[ 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


View post   

File: 61 KB, 598x598, 1574434474995.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15692592 No.15692592 [Reply] [Original]

So in the Republic, it gets posited that the Unjust man is most in benefit when he appears just, and thus being Unjust is more worthwhile than being Just.

But while this may be convincing, I don't so. Plato/Socrates is arguing for Justice being Valuable in itself, wheres this argument of reputation is presenting a secondary benefit to the act; which would be in the third category of pleasures/acts that Glaucon presents.
So even though they may be correct to state that the added reputation is beneficial, the innate value is what is being discussed, so whether the fact Unjust people exert themselves to appear the most Just out of everyone, the benefits of this deceit are only secondary to the primary benefits, and therefore not the topic of discussion.

Thoughts? I would be interested to see if there were people with opposing thoughts, or just interested in πολιτεια/Republic in general. An actual discussion of the Greeks instead of telling people to read them is far more encouraging toward actually getting them to read them.

>> No.15692618

>>15692592
Sure no you're correct but it doesn't end in justice, because justice is the derivative of something that reputation is here and when ppl disagree on justice it's usually back into the nature of truth.

>> No.15692626

>>15692618
So the benefit of being more just is to be more correct consciously

>> No.15692630

>>15692592
Oh I left a part out. The categories of actions

1) beneficial in themselves, no consequential benefits
2) beneficial in themselves, consequences are beneficial
3) not beneficial, consequences are beneficial

I believe the hinge of Plato's argument is that being unjust is Cat.3, but just is Cat.2

>> No.15692651

>>15692618
>>15692626
I'm not sure I understand your point. that justice is just an expression of Truth? Justice appears to me to be equated with happiness, eudamonia, and that by pursuing the life that provides this in the most net gain is the better one, which is by being correct, and true

>> No.15692653

>>15692592
Speaking of the Republic. Does anyone have the interpretation that Socrate's description of the kallipolis is more of an allegory for the soul itself and what the just should be? I'm not denying that there aren't political undertones or insight to be gleaned from what Plato is saying here, but a lot of it, when taken literally, seems both completely implausible and frankly dystopian. After all, Socrate's goal was to describe the just man, not the just state.

>> No.15692669

>>15692653
I think it can be understood by the cave in which material things did exist but couldn't be ideal

>> No.15692685

>>15692653
He outright says it in the Dialogue, that if they can enlarge the individual, to a state, and discuss them such, that having the larger parts makes it more apparent to understand.

So the Philosopher kings are the Reason in the Soul
The Soldiers are the Spirit
And the appetite of the soul is represented by the common producers of the state

is this what you wanted?

>> No.15692701

>>15692592
Would recommend reeve's Philospher-Kings, he sets this all out exactly

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d6b5ff86e6c087a92f8f89/t/5913de20ebbd1a46db5894da/1494474345422/Philosopher_Kings__The_Argument_of_Plato__039_s_Republic.pdf

>>15692669
>>15692653
He has a chart on the first page that displays this

>> No.15692707
File: 59 KB, 566x705, PLATON CAVE, LINE, AND SUN.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15692707

>>15692701

>> No.15692718

>>15692701
Good stuff.

>> No.15692720

>>15692651
Whatever justice is a part of I'd argue truth is the foundation for it. Eudamonia, in the greek sense, seems to relativize it. I think 'happiness' is either from Being or its derivative truth

>> No.15692735

>>15692720
I certainly agree on that, I'm still wrapping my head around it, but >>15692707 presents it as the highest seat of pleasure, and justice, as the truth - real knowledge, the forms

>> No.15692750

>>15692592

What about desires >>15692507 brings up overcoming the baser pleasures, and >>15692707 puts the bound cave dwellers down as being food-lovers and whatnot

>> No.15692752

>>15692592
Thrasymachus' argument is it's
>it's just for the weak and inferior to obey the strong and superior
>the strongest are the rulers of society
>the rulers of society can never err because if they did err they would no longer be rulers at the time of their error
>thus justice is following those in charge
It's essentially might makes right and socrates literally never fully answers it. He ultimately just has to resort to "if you do bad things you'll feel bad and other people will want to do bad things to you".

>> No.15692814

>>15692752
And Socrates is right.

>> No.15692857

>>15692752

the entire rest of the dialogue is presenting an alternative view of Justice? He doesn't just brush it off - he repeatedly makes points and arguments towards what would make the Polis more cohesive, for a cohesive polis will be more in the benefit of the ruler. I.e contented citizens are not going to accost the rulers, so the rulers must to a degree act in the benefit of the citizens, but not so much as to make them slovenly.

Justice isn't ONLY following what those in charge say, who Plato eventually established as being Wise and Reason in soul-analogy - but being correct in their ruling. If anything, thrasymachus and socrates agree, but disagree on the fundamentals of what this ruling is. Socrates is correct in saying that, because it's a gaping flaw not only in Thrasymachus's argument, but his conception of justice.

justice is an homoiomerous essential component to happiness, and a cohesive society is the only one possible, for it is analogous to the soul, but a single man expanded into a greater system - which is generally what the Greek believed "man is a political animal"

>> No.15692937

>>15692752
I feel like Socrates answer to Polymarchus near the end of Book 1 sort of covers this when he explains that just men won't treat people badly. You can't, by way of true justice, cause people to become more unjust, and treating them badly will make them unjust. I suppose that applies to any take on justice in which a just person is figured to treat others badly, which may be so in Thrsymachus's argument.

>> No.15692996

>>15692653
>Plato is saying here, but a lot of it, when taken literally, seems both completely implausible and frankly dystopian.
I completely disagree. I can only consider it distopian give outside information and biases, like enlightenment liberalism. I feel its an internaly consistant system based on the logic of causation. Including the idea that moral are causal. He structures everything to decrease unhappyness and increase stability. THe only things objectionable are things that are culturally and subjectively objectionable. If the people who made up the state had no experience of a different societal structure, it would not be considered dystopian in the least. If an alien civilization believed the concept of free will to be repugnent, some conceptions of utopia would be dystopic to them, because they are outside the internal system of that utopia.


Anyways, the entire idea of a dystopia is to show how a utopia could be fawed. even the idea is a post platonic one.

>> No.15693053

bump

>> No.15693089

Lads, I've read the following: Republic, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, and Phaedo. What should my next Plato work be?

>> No.15693349

>>15693089
Timaeus is his metaphysics and worth reading

>> No.15693547

>>15693349
Will I miss out on much of that dialogue if I don't both remembering the things related to the shapes of the elements?

>> No.15695074

>>15693089
Parmenides discusses the forms more directly, that's a good place to go

>> No.15695083

>>15692752
>He ultimately just has to resort to "if you do bad things you'll feel bad and other people will want to do bad things to you".

"Having a disordered soul and mind" is a bit more intense than just "feeling bad."

>> No.15696556

>>15692996
>tfw women train naked with the men
>the best soldiers can kiss anyone in the army
>chad citizens have the sex lottery rigged in their favour so they can breed

>> No.15696838

>>15692592
Why is every single Republic thread about the first two books? Has noone in this God-forsaken subchan progressed further?

>> No.15697045

>>15696838
Stop virtue signalling and actually bring something from the later books up then you fucking subhuman cretin. If I have to read another post from a blueprint mutant like you I'll blow my fucking balls of just by clenching hard enough.
The rest of the Dialogue hinges on the first few books, so it's natural people will want to discuss them more.
Tell me, what's you divine personal interpretation of the Spindle then? What about the psychological categories of Ruler, huh, do you think it's plausible the way they are ranked?
The description of the Tyrant in book IX directly addresses Glaucon's objection from Book II.

One of the conclusions drawn in Book IX is that Justice will not be found in every man, but only in those who are the reason in the polis, the Rulers. And as the Polis is a macrocosm of Psuche, it is under the Reason/Rulers, that the Guardians/spirit, and producers/appetite, are able to engage in Justice. By this argument Socrates actually agrees with Thrasymachus from the first two Books, but establishes that to be a slave and serve your master is only just if you serve reason, or if you are reason and command the slaves. Do you think this is plausible? or will you disappear into the ether, at the beck of your wife's husband wanting his cock polished for tonight's festivities.

>> No.15697407

>>15697045
nigger

>> No.15697518

>>15692592
Is English your second language?

>> No.15697572

>>15696556
Ikr, it’s objectionable based. Only subjective mores induced psychosis could think otherwise.

>> No.15697758

>>15697407
the seething bugman shows his colours

>> No.15697764

>>15697518
No I'm just stupid

>> No.15698442
File: 958 KB, 720x540, UsagiAmi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15698442

Reminder that the Theory of the Forms has NOT been disproven by anyone.

>> No.15698735
File: 32 KB, 410x598, 1587852550571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15698735

>>15698442

>> No.15699286

>>15692592
Justice has no innate value. The consequences of your actions are all that matters. That being said, justness is something you should strive for - so meditate upon what it means to be just.

>>15692653
I think it's certainly interesting to look at the text in this way (or maybe as a teaching exercise more generally). Nonetheless I think Plato had quite literal intentions when discussing the city. Plato's Academy produced a large amount of tyrants within his lifetime.

>>15692752
Correct

>>15698442
How do we gain knowledge of the forms? According to your theory humans exist entirely within space and time, and the forms exist entirely outside space and time. So how do the two actually interact - like when I hear a beautiful passage of music, or study mathematics.

>> No.15700398

>>15695083
It literally isn't socrates is just an autistic drama-queen who exaggerates everything so that the retards he usually talks to turn into yes-men. Meanwhile actual chads like Thrasymachus and Euthyphro btfo his bullshit.

>> No.15700508

>>15692592
I agree with Socrates over Glaucon that justice is valuable in itself. Even if you don't appear just to everyone, if you do what is right then you are living a good life.

>> No.15700535

>>15692752
In Gorgias, Socrates makes a good point that if might makes right then all the most powerful city-states of his time and all the people of the world taken as a whole would support justice. The entire world would be the mightiest group there is and by far the majority support justice. That is the closest at refuting that argument that Socrates gets at, I believe.

>> No.15700574

>>15697045
"Pwned"

>> No.15700596

>>15699286
>I think it's certainly interesting to look at the text in this way (or maybe as a teaching exercise more generally). Nonetheless I think Plato had quite literal intentions when discussing the city. Plato's Academy produced a large amount of tyrants within his lifetime.

People who say it's ONLY an allegory are retards who have never heard of Dion of Syracuse.

>>15700398
Euthyphro didn't know shit. He just wanted to moralfag and send his own dad to prison to please his invisible sky daddy.

>> No.15700630

>>15700596
Euthyphro’s dad killed a slave when he was drunk. However, this was also an acronym to the gods. This was the main reason why he wanted to send him to be executed. Socrates then argued again polytheism with Euthyphro. He explained that if they are multiple gods they would all have their own opinions on what to do with your father. Therefore, a consensus would never reached about what is just and right

>> No.15700638

>>15700630
*an affront to the gods

>> No.15700640

>>15700630
>However, this was also an acronym to the gods.

Acronym?

>> No.15700665

>>15700640
An affront to the gods. Euthphro didn’t want to send his dad to be killed for the slave’s sake but because it displeased the gods. Then the dialogue is Socrates arguing against polytheism and about what is piety.

>> No.15701063

>>15700596
>Euthyphro didn't know shit. He just wanted to moralfag and send his own dad to prison to please his invisible sky daddy.
Yeah its the classic situation
>Based retard- Euthyphro
>Cringe midwit- socrates
>Based high iq- Thrasymachus

>> No.15702123

>>15700574
I'm beyond the threshold of caring whether this is sincere or not. The mere recognition that I have spoken is enough to keep me going, as it means I'm not just screaming into the void

>> No.15702132

>>15699286
>Justice has no Innate value

a bold claim, you disagree with Plato's whole argument?

>> No.15702183

>>15702132
see >>15692752

>> No.15702249

>>15702183
I've seen it, I don't find that response convincing, he purposely simplifies Socrates' argument and then presents thrasymachus's as logic formula to make him the more compelling argument. It is not something I think honest nor dignified. I recognise the position, but you don't defend it beyond misleading discrediting of the opposing side.

While I certainly think thrasymachus presents a reasonable analysis of the polis as a great exploitation machine, Plato certainly presents a ready defence of the fact that it is not sustainable when the citizens are not content. >>15697045 or >>15692857 explain this a little more than here

>> No.15702308
File: 93 KB, 500x647, c276ab71d1052f216669f992d274389b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15702308

>>15700665
Yes and Socrates disproves divine command theory.

>> No.15703474

>>15702308
He doesn't disprove anything, the dialogue literally ends with them going in circles and unable to come to a conclusion

>> No.15703706

>>15692592
https://youtu.be/BDZK9B4Gu6g?t=40

>> No.15704799

>>15703474
Cope. Euthyphro was a fucking moron.

>> No.15705061

>>15703706
Plato was a real life Conan

>> No.15705068

>>15705061
Plato would be Thulsa Doom and his cult while the individualist Conan is Callicles.

>> No.15705120
File: 645 KB, 600x809, 1592661424845.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15705120

>>15705068
regardless, they're all fictional

>> No.15705141

>>15692653
I have a question regarding this. How does one connect lottery dictated orgies and infanticide to making the soul just? As a metaphor, would this mean to only read and listen to people whose opinions are valuable (i.e. the strongest youth in their prime), and to kill any new ideas that don't help us (i.e. kill mint babies)? It seems like too much of a stretch, and unwise. Is Socrates/Plato suggesting we just regurgitate his ideas as infinitum? Fuck Plato man.

>> No.15705171

>>15705141
No, the genetically defected babies should just be aborted or destroyed after birth. Unless you want a nation of 70 IQ spuds.

>> No.15705300

>>15702308
>moral standards are sovereign from god and there is morality without god

Things can be commanded by God because they are morally right without them being sovereign from God. "Positive", or Dialectical, Monism as opposed to "negative", or Salafi, Monism.

>> No.15705321

>>15692592
The challenge that Socrates never manages to successfully beat is this: No one is just voluntarily but only under compulsion. Anyone who can act unjustly and get away with it will do so.

The following fable is told: Gyges found a ring that would make him invisible. As soon as he discovered this, "he lost no time arranging to be one of those making the report to the king. When he got there, he seduced the king's wife, plotted with her against the king, killed him and seized power" (360b)

I laughed like hell the 1st time I read that - surely it wouldn't be that easy, even if you were invisible! But the point is, anyone who has access to such power would not be able to resist abusing it. Just or unjust alike. This is never successfully addressed in the remainder of the dialogue, unless you're willing to accept Plato's speculative psychology.

I suspect Plato recognises this at the end, when he has Socrates bust out the myth of Er, basically saying you'll be punished in the afterlife if you are unjust in this life. I don't buy it.

>>15693089
I recommend Gorgias - this features Callicles, probably the most interesting interlocutor Socrates ever argues against. Also Protagoras, where Socrates meets and disses some of the other leading philosphers of the time.

>> No.15705573

I have almost finished all of his dialogues, and I will definitely read them again. But correct me if I'm wrong - all of his arguments rest upon the premise of his forms and eidos being real. Why is it good to be just? Why, of course because justice in itself is good! But at the same time in Parmenides, he acknowledged that they are virtually can not be known by man. And in the Republic, if I am not mistaken, he said something like that: particular slave is not a slave to all Masters, and a particular master is not master above all slaves; the world of ideas has no power in the world of men, and men have no power over the world of ideas; all ideas manifest themselves in relation to one another in the world of men. So, why apply the rules of the world of ideas to our world? Justice in itself may be inherently good, but it is obvious, that it is merely a construct of the current power base.

>> No.15706586

>>15692653
Marvin Minsky thought so. It's probably why he described the architecture of the brain and nervous system as a "Society of Mind"

>> No.15707160
File: 61 KB, 634x513, 1409996042261_Image_galleryImage_LONDON_MAYOR_Boris_Johnso.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15707160

>>15692653
>he doesnt want to ban flutes

>> No.15707721

>>15704799
What's that tell you about the fact that socrates couldn't destroy him?