/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3081049]

hey /lit/!

Would any of you men be willing to proofread/critique a first year philosophy essay of mine if I copy pasted it?

thanks

[Anonymous No.3081053]

Go for it, brave one.

[Anonymous No.3081055]

One inevitable criticism of Plato’s Kallipolis, the completely good city, is that the employment of philosophers as the heads of government violates Plato’s principle of specialization. The argument being that: If the very virtue of a philosopher is that his greatest skill lies in the contemplation of the forms, the principle of specialization dictates that said contemplation should occupy the vast majority of his time. That is, ruling people would be a waste of his talents. On its surface, this argument seems sound, following that specialization is simply meant to issue from each individual the products he or she is natured to produce. However, this is actually a pale understanding of the function of the principle of specialization. In this paper I will argue that to leave philosophers to the mere pursuit of the forms rather than engaging them as the rulers of society is an even greater violation of the principle of specialization, when the principle is analyzed in its functional context.

[Anonymous No.3081062]

First, I will detail the features of the principle of specialization and explain, with reference to Plato’s description of the virtues in and of Kallipolis, why the principle is the vital underpinning of the city’s justice. Secondly, I will discuss why the philosopher is the ideal ruler for the just society. Finally I will argue that, to accord with the key aspects of the principle of specialization, the philosophers must be the rulers of the just society.
The principle of specialization entails that every member of society must perform the task he is naturally suited to perform. The principle is integral to Plato’s notion of perfect justice in Kallipolis. The society in Plato’s description is anchored on a system of mutually dependent roles, each fulfilling and sharing the fruits of its respective labors. The placement of each citizen into his respective role in society is an effort to produce the best possible efficiency and quality of work for society’s use, and consequently establish justice.

[Anonymous No.3081072]

>>3081062
To better understand the importance of the principle of specialization, we should note Plato’s description of the three constituent virtues that together establish the virtue of justice. Plato says that justice in Kallipolis comes from a balance of wisdom, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is found in the ruler caste, which governs the city and judges its courts according to rationality, seeking the benefit of the city as a whole. Courage is found in the auxiliary guardians, who are educated in the matters of what should and should not be feared, come what may in the face of battle. Moderation is found in the pervading and unified beliefs regarding legitimate rule, and an acceptance of the wise rulers’ control over the city’s desires. Each citizen inherits his caste according to the task for which his nature qualifies him. Every caste must know and maintain its rightful place in the hierarchy so that justice can be established. Any attempt of a citizen from the moneymaking caste to flout his specialization and insinuate himself into the guardian class, or of a guardian to enter the ruler class would be of harm to this justice.

[Franz !!8ZELb56UWUx No.3081074]

I had quite a few friend who took a philosophy course their first semester. You know what they did? Had their friends (or their TAs) proofread them.

[Anonymous No.3081075]

The philosophic nature is one that loves wisdom and learning. They seek not only knowledge of crafts and physical pleasures, but of eternal, immutable truths. They do not fear death. They are fast and retentive learners, mentally suited for handling abstract thought. The nature and gifts of the philosophers, provided they are raised appropriately, make them the best possible rulers of society. After years of dedicated training from a young age, philosophers gain intellectual access to the forms–the realm of things as they truly are as opposed to what they appear to be. So, where the uninitiated see mere projections or instantiations of things like beauty and justice in a work of art, let us say, the philosopher understands the eternal and objective natures of these things. The philosopher would rule not according to some opined or self-serving conception of justice or beauty, but according to the objective nature of the things themselves.

[Anonymous No.3081079]

As is the justice in a city fostered by a harmony of its discrete parts (moderation, courage, and wisdom), so too is the justice in a person’s soul. Reasoning that no singular mental drive can seek two conflicting objectives, and that humans do often experience conflicting desires, Plato divides the human soul into its appetitive, spirited, and rational parts. The appetitive part is the one that seeks physical pleasures, desires, and money. The spirited part is concerned with passions, emotions, and garnering honor. The rational part operates only according to reasoned calculation. The rational part serves to moderate the appetitive, using the spirited part to increase its potency when the appetitive part has desires that conflict with rational rule. This phenomenon parallels how the spirited auxiliaries are at their greatest use when they act according to the rule of the rational philosopher king.
The philosopher knows rather than opines what is the truly good way to act, so she never lets her desires or emotions dictate her actions. She knows that acting on these parts of the soul would lead to self-destruction, just as a city ruled by only appetitive and spirited drives would crumble also. Therefore, the philosopher’s soul is in perfect harmony: The rational portion rules over the inevitably present appetitive and spirited portions. This composition and harmony of soul parallels the moderation of the totally just city Plato is building, meaning that the philosopher too is totally just.

[Anonymous No.3081082]

>>3081079
Another inherent characteristic of the philosopher’s nature is that she will not wish to rule people. However, this points to one of the very reasons that she must rule. The philosopher would, admittedly, desire first and foremost to pursue the endless contemplation of forms. Her knowledge of forms liberates her from the desires of attaining wealth and honor. Plato tells us that true rulers do not rule for their own benefit but for that of the citizens. Furthermore, those who practice the craft of ruling do so only on the condition that they either are compensated for their duty with wealth or honor, or are incentivized to rule by some threat of a penalty. Since the philosopher is ambivalent to the pleasures of wealth and honor, she will have to recognize that threat. The penalty is that if she does not rule, the role will be assumed by a ruler who is happy to rule for wealth or honor. She will see ruling not as something enjoyable but as a necessary preventative measure to keep those unworthy rulers out of power. None other than a philosopher can be a true ruler for this reason. Those who wish to rule people for the honor or money that ruling brings are not true rulers. They rule according to the drives of spirit or appetite, rather than of rationality and knowledge of the good and can in no way bring about the rule of harmony and justice that a philosopher would.

[Anonymous No.3081084]

Ultimately, specialization is not mere arbitration. To “do what one is best at” is but one piece of the principle of specialization. In the grand scheme of Plato’s model of Kallipolis, the principle’s goal is to establish justice and harmony by a system of appropriately moderated and definite castes. It must be conceded that, by virtue, a philosopher is one mentally equipped for the purely speculative contemplation of forms, and not one mentally inclined towards the craft of ruling a city. By that token, making a philosopher be king may seem to be a compromise in the principle of specialization. But it is only a compromise in the most superficial sense. For by her function, the true philosopher is not just the most ideal ruler among a handful of other adequate options, but simply the only valid candidate to facilitate the establishment of a totally just society.

[Anonymous No.3081088]

>>3081084
If not the philosophers, should the money-lovers rule? Their irrational, appetitive desires are insatiable without the moderation of rational thought. Perhaps, then, the honor-lovers could rule? Their desire for victory is insatiable in the same way. If these kinds were allowed to rule, the city would be ruled like slaves as if by a tyrant, just as those desire-dominated souls are slaves to their addictions. The principle of specialization entails that the best person for the job must do it, and when it comes to the gravity of rulership, anyone but the best would defeat the purpose of the principle, quash the very goal it seeks to achieve.

[Anonymous No.3081095]

>>3081088
The chief potential power of the rational soul-part is not its ability to ruminate, but to apply its understanding of rationality to the moderation of the lesser soul-parts to create a healthy, happy, and psychologically harmonized human being. This is analogous to the function of a philosopher in her society. We now know, as she would, that justice requires the rule of rationality and that philosophers are the ones for the job.
The specialization of the castes is a construct meant to ensure a state of harmony in society, just as the correct alignment of the soul-parts ensures harmony within the soul. Philosophers, with their meticulously trained understanding of life’s immutable truths, live according to this psychic-harmony wherein rationality rules over the irrational appetitive and spirited parts of the soul. This creates justice. The only way for a society to attain perfect justice is to reflect this composition of parts in every manner of its own composition thereby allowing itself to be guided by rationality, by truth, by a philosopher, specialized to rule.

[Anonymous No.3081102]

>>3081095
Wellp there it is. I don't know. Any feedback is appreciated, even if you're not familiar with the material.

Does everything seem clear and seem to follow a logical pattern? I've been looking at this thing since two in the afternoon and another set of eyes would be useful.

[Anonymous No.3081126]

[Anonymous No.3081127]

A+ for you. C+ for Plato. The "forms." lol.

[Anonymous No.3081132]

>>3081127
Thanks guy!
That helps my confidence immensely.

>>3081074
Unfortunately our T.As are not allowed to look at drafts of our work and I basically wrote the whole thing today because it's due tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.3081145]

what's with all the she's? My professor does this all the time and I don't get it. By the way, you wouldnt happen to be at UBCO would you? I also have a first year philosophy paper due tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.3081165]

>>3081145
Fuckin I don't know haha. Male guilt I guess. I just find easier than saying s/he or they and keeping track of all the pronouns. I'm at university of toronto.

What's yours on and what's the status of it??

[Anonymous No.3081166]

my bachelors is in history, not philosophy, but here's my advice:

In Plato's philosophy, to leave philosophers to the mere pursuit of the forms rather than engaging them as the rulers of society is a great violation of the principle of specialization when the principle is analyzed in its functional context. The inevitable criticism of Plato’s Kallipolis, the completely good city, is that the employment of philosophers as the heads of government violates Plato’s principle of specialization. The argument being that: If the virtue of a philosopher is that his greatest skill lies in the contemplation of the forms, the principle of specialization dictates that said contemplation should occupy the vast majority of his time. Ruling people would be a waste of his talents. On its surface, this argument seems sound, following that specialization is simply meant to issue from each individual the products he or she is natured to produce. However, this is actually a pale understanding of the function of the principle of specialization.

Professors (or the TA's grading the papers in bigger classes) generally want to see the thesis right away, in the first or second sentence of the introductory paragraph. It's tempting to lead up to your thesis as you did but its generally better to just get it out there, and then explain it. It's also redundant to state your thesis in terms of "I'm going to argue this." However, like I said my experience is in history so if your professor told you differently then obviously listen to him.

[Anonymous No.3081179]

>>3081166
Thanks for the feedback brovver! I think you're actually right about the thesis outright thing. I'll try reworking it like you suggest.

I realize the old "i'm gonna argue" thing is an awkward way of stating it but yeah they told us to.