Plato's Republic PDF

Plato’s Republic The Republic Original name: Politeia, having to do with the polis, we now use the Latin name, res publica Dialogue on Justice ○ What is Justice? (Book I) Many definitions: “speaking the truth and paying one’s debt,” “Giving to each his or her due,” “...

Plato’s Republic The Republic Original name: Politeia, having to do with the polis, we now use the Latin name, res publica Dialogue on Justice ○ What is Justice? (Book I) Many definitions: “speaking the truth and paying one’s debt,” “Giving to each his or her due,” “the interest of the strongest.” Socrates’ claims: “Justice is virtue,” “Justice is stronger than injustice,” “The just person is happy and blessed,” “The just ruler has the good of the ruled in mind not his or her own,” “The just ruler rules unwillingly.” ○ Looking for “Justice” Many things are said to be just (actions, peoples, cities, etc.) Look at a city in the making The Philosopher-King Socrates’ claim (Book V) at 473d-e ○ Perfect society requires that political power be held by philosophers Questions (474b-c) ○ Who are the true philosophers? ○ What differentiates philosophers from other people? ○ Why does this make them fitter to rule the city? We know philosophy is: ○ Desire or love of some kind ○ Object is learning, wisdom, knowledge ○ CURIOSITY Two kinds of lovers of ‘learning’ (475d and 476b) Lovers of the senses Lovers of knowledge Like to see, hear, smell, touch, taste Like to ‘see’ Essences, ‘Definitions’ particular things or ‘Forms’ ○ Beautiful paintings, triangular- ○ Beauty itself, Justice itself, shaped tables, harmonious Harmony itself, Triangularity melodies, just actions, exotic itself countries, spicy meals, etc. ○ Text Philodoxers (480a) ○ (doxa=opinion/belief) Philosophers ○ (sophia=wisdom) True Reality Beyond the Senses Plato thinks that philosophy reveals a realm of comprehensive and unitary hidden truths that go beyond everyday common sense If properly grasped by the philosopher, knowledge of this realm can revolutionize our lives and help us organize our societies for the better The realm of concepts or ideas beyond the senses – The Platonic Forms Eternal Ideas, which never change They are beyond the physical world and not just in human minds, and are known through thought, not sensation Equality, Sameness, Number, Motion, Beauty, Justice, Piety, and (most importantly) Goodness Plato’s Theory of Forms/Ideas What is X? ○ Point at examples (particulars) ○ Provide a definition What makes all of these examples of X (and not Y) Captures all the examples of X and only the examples of X Capture the ESSENCE of X (“one in the many”) Essences (Forms) are what we “think” ○ Particulars are what we see or imagine participate in Particulars instantiate Forms are responsible for cause to be Questions Which side is ‘first’? ○ Forms. Why? ○ How do you know all these different things are triangles? On which side is Reality (True Being, Things that really are)? ○ Forms. Why? ○ Can you destroy triangularity? The Philosopher  Opinion versus Knowledge Particulars Forms Are seen with the senses Are ‘seen’ with the mind Can be this and not this (imperfect) Are Absolute (perfect) Come to be and pass away And Unchanging (eternal) Are things about which there can Are things about which there can only be BELIEF or opinion be KNOWLEDGE Opining (believing) and Knowing are different powers or FACULTIES that relate to different realms (different objects) (477a-478d) ○ Cf. sight and hearing  Everybody else [triangularity] Philosopher Ignorance -------------------- Opinion -------------------- Knowledge Nothing, Many people’s Forms Absence of knowledge conventional views “rolling around” about particulars Opaque Unclear Clearest https://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/10/12/the-allegory-of-the-cave-the-divided-line-the-myth-of-the-sun/ Why is knowledge better than opinion? Knowledge is infallible ○ Cannot turn out to be false Knowing the Form or Definition means ○ Knowing why a particular thing is an X and not a Y (not just being able to identify example) ○ Knowing in what ways a particular thing is deficient The Allegory of the Cave Important point in the story: At each stage, the prisoner takes what he sees to be real (shadow, puppet, etc.) The ascent is a painful journey When he ascends, he is blinded, perplexed, can’t understand the “reality” of what he now sees (515c-d) At each stage, the prisoner understands why the previous stage looked the way it did (516c) When he descends, he is blinded, he can’t distinguish shadows, people laugh at him, say he lost his sight (516e-517a and 517d-e)  Education is not putting knowledge into souls but turning the soul toward “the intelligible Forms” (518c) We are all prisoners looking at shadows of justice or courage, etc. (opinions we get from other people, TV, etc.) We turn around and see just people, courageous actions, we can define what we’ve been told justice is The philosopher is the one who exists the “Cave” (the world) into a higher reality. ○ Interested in Essences or Forms (justice as such, the Definition, not just examples of just acts) The philosopher thinks Justice, Courage, Virtue without relying on images or examples Would Plato Want the Nobel Prize in Physics? ‘Socrates: And if there had been honors, praises, or prizes among them for the one who was sharpest at identifying the shadows as they passed by; and was best able to remember which usually came earlier, which later, and which simultaneously; and who was thus best able to prophesize the future, do you think that our man would desire these rewards or envy those among the prisoners who were honored and held power? Or do you think he would feel with Homer that he would much prefer to "work the earth as a serf for another man, a man without possessions of his own," and go through any sufferings, rather than share their beliefs and live as they do? Glaucon: Yes, I think he would rather suffer anything than live like that.’ 17 Scientific Claims Aren’t Absolute Truths Plato wants absolute truths, truths that are totally independent and never change, are eternal Scientific claims aren’t like that ○ The moon exists ○ A true scientific claim ○ But one day the moon might be destroyed by an asteroid or the expanding sun ○ It also didn’t used to exist ○ “The moon exists” is not an eternal truth ○ Depends on the moon not being hit by an asteroid, having spun off from earth (maybe) Plato isn’t interested in claims that aren’t always true Those are mere opinions The Philosopher-King Remember the three questions ○ Who are the true philosophers? ○ What differentiate philosophers from others? ○ Why are they fitter to rule the State? How many philosophers do we need to rule? ○ Why divide power? Is there a true philosopher? ○ Danger of having a ‘false’ philosopher-king ○ Best regime ideally versus the least worst in reality Relativism vs. Absolutism Relativism: there are no absolute standards (for justice, beauty, or triangularity) there are just our opinions ○ Pros: Don’t have to believe in a non-sensible realm, can believe what you want ○ Cons: Nazis are right if they think genocide is good, if someone says a garbage dump is beautiful they are right, if someone says a square is a triangle they are right (no standard to tell the difference between things absolutely, what people believe is true for them) Absolutism: there are absolute standards (for justice, beauty, or triangularity) so people can be mistaken about these things ○ Pros: Nazis are immoral, even if they won and brainwashed everyone into believing that genocide is good, people who say garbage dumps are beautiful are wrong, people who say triangles are squares are wrong ○ Cons: Can we be sure we have gotten to these absolute standards? What if we are mistaken and force our beliefs on others? Also, there would seem to be nearly or actually infinite essences or true standards for things, but how can that be? Discussion Is Plato right that there are true standards, definitions, of things, that make something just or not just, beautiful or not beautiful? Which in the end is more plausible, absolutism or relativism, when it comes to claims in mathematics, morality, or aesthetics? If there are no true standards, then can we really say anything is just or not, or are we just left with our individual opinions? If we are just left with our individual opinions is this bad or worrying? Plato thinks that scientific claims aren’t really truths, because they aren’t true forever. Is he right to think scientific claims have a lower standing than what (according to Plato) are absolute truths in mathematics, morality, and aesthetics? Is it a problem if our leaders are just forcing their opinions on justice on us, instead of acting based on the real idea of justice? Can we tell who has the real idea of justice? If there is a realm of true ideas or real standards, is it difficult to believe in because we can’t see it? Would this realm have to be infinite to hold all the true ideas and real standards there are? Is that a problem? If we say these ideas exist not on their own, but in the mind of God, does that help?