/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11373215]

Plato's Republic is actually Satire. Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.11373225]

no

[Anonymous No.11373234]

By viewing it as satirical, it automatically takes a different meaning.

Plato’s messages weren’t amorphous, but his presentation of information allows for different interpretations.

[Anonymous No.11373238]

>reddit.com/r/changemyview
And don't come back, you hear?

[Anonymous No.11373248]

>>11373215

What was he satirizing exactly?

[Anonymous No.11373456]

Why did Plato write his books as if he was Socrates? Why not write them as himself or, even better, simply state his philosophy without this unusual idolisation?

[Anonymous No.11373468]

>>11373456
>simply state his philosophy

That wasn't Plato's goal.

[Anonymous No.11373470]

>>11373456
he was masking his political views esoterically

[Anonymous No.11373678]

>>11373238
This is actually a very good subreddit, a lot of good discussion.

[Anonymous No.11373778]

Plato's Republic is alchemical and mystical.

[Anonymous No.11374203]

Note the similarity between the tripartite division of the soul in Phaedrus and the 3 classes in Republic.

[Anonymous No.11374234]

>>11373215
Not what he said. Ironical != satire.

[Anonymous No.11374282]

>>11373215
It sort of is. A lot of the ideas were at odds with mainstream Athenian thinking. IF Stone points out in the Trial of Socrates that the real reason Socrates had to die was refusing to pay lip service to Athenian democracy.

[Anonymous No.11374295]

life is actually satire, change my mind! Pro tip: you can!

[Anonymous No.11374310]

>>11373215
Is this really why people dislike Strauss? How was he even wrong?

[Anonymous No.11374314]

>>11373678
> This is actually a very good subreddit, a lot of good discussion.

Comedy night on /lit/. Nice!

[Anonymous No.11374324]

>>11373215

I'm not sure I'd call it satire. It's not to be taken at face value, that I am certain of though.

>>11373234

Well certainly, but viewing it as non-satirical (what I specifically mean: taking it at face value) entails aporias all over the place. The book condemns mimesis but is itself explicitly mimetic (it begins with Socrates retelling the events of the day before - something that is then written down by Plato - a copy of a copy). It condemns dramatic characters despite the fact that Thrasymachus is obviously written as a villain. It presents a main doctrine of justice defined by Socrates as every man tending to his own business, which cashes out as the philosopher kings embodying the heart of injustice by tending to all minutiae of daily life, despite their business actually being contemplating the ideas. Eros is denigrated throughout the entire work, from Cephalos' comments on it in the beginning to Socrates identifying it as the primary drive towards tyranny in the end, which is why eros is culled in the state - but we learn from Symposion that Eros is the condition for philosophy, and from the Republic that philosophy is the condition of justice - this justice culls eros, thus culling philosophy, thus undermining itself.

Now all these issues might be taken to be Plato just severely contradicting himself, but if you understand what he thought about positive doctrines presented in writing (his views on this can be gleaned from Phaedrus and the second and seventh letter), you'll probably begin (I do at least) to find it probable that it is a test of his readers. You're supposed to engage Socrates dialectically. It's a didactic text.

>>11373248

Sophists. And in the process, he trolls those of his readers who are lazy. In the seventh letter Plato criticizes Dionysius for writing down metaphysical doctrines, and criticizes the readers of them for being intellectually lazy:

>I know indeed that certain others have written about these same subjects; but what manner of men they are not even themselves know.1 But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark (341b-341d)

[Anonymous No.11374330]

>>11373678
>This is actually a very good subreddit, a lot of good discussion.

[Anonymous No.11374340]

>>11373678
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.11374582]

>>11373215
no its actually sartre

[Anonymous No.11374586]

It's theme towards the individual is completely sound, but it does show fundamental problems in viewing government as a source as morality.

[Anonymous No.11375081]

>>11374324
I like you.

[Anonymous No.11375208]

>>11374324
What an abhorrent post. Every single "contradiction" you pointed out is a result of you not understanding Plato.

[Anonymous No.11375764]

>>11373215
A satire on what?

Do you mean to say Democracy will not birth tyranny in just the manner he mentions? Do you mean Plato's Justice is actually an ironic misnaming - antithetical to its true nature? Is the cave allegory mere jest?

I see how one could view portions of the work, isolated, as satire; however, when The Republic is taken as a comprehensive vision, as it was presented, then such would be nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.11375801]

>>11374324
Although I understand why you've seen it as you have. You've misunderstood Plato a good deal. I'm not sure to what extent, however, and will keep your point of view in mind as I continue with his works.

[Anonymous No.11375807]

>>11373778
Prove this. The text itself only has loose connections to anything mystical and reverse-engineered connections to alchemy - as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.11375818]

>>11374586
Plato has no such view, nor does his work present one. Rather, he views society, or the social environment, as instrumental in the moral development of an individual. In this, he is quite right.

[Anonymous No.11375822]

>>11374324
Although I understand why you've seen it as you have, you've misunderstood Plato a good deal. I'm not sure to what extent, however, and will keep your point of view in mind as I continue with his works.

[Anonymous No.11376309]

>>11375208

Try with a bit more effort. You're not convincing anyone. Why?

>>11375822

>you've misunderstood Plato a good deal.

Do tell me how. Let's make /lit/ great again man.

[Anonymous No.11376311]

Republic Satireposting is just a memetic evolution of The Prince Satireposting

Both are intellectually vacant.

[Sage No.11376323]

You're such a fucking retard, OP

[Anonymous No.11376331]

Plato was a hack.

[Anonymous No.11376335]

>>11373215
>hurrrrr le plato republic is le satire hurr
Just post 'I am a retard and I can't finish a book as short as the republic" next time. It will get your point across quicker

[Anonymous No.11377001]

>>11374324

>actual effortpost that makes thought-provoking points

>>11375208
>>11375822

>smug and self-satisfied non-posts that provide no counterargument or points, in effect nothing but variations of "ackhtually I'm smarter than u"

Is this the reason why /lit/ is dead?

[Anonymous No.11377038]

>>11374324
not all metaphysical doctrines, but only the most important.

[Anonymous No.11377256]

>>11373215
Change mine first.

[Anonymous No.11377302]

>>11373215
Not satire. But Plato isn't really putting forward a theory of forms as the final truth. Nor is the philosopher king supposed to be the perfect government. Plato doesn't ever express his own ideas that's not his groove any more than it was Socrates. Plato is trying to teach his students how to think.

[Anonymous No.11377313]

>>11377001

Probably, but was /lit/ ever vibrant? It has always had snide drivebys. On one hand I don't like the idea of an elitist board of no fun, but on the other I wish most drive-by smug posters were just banned.

[Anonymous No.11377518]

>>11377001
>>11376309
>it presents a main doctrine of justice defined by Socrates as every man tending to his own business, which cashes out as the philosopher kings embodying the heart of injustice by tending to all minutiae of daily life, despite their business actually being contemplating the ideas
>philosopher kings embodying the heart of injustice by tending to all the minutiae of daily life
This is factually incorrect. The ruling class of philosophers is never described as a bureaucratic machine that "tends to all the minutiae of daily life".

The Republic is a thought experiment whose purpose is to define the notion of justice. In order to so, Plato suggests to imagine what would an ideal society look like, because the country is supposed to be analogous to the soul, the only difference being the scale - a country consists of plenty, whereas the soul of one individual. It turns out that justice is achieved only when every part of the whole fulfills the task it is best suited for: the prudent are to rule, the brave are to defend and the moderate are to work. Since a society is supposedly analogous to the soul, this means that the ruling philosopher class corresponds to reason, whereas the irrational but virtuous part of the soul corresponds to the defenders, and finally the irrational and lustful part of the soul corresponds to the working class. Justice is achieved because every part does what it is supposed to do: reason governs the irrational parts of the soul.

What I have just written is very basic and it boggles the mind how someone could fail to understand it. The mistakes you made begin with silly misreading - justice is not the virtue of the ruling class, it is prudence, and justice extends itself to all parts of society when they do what they are meant to. Furthermore, the task of the philosopher class is not only to "contemplate ideas" but to govern others; understanding ideas is what makes them capable to be at the top of the societal ladder.

I will not bother with refuting anything else that you have written, this is more than sufficient.

Finally, two key arguments against the ridiculous idea that Plato's republic is satire (since common sense is enough to convince autistic anglos): 1) Plato himself presents a scenario of a realistically best state, namely the second-best state (second only to the ideal one) in the Laws. 2) Aristotle, while discussing various politeiai in Politics also criticizes Plato, without addressing his work as satire.

[Anonymous No.11377555]

>>11376311
Absolutely not. The Prince interpretations have a lot of sound evidence suggesting satire.

Saying ‘The Republic’ is satire has no intellectual merit, no scholarly tradition stating such, and quite frankly no logical basis. What it does is it shows that people for some reason don’t understand the difference between satire and allegorical writing.

[Anonymous No.11377672]

>>11377518

>This is factually incorrect. The ruling class of philosophers is never described as a bureaucratic machine that "tends to all the minutiae of daily life".

They oversee and direct all aspects of education (412a-c), control the borders and oversee the territory of the state (423b-c), control all minutiae of the sex life of the citizens (459c-460c), etc. etc. etc. I can dig up plenty more examples, I should think, but it's been a while since I've read the Republic. This should suffice to prove that no, I am definitely not factually incorrect. You are.

Your second and third paragraphs don't touch upon the argument. Even granting you all of it, there is still injustice at the heart of justice. This is justice according to Socrates:

>Listen then,” said I, “and learn if there is anything in what I say. For what we laid down in the beginning as a universal requirement when we were founding our city, this I think, or1 some form of this, is justice. And what we did lay down, and often said, you recall, was that each one man must perform one social service in the state for which his nature is best adapted.” “Yes, we said that.” “And again that to do one's own business and not to be a busybody is justice,(433a)

You're honestly going to argue that intervening in education, territorial disputes, sex life, etc. of the citizens is not being a busybody? Bring to mind the apology and ponder the weight of the idea of "not being a busybody". The philosopher king has not one social service, he has many.

>I will not bother with refuting anything else that you have written, this is more than sufficient.

That's borderline intellectually dishonest, because it is most certainly not. Admittedly, the stronger argument is the one concerning the role of eros. The one concerning the aporia of justice depends on whether you accept that one social service can entail every bureaucratic function under the sun, which I guess you can try to defend. The completely unassailable argument is the one concerning the irony of the critique of mimesis, another great example of how the Republic is basically a shitpost, but you didn't even touch upon that. I can extend on that if needed. In unison, all these arguments give a compelling picture perhaps not that the republic is satire (a reservation I made in my first post), but that it most certainly should not be taken at face value.

[Anonymous No.11378094]

>>11377672
The Republic is an attempt at defining the notion of justice. In order to do so, Plato supposes an analogy between the society and the soul. Therefore by answering the question "What is justice in a society?", the question of justice as a virtue of the soul will be resolved as well. Justice is achieved when every piece of the whole does what it is best suited for - the ideal society is ideal because it adheres to this fundamental principle. Due to the analogy with the soul, it is also concluded that justice is achieved only when each part of the soul does what it is supposed to do - the reason governs, and the other two parts obey. This is the essence of the Republic which you seem to completely ignore. Instead, you insist on trivial details. It is completely irrelevant if a sentence in the segment 353a contradicts a sentence in the segment 697b. The meaning/goal/point of the text is what matters, and the meaning/goal/point of the Republic is the definition of justice. The ruling philosopher class represents the virtue of prudence. This is important, whereas all the particular tasks that the philosopher-kings would be engaged in is of secondary, much lesser importance. As I have already said, the meaning of the text is not to provide a detailed portrait of an ideal society, but to describe it as much as possible in order to provide an answer to the main question - what is justice. You can keep hunting particular sentences and claim that they contradict each other, but this is a ridiculously shallow approach, by doing so you keep insisting on trivialities while being completely ignorant of the message that the text actually tries to convey. And to make the situation even worse, on the basis of such trivialities, while completely ignoring the main idea of the text, you try to push your own ludicrous interpretation - that the Republic is satire, or some kind of a didactic text that should be critically approached, critically in terms of hunting down particular sentences that contradict each other. The Republic is simply a book whose main concern is the question of justice. There is a lot of room for fruitful discussion; e.g. is the society analogous to the soul, is happiness achieved by what you are best suited to do, and so on and so forth.

In addition, the only interesting contradiction is Plato's take on art. In the final book he expresses a much more strict attitude and suggests to simply kick all the poets out of the ideal Republic.

I cannot blame you for insisting on the sentence-hunting approach. That is the form of the vast majority of contemporary philosophical papers. It is a shallow, boring and ultimately pointless approach that renders any substantial discussion impossible because it keeps stressing the insignificant details.

[Anonymous No.11378115]

>>11377555
there is no reason at all to believe the Prince is satire
>>11378094
there are no souls

[Anonymous No.11378226]

>>11378115
T. A naturalist ape

[Anonymous No.11378259]

>>11373456
>even better, simply state his philosophy
No one knows why he wrote the way he did.
The form he chose unmasks not only the truth, but the way it is reached or, in some cases, not reached.
The way to the truth is important in the books aswell as the truth.

[Anonymous No.11378263]

>>11378094

>hunting contradictions in the text of a man whose primary method is dialectical and based on extrapolating implicit contradictions in positive doctrines by hunting for them is shallow, boring and misses the point

Sure buddy, whatever. You just repeated yourself instead of engaging any of the points, and added some insults. You're the sophist he is denigrating in the seventh letter and you're a very poor conversational partner.

>The ruling philosopher class represents the virtue of prudence. This is important, whereas all the particular tasks that the philosopher-kings would be engaged in is of secondary, much lesser importance

So what you're basically saying is that whatever supports your interpretation is important (you've given no textual evidence - is textual evidence shallow and boring?) and whatever speaks against it is unimportant. What a great counterargument to my carefully thought out post! I guess the reason Plato goes to such great pains detailing the tasks is because it is unimportant. I guess the significance of the definition and cashing out of justice taking the form of a CLASSICAL SOCRATIC APORIA is none whatsoever.

>As I have already said, the meaning of the text is not to provide a detailed portrait of an ideal society, but to describe it as much as possible in order to provide an answer to the main question - what is justice

You sure did. Saying it again without argument does what exactly? And you didn't stop to think that maybe the aporia (which you still haven't engaged with anything close to intellectual honesty, only insults) says something about justice? That maybe the great aporetic writer could have a purpose with his aporias?

>you try to push your own ludicrous interpretation - that the Republic is satire, or some kind of a didactic text that should be critically approached, critically in terms of hunting down particular sentences that contradict each other.

Yeah, you know, sort of like doing philosophy like Socrates - where did I ever get that idea? Besides, my reading is in accordance with the criticism of writing found in the second and seventh letter as well as Phaedrus. Yours is not. Phaedrus explicitly condemns dead, written words (what you seem to want the positive doctrine of justice to be) in favor of dialectics, which is how I'm reading the text.

>I cannot blame you for insisting on the sentence-hunting approach. That is the form of the vast majority of contemporary philosophical papers. It is a shallow, boring and ultimately pointless approach that renders any substantial discussion impossible because it keeps stressing the insignificant details.

I cannot blame you for pushing the wikipedia-interpretation and being incapable of providing a single counterargument or any textual evidence. You're intellectually lazy and dishonest. Read the seventh letter. Plato is literally speaking about how terrible it is when people like YOU, specifically, try philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11378299]

>>11374324
epithymia, not eros, is the "drive" that fosters tyranny.

[Anonymous No.11378300]

>>11378226
im not a naturalist, there are no souls or gods

[Anonymous No.11378311]

>>11378299

>“And is not this analogy,” said I, “the reason why Love has long since been called a tyrant?

Literally says eros in the greek text, 573b.

[Anonymous No.11378445]

>>11377518
>>11378094

>Notice how the pseud's claim that it is factually incorrect that philosopher kings are all-controlling bureaucrats is changed into it being unimportant rather than factually incorrect after being blown the fuck out with citations. This common pseud behaviour is known as moving the goalpost.

[Anonymous No.11378605]

>>11378263
>>11378445
/lit/ is objectively the worst board. Good riddance you imbeciles, I'm not coming back ever again.

[Anonymous No.11378717]

>>11373778
I would argue more that mysticism and alchemy are platonic.

[Anonymous No.11378723]

>>11378605

>the pseud is a cowardly creature. Upon being exposed, it quickly scurries away. This is to the benefit of the entire ecosystem, as the pseud has a tendency to shit up otherwise good boards with its smugly self-satisfied plebeian opinions

[Anonymous No.11378794]

>>11378605
Good.

[Anonymous No.11378851]

>>11374282
>at odds with mainsteam thinking
Yes that is why he was such a big deal m8

[Anonymous No.11378858]

>>11373215
>Satire
Literally how
Thats some mighty wishful thinking
Maybe you're just uncomfortable with his beliefs and have conflicting feelings because he says some things you like and other things you dont?

[Anonymous No.11378867]

>The unjust are now actually just and Thrasymachus was actually right
Big brain nibbas only.

[Anonymous No.11378914]

The Republic is a book about orphism. The selection of aspiring guardians is basically initiation.

[Anonymous No.11378923]

>>11378914
that's just one small part of his just society, how to elect incorruptible leaders and how to practice meritocracy
the republic is about primarily one thing; justice, and by extension how justice would look in practice

[Anonymous No.11379011]

>>11378923
That's what the book looks like to outsiders of the orphic cult.

[Anonymous No.11379140]

>>11379011
You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.11379202]

>>11379140
You won't get accepted by crying and stumping your feet on the floor!

[Anonymous No.11379316]

I still can’t get past the fact that Thrasymachus only lost the argument because he apparently forgot that he defined justice as the interest of the stronger and went along with Socrates’ use of the word “just” to describe a man of virtue. Why should I go on reading with such a major flaw? Please tell me this was addressed by someone else in the dialogue, similar to how Callicles points out Socrates’ tricks in the Gorgias dialogue.

[Anonymous No.11379384]

>>11379316
Literally 3 sentences later Socrates is called out and challenged for playing that trick. Read it you mong.

[Anonymous No.11379540]

>>11377001
I don't think I'm necessarily smarter than that kid at all, it isn't a very useful point of view, but I've been at work all day long. I left shortly after that post. Some of us have responsibilities you know. Now that I'm home the last thing I intend to do is go line by line through the Republic to help a total stranger correct some small misunderstandings he's had. Be realistic. What he should do is merely the same thing I said I would do - keep my possibility in mind during his rereadings that he was mistaken and reread with an open mind. It is quite simple.

[Anonymous No.11379554]

>>11377001
>ackhtually I'm smarter than u

I don't think in those terms, it isn't very useful, but I've been at work all day long. I left shortly after my post. Some of us have responsibilities you know. Now that I'm home the last thing I intend to do is go line by line through the Republic to help a stranger correct some small misunderstandings he's had which have snowballed. Be realistic. What he should do is merely the same thing I said I would do - keep the possibility in mind during his rereadings that he was mistaken and reread with an open mind.

[Anonymous No.11379571]

>>11373215
I think Plato's Republic was both serious and not. There's sections in it when Socrates subtly hints at how ridiculous the city he's inventing is. So I think the best way to put it is to say that the Republic is a sincere description of the form of the city, but a satirical description of actual city planning

[Anonymous No.11379578]

If you can't tell when Plato is being ironic or not you might be autistic

[Anonymous No.11379846]

>>11379571
How is it ridiculous? He clearly says its idealistic and requires a noble lie to make it work
Its hypothetical
Did you speed read?

[Anonymous No.11380533]

>>11378259
Cmon plato had zero (0) charisma or as we would say today " personality" so he aped socrates idgaf self examine let me lead you to water so you can drown your self style.

[Anonymous No.11380568]

Metallic souls exist
Only bronze souls will deny this

[Anonymous No.11380849]

>>11373678
Now this is satire

[Anonymous No.11380869]

>>11377672
>control all minutiae of the sex life of the citizens
I always forget about those parts and it gives me a good chuckle when I remember them.

[Anonymous No.11381187]

>>11379554

>What he should do is merely the same thing I said I would do - keep the possibility in mind during his rereadings that he was mistaken and reread with an open mind.

Well sure, but really, what is the point of claiming that there are small misunderstandings that have snowballed if you're not going to provide any reasoning behind it? It seems a bit hollow to claim that someone has misunderstood something, and then go on to say that you definitely do not have time to explain why. Especially, one should think, if they are small misunderstandings - those should be rather easy to point out. I don't really think it is unrealistic to expect people to be able to back up their claims in literary discussions.

[Anonymous No.11381730]

>>11379578

I don't think that's entirely fair, some of it is pretty subtle.

[Anonymous No.11381832]

Actually, the Organon was satire.

[Anonymous No.11382268]

>read book about Leo Strauss and his theory of esoteric writing
>read his argument that we have been reading The Republic all wrong and that the key is to read it based on Plato's ideas in Phaedrus
>think this would make a pretty good shitpost on /lit/
>proceed
>forget about thread
>two days later
>thread still going
Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.11382322]

>>11373456
My first bet is that Plato used fiction (and Socrates as we know him is a fictional character; we do not know real Socrates) in order to avoid final and concrete statements. In layman's terms, just to have an ability to say "man that's just fiction lmao no need to take it literally".
My second bet is that Plato's dialogues were a part of his "exoteric" teachings. In fact, Plato did not trust in writing (as well as "Socrates") and prefered oral transition of his thought to his students. And these lessons which he gave in Academia were a part of more subtle "esoteric" teaching. In other words, he used dialogues as means to explain his teachings to the external world, to other schools and therefore his dialogues do not require any preliminary platonic education. And Socrates was a well-known character in Athens, so he used the legacy of his teacher to promote his own ideas.
But of course, I might be wrong in both cases.

[Anonymous No.11382473]

[Anonymous No.11383356]

>>11378311
Well, I dont think my point has been countered, really. He does also mention epithymia in that very paragraph, he doesnt say Eros so much as quote it. Also, his idea of epithymia is that it is a multiplicity of desires whereof Eros (now I'm gussing) might be one.
The Republic is not a critique of Eros any more than the Symposium is.

[Anonymous No.11383364]

>>11378914
Well, is that what orphism is? Anything regarding secret knowledge?

[Anonymous No.11383458]

Someone should satirize the Republic

[Anonymous No.11383479]

>>11383458
It would be brave of someone to do that. You know, a new perspective. >>11383458
I wonder why in the world no one has done that.

[Anonymous No.11384036]

Shapirofag