/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4941720]

Hi /lit/, I have a question about Book I of The Republic:

1. Good men don't chase money or honor
2. Money and honor cannot induce a good man to rule
3. Therefore, if one is to rule, one must be compelled by something else
4. The compulsion is the penalty of being ruled by an inferior power

If this is so, why then should good men escape office (as Socrates says), rather than seek it? Is it that seeking office is considered morally wrong? Isn't the one who seeks to rule also seeking his own advantage by escaping this penalty? I apologize if this is a basic question: I'm new to this way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.4941761]

bump

[Anonymous No.4941767]

Who cares? All the serious problems of our time, and you're wasting your time with this "conundrum".

[Anonymous No.4941769]

>>4941720
Office confers not only power and prestige but also responsibility of making sure everyone under you is taken care of.
The just man does want does not chase after the power or prestige so office only holds responsibility for him. Responsibility necessary entails supervision and constant hard work. Thus holding office is not desirable for the just man. The only way a just man will come into office is when he sees that no one else is capable of taking on the responsibility.
Now consider the unjust man who chase after power and prestige. The unjust man will do his utmost to hold office for the power it holds not necessarily because of the responsibility it holds. This is the reason why all government will eventually become corrupt unless shit hits the fan and the good men come out.
Also its a good advice to not mention the word "moral" when discussing the republic because the republic defines "justice" without having to appeal to "moral."

[Anonymous No.4941785]

>>4941769
So in the mind of the just man, his sense of duty to justice overcomes his unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility? Thanks for the advice

[Anonymous No.4941818]

>>4941785
Yes. The whole point of the Republic was to define what "Justice" is. And the conclusion was that justice was giving people their due. In the plato's ideal society, people were put in position where they were naturally good at.
In reality, just men will rarely get into office once peace has been restored because the situation is not dire enough for him to take responsibility.

[Anonymous No.4941825]

>>4941818
The conclusion is exactly the definition that Polemarchus offers at the beginning?

[Anonymous No.4941842]

>>4941818
The version I'm reading uses words like "good" and "virtuous", which I read as being moral judgements. Is this incorrect?

[Anonymous No.4941844]

>>4941825
I believe Polemarchus' definition is doing good to friends and harm to enemies, whereas the Socratic definition that emerges is essentially minding your own business and playing your role in the community

[Anonymous No.4941850]

>>4941844
Sorry, I meant the one he provided of Simonides: "That to render to every man what is owing is just"

[Anonymous No.4941855]

Pioneer with the Platonics

[Anonymous No.4941866]

>>4941855
Thanks for your input

[Anonymous No.4941905]

>>4941850
I would say Socrates' definition becomes something different. The Simonides one is similar to both Cephalus and Polemarchus' definitions.. all of them consider justice on the level of individuals.

As long as justice is conceived on the level of individuals, the most virtuous people will never be able or want to rule. So Socrates, while not completely rejecting these definitions, goes beyond them by insisting that justice must be a relation between man and state, not man and man. The city in speech is his way of showing this. If the soul is correctly ordered logos>thumos>eros, and the state is correctly ordered philosophers>soldiers>craftsmen, then justice is the insight of maintaining these orders, or seeing that each must mind his own business.