[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 1.24 MB, 861x624, MOS-Plato.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

3963687

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:31:50 2013 No.3963687 [Reply] [Original]

Man of Steel is a dramatization of The Republic. Young Clark Kent reads The Republic while being bullied by kids from school. The bullies grab Clark from his seat, shove him towards a fence, and taunt him. Clark shows restraint, he doesn't respond to his tormentors, and they back away. The Republic is displayed prominently on the screen during this conflict. By flashing the book so clearly, the filmmakers accomplish two goals. First, it helps answer a nagging question about the origin of Superman's morals; he learned them. The Republic is certainly a book that a smart kid looking for moral guidance would seek out. Second, it acts as a key that uncovers philosophical depth in "just another blockbuster."

Krypton is a corrupted version of the Ideal City. The Rulers have lost sight of the Good (they lack Moderation and destroy the planet by over-using the core), and the Guardians (Zod) are rebelling against the Rulers. The planet blows up not as a tragic accident, but because Krypton's society lacks the virtues that Plato describes.

>>

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:32:50 2013 No.3963688

>>3963687
Now, The Republic isn't just a piece of political writing. The Ideal City is a metaphor for the human soul. Man of Steel works the same way, as Jor-El imprints the Codex into his son. The Codex is Krypton, and Krypton is the Ideal City. Superman has the Ideal City inside himself; he is a perfectly just being. Plato writes that the City is a "city of the mind," an ideal to strive for. Superman is described the same way, as an ideal to strive for. A person who has internalized the lessons of The Republic, who can see the Good perfectly, would look a lot like Superman.

The drama of Man of Steel revolves around Superman choosing between Krypton and Earth. And even though every cell in his body is of Krypton, he chooses Earth, rejecting the literal expression of the City in favor of imperfect Earth.

But why does Superman choose Earth?

>>

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:33:50 2013 No.3963690

>>3963688
Plato wrote about education, especially the education of potential Philosopher Kings. In order to be a good ruler, you had to go through certain trials, and pass them. Superman went through many trials, and he resolved them by sticking to ideals and virtues that he trusted. He will risk being exposed to save a bus full of kids, but not to save his father. Seems like strange logic, but Jonathan Kent made the choice to sacrifice himself, and Superman honored that choice. He goes through growing pains, but generally shows incredible self-restraint. Superman is the embodiment of the Ideal City on many levels. He is Wise, and that means discerning the Good.

So on the one hand, you have half of The Republic: The person who has a soul in the image of the City. Superman.

On the other hand is the political philosophy of The Republic, the literal city. Krypton, in this case.

In Man of Steel, those two halves are pitted against one another, Superman against Krypton, ethical philosophy against political philosophy, soul against city.

>>

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:34:50 2013 No.3963691

>>3963690
Krypton, as discussed before, is corrupt. Superman gives the remnants of Krypton a chance. He walks up to the ship and takes a leap of faith that Zod will keep his word, because he's idealistic and has a strong view of the Good. And because he's wise and discerning, he takes a safety net along (the key). But Zod acts on bad faith, and Superman destroys them.

He destroys them mostly because he sees the corruption. Krypton had bad policies and bad leaders, and Zod overreacted to create more bad policies and bad leaders. Earth may not be a utopia, but to Superman it appeared better than the sick society he sees in Krypton.

On a subtextual level, Man of Steel is a rebuke to the people who take Plato literally as political philosophy, but an endorsement of his ethics. Man of Steel hopes to inspire us not to change our societies, but to change our souls.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:37:51 2013 No.3963692 >Philosophy and Man Of Steel

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:38:51 2013 No.3963697 >Learning morals from a book made over thousands of years ago Nigga should have read something more current. Oh, and developed his analysis on dialectics. 0/10 Clark Kent. Stay on /rk9/ Nice analysis OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:45:50 2013 No.3963702 Interesting OP, I wouldn't have seen it that way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:45:50 2013 No.3963704 gb2 /tv/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:47:50 2013 No.3963709 >>3963704 Worried they'll provide a better discussion than you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:53:50 2013 No.3963719 >>3963697 If you were Superman, what would you read to train your moral compass?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:54:50 2013 No.3963720 >>3963697 >implying Plato isn't still relevant as hell today Stay on /b/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:56:50 2013 No.3963725 >>3963687 >>3963688 >>3963690 >>3963691 10/10 would read again

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 23:57:50 2013 No.3963726 >>3963719 >inb4 DFW

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:00:51 2013 No.3963734 >>3963726 No fucking around, the fate of the world is at stake! We can't have a post-modern, ironic Superman

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:05:50 2013 No.3963741 >>3963719 Stirner

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:06:50 2013 No.3963743 >>3963719 Sagan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:09:50 2013 No.3963745 >>3963743 I like it! Not many authors directly address the ethics of life on an inter-stellar scale

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:11:50 2013 No.3963747 >>3963745 I figured that Supe deals with interplanetary relations, so a humbling take on the measure of our humanity against the vast cosmos would be a good idea.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:12:50 2013 No.3963750 when Superman broke Zod's neck I thought to myself that it was reminiscent of stoicism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:14:50 2013 No.3963754 >>3963750 Including weeping like a child right after?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:17:50 2013 No.3963758 >>3963754 if you don't end every one of your philosophical contemplations that way, you weren't really thinking deep enough.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 00:20:50 2013 No.3963760 File: 134 KB, 500x333, heh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3963758

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 03:20:50 2013 No.3964115

No, actually Krypton wasn't a corrupt version of the ideal city, it was the literal version of it. And the film isn't advocating the political philosophy of The Republic, it's criticizing it.

If you read the book more critically rather than gushing over how good Plato is and how flawless his reasoning is, you'd understand that not only is the ideal city of The Republic undesirable, it's also impossible to sustain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 03:22:51 2013 No.3964122 >>3964115 plato's aware of that, so it's not like it's necessarily a criticism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 03:42:50 2013 No.3964147 10/10 post i like now bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 03:42:50 2013 No.3964148 >Still believing in the inner metaphor of Platos Republic It's just made up. Why can't people realize that it's shit-tier political philosophy written over 2 millennias ago. Also: If anything Man of Steel was a really crappy take on The Republic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:43:50 2013 No.3965034 >>3964148 It is not shit-tier. Either trolling or uneducated. The "Man of Steel" film is a bad take on anything, it revolved around action scenes and CG that they had to do, simply because it wasn't available in the last Super Man films.

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:49:50 2013 No.3965044

>>3963745
>>3963747
It is impossible though that hard ethics will come into play as there are no intelligent life near us.

The vast cosmos is really vast, so it is impossible to interact with whatever life we might find.
I don't mean this as a 'not yet possible', I mean it is physically impossible, if the planet is more than a hundred light years away, it will be very difficult to reach, as it would take over a 100 years to go there. No, we cannot travel with the speed of light. Further more, if we receive info or give info to intelligent life (which is possible) those messages will be hundreds of thousands of years old, or millions or billions, and those very lifeforms might have died away, if their star hasn't collapsed yet.

Besides, any lifeform capable of space travel will have to solve problems of ethics first, and therefore be very civilized.

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 11:04:50 2013 No.3965065

>>3965044
So you'll think there will be a race who never hurts a single organism in the entire universe?

When you step on ant or riddle viruses from your body, are you considering ethics as a part of that act? Do you justify eating meat, or using plastics and oil that sometimes end up in nature and kill of animals?

Because this is exactly how a species that has travelled across the universe to our solar system will see us.

Human will become an exotic meat, the sun will be there next power generator and the earth will perhaps become a "hotel" for tourists.

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 12:13:50 2013 No.3965239

>>3965065
Species capable of space travel must be civilized to do so, and in my eyes civilized means non-barbaric.

Do you think NASA or the international community would be hostile, as a starting point, against foreign lifeforms?

Besides, the popular "utilitarian monster" that you describe is a myth, more intelligent species do not have the same 'right' to eat lesser intelligent species as intelligent species have to eat non-intelligent species.

There is a difference between the relationship between hyper-intelligent species and us, and us and cows. I am aware that this is Sam Harris type of pseudo-philosophy. I must also point to the fact that we humans in general are beginning to treat animals better and better, and a make-shift pointer of the cultural status of a society is how they treat their 'lesser' ones, i.e. animals or outcasts in society.

I can see what you mean though, and I agree with some of it, but I'll have to say again that it is impossible for intelligent lifeforms to enter our vicinity. The distances in the cosmos are astronomical. Their species can evolve over the time it takes move these distances.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 12:16:50 2013 No.3965250 >>3965065 >they hurt organisms like bacteria or non-intelligent animals >they will hurt us as well

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:12:18 2013 No.3965660 >>3963719 Dawkins xD

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:20:50 2013 No.3965680 >>3963719 Marx

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:36:50 2013 No.3965711 >>3965250 Possibly, yeah.

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:40:50 2013 No.3965728

>>3965239
>>3965250
Capitalist interests always win over ethics. Sorry. Whats to say that the spaceship we will meet will be nothing more than the aliens met in A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

Or even a Neumann probe like the one in Oblivion? They need our resources to procreate and continue their travel.

You also assume that you know the end answer to ethics and that its somehow humane. That all the answers to ethics is somehow nicer than what we have now. Civility or Non-Barbarian does not mean lack of violence and it has never been.

Survival always come before others interest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 16:56:51 2013 No.3965864 >>3963719 Sade

>>

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 16:59:50 2013 No.3965867

"

Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation. " - Machiavelli

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 17:02:50 2013 No.3965878 >>3965728 Their survival does not mean our extinction though. It might mean the death of some humans, but so does our survival.