonymous No.19800365]

The more I read of this thread, the more braincells I lose

[Anonymous No.19801543]

>>19797131
> Any type of communitarianism is "communism" (namely bolshevismus)

American golems and leftists are so fucking retarded.
This is what happens after a century of international judendom. Your judaized minds are completely rotten.

[Anonymous No.19802065]

>>19801543
Nuh uh

[Anonymous No.19802870]

How did Plato argue against might is right? (Against thrasymachus?)Wasn't slavery prevelant, what did Plato say about slavery?

[Anonymous No.19802883]

>>19800365
its not ment to be taken as a bible its ment to be interesting because it's a point of view of the world taken from somone who live thousands of years ago. if you're not enjoying it simply don't read it, perhaps you may enjoy 'the catcher in the rye' or "the adventures of huckleberry fin"

[Anonymous No.19802890]

>>19800365
woops sorry friend, this reply >>19802883
was intended for the OP please forgive me.

[Anonymous No.19803627]

>>19800365
ur mum

[Eman Nep No.19804361]

>>19802870
Anyone? Where are those smart guys from yesterday ?

[Anonymous No.19805349]

Who is the Plato of today?

[Anonymous No.19805418]

>>19805349
me

[Anonymous No.19805703]

>>19794231
What's even more surprisingly is that fucking aristotle(the dude who studies 20 years under plato) took his political ideas at face value and gave criticism of them. Yet these retards regurgitate what some midwits european morons thought what plato was actually trying to say, instead of believing plato/socrates actually wanted to implement such an horrendous idea as aristotle said they did. Heck, plato went THREE times to sicily because he wanted to see if his ideas were feasible, and once he realized how badly he fucked up he wrote the laws, his last reflexions on political theory after this failure

[Anonymous No.19805727]

>>19805703
>Heck, plato went THREE times to sicily because he wanted to see if his ideas were feasible, and once he realized how badly he fucked up he wrote the laws
Yeah, once the faggot 's life was threaten and after he had to be bought out of slavery after he was sold into it by some tyrant who he was trying to mold into a philosopher-king, lmao. Funny how these retards are just going to conveniently forget about this little episode, lololol.

[Anonymous No.19805743]

>>19792231
Based. Plato is an overrated hack

[Anonymous No.19806270]

>>19792231
>>19792247
>>19792322
>>19792315
>>19792363
>>19794231
>>19794293
you people make me feel so good about myself, you have no idea.
if you guys actually read the republic, then just fucking lol.

[Anonymous No.19806272]

>>19792189
Filtered hard

[Anonymous No.19806764]

>>19792189
Based

[Anonymous No.19806919]

>>19792189
>getting filtered this hard
>by the republic of all things
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.19807145]

Plato turns out to be incredible filter for those who believe that reality is not real and those who aren’t retarded. Plato was an absolute hack, Socrates was the man of merit. People who take take Plato seriously as a human being are fucking retards. Plato was indeed a retard as OP claims. The republic offers great ideas as well as terrible ones.

If I put a bunch of words in the mouth of my dead friend and mentor then people would be rightfully disgusted.

[Anonymous No.19807150]

>>19806270
> t. filtered

[Anonymous No.19807537]

>>19805727
>how these retards are just going to conveniently forget about this little episode,
On their defense the sicily adventure is always, probably on purpose, ignore, and despite we have the seventh letter telling how everything went, people pay no attention to it. It seems people don't want to admit that plato was a very radical proto-facist dude.

[Anonymous No.19807546]

>>19792189
Reminder that Glaucon was right about everything and never refuted.