The ideal society is not properly Just in my opinion. If you aren't unfairly biased towards people who pose a threat to the nation (like terrorists) and treat them inhumane compared to the rest of your nation then your nation will fall apart.

Therefore, the ideal society is not really 'just' but is indeed corrupt in order to maintain control over the masses and to ensure peace.

A truly Just society is very horrible, in a truly Just society the clumsy will cut their hand on a loosely guarded blender and we would blame their fallacy for being clumsy rather than the manufacturer for not making it fool-proof as possible.

You gotta learn to punish the tactical thing, not the 'right thing'. Justice is a lie, law and order are not.

Reading Response #5

“ ‘…Choose now for me who in your opinion is first in happiness, and who second, and the others in order, five in all-kingly, timocratic, oligarchic, democratic, tyrannic.’ ‘The choice is easy,’ he said. ‘For, with respect to virtue and vice, and happiness and its opposite, I choose them, like choruses, in the very order in which they came on stage.’ ‘…shall I myself announce that Ariston’s son has decided that the best and most just man is happiest, and he is that man who is kingliest and is king of himself; while the worst and most unjust man is most wretched and he, in his turn, happens to be the one who, being most tyrannic, is most tyrant of himself and of the city?’ (Socrates, 580b-c)

In the above passage, Socrates is in dialogue with Glaucon discussing the nature of the tyrannical man. They are attempting to ascertain whether the tyrannical man, due to previously agreed upon characteristics, can lead a happy life or is bound to a miserable existence. This is in an attempt by Socrates to prove that the unjust life is most unprofitable while the life of the just man is indeed most profitable. Socrates concludes that it is necessary due to ruling that the tyrant becomes envious, faithless, unjust, friendless, impious, and a host of all other vices. Moreover, it is decided that the real tyrant is a slave to himself, flatterer of only the most worthless people, and gets no sense of satisfaction from his/her desires.

Although I largely agree with Socrates’ analysis about the tyrant being internally corrupted, and thus externally displaying symptoms of the unjust “soul”, I do think however there are considerations missing in his analysis that are important to observe. For instance, it is possible for a tyrant to suffer from false beliefs about the nature of his/her leadership, considering himself to be a just King. Additionally, people could be faithful to a false King (tyrant) who also are mistaken about the nature of the tyrant’s leadership. In this scenario, the tyrant would not view himself as unjust but rather a just man full of virtues. In turn, the false King could be happy in modulo delusion, thus undermining the Socrates main conclusion that the tyrant necessarily leads a life devoid of happiness and is least profitable. One example I would give to this effect is that of Hitler and Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Hitler and his men perceived themselves to be carrying out a supreme justice with their “Final Solution” (even though it was anything but justice) and thus viewed themselves to be highly pious, just, all manner of other virtues. An example to support this is the infamous pictures of the Nazi’s smiling amongst each other, Hitler smiling and seemingly with a great sense of pride, and Nazi soldiers appearing happy with their families after returning home from “working” at Holocaust camps during the day. This is evidence that tyrants and the leaders of tyrants are capable of feeling satisfaction (however perverse) when under delusions about their own nature.

Reading Response #3

“It is likely that our rulers will have to use a throng of lies and deception for the benefit of the ruled…Now, it seems it is not the least in marriages and procreations, that this ‘right’ comes into being…there is a need for the best men to have intercourse as often as possible with the best women, and the reverse for the most ordinary men with the most ordinary women; and the offspring of the former must be reared but not that of the others, if the flock is going to be of the most eminent quality. And all this must come to pass without being noticed by anyone except the rulers themselves if the guardians’ herd is to be as free as possible from faction” (Socrates, 459d-e)

In the above passage, Plato’s Socrates is in dialogue with Glaucon and are continuing to talk about aspects of the framework for Socrates’ “ideally just City”. Socrates is addressing the challenge of the second wave brought against him in regards to how to raise children in this society. He had just finished discussing that all women are to belong to all men in common and that no woman is to live privately with a man. Moreover, children will be viewed in common and neither children nor parents will know their own offspring or parents. Socrates explains that this will unite people as to not create faction within the city (due to families not viewing themselves as separate from others families; instead, all as one large family).

Socrates then goes on to state that marriages should be most beneficial in order to be sacred. He then goes on to question Glaucon about the marriages and procreation of hunting dogs and cocks, going on to indicate to Glaucon that with these animals the strongest males and females in their prime are intentionally bred with one another in order to produce the strongest offspring. Socrates then questions Glaucon if it should be the same with all other animals to which Glacuon answers affirmatively. Then, Socrates goes on to conclude that the human species should benefit from and follow the same form of selective breeding. Furthermore, in order to implement this in the City, the Ruling class will have to deceive the Ruled with a multitude of lies so that they are unaware that their children (the Ruled) are not being reared while the Ruling class offspring are. Socrates exclaims that this is all for the benefit of the Ruled (in order to have strong Rulers).

Although I agree with the author that systematic selective breeding (eugenics) would (after X generations) produce stronger offspring however, I disagree with him that this is a sound ethical template for which to structure a society and thus should be jettisoned from the “ideally just City”. First, a serious question arises as to who would be the arbiter of who are considered the “strong” and the “weak” and on what authority does this person decide for others if they should be allowed to reproduce and have their offspring reared (who is one to force another not to do what they otherwise would if unmolested and not hurting another?). Furthermore, there is an assumption in the author’s argument that it is ethically sound (justified) to be breeding other animals based on human preferences and often for humans’ exploitation (i.e. breed a fatter pig for slaughter for greater meat quantity than that of a smaller pig). Finally, Socrates promotes large scale deception in order to trick the Ruled class into compliance with his eugenics program, thus implicitly noting that they would likely reject such a violation of their rights and their children’s rights if made aware of the practice.

Reading Response #4

“’Well then, the study of calculation and geometry and all preparatory education required for dialectic must be put before them as children, and the instruction must not be given the aspect of compulsion to learn.’ ‘Why not?’ ‘Because,’ I said, ‘the free man ought not to learn any study slavishly. Forced labors performed by the body don’t make the body any worse, but no forced study abides in a soul.’ (Socrates, 536d-e)

In the above passage, Socrates is in dialogue with Glaucon explaining the educational program that up-and-coming Philosopher-Kings are to follow within his framework for the ideally just city. Socrates has been discussing with Glaucon what should be included in this plan, and have arrived at the conclusion that calculation, geometry, depth, astronomy and dialectic are to be taught. Socrates explains the importance of the order and manner in which the education is to be taken up with dialectic as the last and most important stage in the four-point process. Socrates explains that this educational program is intended to help a student ascend through the four parts of the divided line, the first part as knowledge, the second thought, third trust, and the fourth as imagination. The first two grouped together are intellection and the last two as opinion. Furthermore, he explains that in this plan, students will be chosen amongst those who show themselves readiest. Socrates then goes on to outline the time line that rising Philosopher-Kings are to go through.

Although I agree with Socrates idea that people ought not to be forced to learn slavishly but rather that students should undergo a “playful” education, one in which students rise based upon their own drive and ambition to learn, there appears to be a tension between this educational program and the first one laid down for the Guardians. The first Guardian education was made compulsory, where this program is made to be free of compulsion, so that students are not forced to learn. Additionally, Socrates recommends for subjects to be studied (such as mathematics) that were not part of the first Guardian education. Furthermore, there appears to be a complication in that both educational programs are intended to occur while the students are children. It was proposed by "X" in class that the first Guardian education is the first round of training (similar to elementary school) that all Guardians attend, and then those most gifted amongst this class go on to the second round of education that is intended for future Philosopher-Kings, while the others go on to become the Auxilaries (warrior class). This is possible, however Socrates uses rather vague language in regards to the age of children within these respective programs and Socrates does not discuss how these two plans correspond with one another (or do not correspond). Socrates should use more precise language to indicate exactly the relationship of these two plans whether the second is a replacement, revision, or addition to the first.

Reading Response #1

“Therefore, Thrasymachus, it is plain by now that no art or kind of rule provides for its own benefit, but as we have been saying all along, it provides for and commands the one who is ruled, considering his advantage-that of the weaker-and not that of the stronger” (Socrates, 347 a).

As the above passage indicates, Socrates contends that a ‘true ruler’ does not consider one’s own advantage but rather that of the one who is under their rule. Socrates arrives at this conclusion by arguing from analogy with the premise that no one wishes to rule voluntarily. In the case of the ruling class, this is evidenced by their demand for wages, suggesting that the benefit from ruling were not for them but for those who are ruled. Socrates goes on to indicate that medical art produces health, house builders’ art houses, and the wage-earners art wages. Each of these practices accomplishes its own work and corresponding benefits. He goes on to question that if pay were not attached, would a craftsmen obtain benefit from the practice? Furthermore, if one works without pay is there any benefit (for the worker) attached to the exercise? Thrasymachus concedes the point to Socrates, who (Socrates) then concludes (on this point) with the quoted passage reproduced above.

I understand what the author is saying here however, I think several notable objections can be made to the argument provided. First, Socrates implicitly assumes (without justification) that workers of a given profession do not gain pleasure (benefit) from the practice itself, irrespective of the earnings attached. For example, is it possible that one who practices the medical art does not only do so to produce health benefits but, instead, enjoys the intellectual challenge and/or other intrinsic elements of the craft itself? In such a case, this would be evidence of a benefit in the absence of payment, invalidating the premise of Socrates argument and thus the conclusion. Another objection that may be made is that of an invalid analogy, in which Socrates compares the metaphorical ‘ruling’ of inanimate objects in practices such as house building and craftsmanship to the ruling of animate objects (i.e. people and other animals (from Thrasymachus’ previous example of Shepards and Sheep)). Is the distinction between inanimate and animate as trivial as to be overlooked (as Socrates seems to have done) or is there a fundamental difference when ruling an animate object as opposed to ‘ruling’ inanimate objects. For one, animate objects (i.e. people) have thoughts, wishes, desires, wants and needs to be considered when being ruled as compared to inanimate objects that do not share these qualities. If a legitimate (and relevant) fundamental difference can be determined between these two states of being than this would invalidate Socrates analogy, and thus the conclusion of his argument under this reasoning.

My argument is not necessarily that the conclusion is false (although I do disagree with Socrates conclusion), rather that his explanation (reasoning) is unsound (not strong). It is my view that Socrates neglected (willfully or otherwise) potential difficulties within his argument in an attempt to persuade the interlocutor of his pre-conceived conclusion. Socrates would likely counter my objections by stating (as he did later) that ‘everyone who knows would choose to be benefitted by another rather than to take the trouble of benefitting another.’ My response to this would be that he would need to provide justification for this statement before moving forward.

The following is a copy of a paper I wrote a couple years ago for a Philosophy course at University centered around The Republic of Plato.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Censorship of the Poets

In this paper, I am going to argue that the systematic censorship of the poets that Plato’s Socrates prescribes for his City in the Republic of Plato is not a just course of action and thus should be jettisoned from his proposal for the ideally just City. In the Republic, Socrates outlines what he believes is appropriate for the young to be told within the framework of his “ideal city”. He reasons that if the young are made aware of the fallibility of the gods and heroes, as depicted by poets such as Homer, than they will inevitably internalize these thoughts and behaviors and believe that it is an acceptable way of being in the world. Socrates rejects first, the notion that the gods are fallible (as promulgated by the poets) and maintains that gods are perfect and thus devoid of any flaws. Second, that it is acceptable for the youth to be “corrupted” by such thoughts/ideas and that a program of systemic censorship should be introduced to combat/eliminate these writings.

The purpose of this program of censorship is aimed at setting the bounds of acceptable thought and behavior in order to most effectively train the young future Guardians to internalize only “true” and good ideas (because they have never been exposed to the bad), which is thought to inevitably lead to proper moral growth. Socrates believes that this is the correct way to raise children that will one day be Guardians so that they will be best suited for their future position. Socrates argues that the good of the city takes precedence over any one individual or class of people within the society and thus justifies the need to very carefully select what the young are exposed to. I will raise several objections to Socrates’ proposal within this paper intended to establish that although I agree with Socrates that censorship, implemented as a means of indoctrination, is likely to produce high levels of conformity, obedience and thus order within the Guardian class, it is in fact not a just scheme as Socrates claims it to be but rather unjust and pernicious to both the individual and society at large. Furthermore, I contend that this holds true for both the practical implementation of such a program as well as the hypothetical ideal scenario. Before I formally explicate my objections, first I must further elaborate on Socrates proposal to censor the poets when they portray the gods and heroes with aspects of ill character.

Socrates discussion regarding censoring the poets begins in Book II of the Republic of Plato with Socrates in dialogue with Adeimantus and extends to Book III (there are ten books in the Republic of Plato). Socrates main aim in the Republic of Plato is to arrive at a satisfactory definition justice and goes about this by endeavoring to construct the “ideally just City” which will then be translated by analogy to internal justice. After constructing the “healthy city”, Socrates is considering what the framework of education for the Guardian class should be for the “feverish city” after Glaucon’s objection that the City should be luxurious (372a-373a, 376e). Socrates separates education into two distinct classes; music and gymnastic. Of these two classes, the program regarding the censorship of the poets is within the domain of musical education.

Socrates begins by posing the salient question if both true and false things are to be taught in the education of the young and discusses how the first thing children are generally taught are the tales that are told to them (which are mostly false/fiction). Socrates explains that a child’s mind is highly plastic and thus vulnerable to internalizing ideas that it is exposed to, a sort of programming of the mind. Due to this fact, he reasons, adults mustn’t allow children to hear just any tales that are constructed but rather to closely supervise the practice and determine which tales are deemed appropriate and which unfit for the eyes and ears.

Socrates discusses the role of poets (and their popular poems) such as Hesiod and Homer and states that they have made many false claims in their works. He goes on to explain that many of traits and deeds attributed to the gods in these poems are not fine and furthermore, even if they were true, should be silenced. Socrates declares that above all it must not be said in the City that gods wage war with other gods, and is critical of Homer for this reason. He proceeds to argue that gods are good, and only good, as well as not the cause of all things and thus have no attachment to the bad. Therefore, the poets who speak of the gods with vices are in fact promulgating lies that can corrupt the impressionable person, particularly youth, because they do not have the capacity to distinguish between allegorical and literal stories. Socrates explains that it is to be known that gods do not lie to nor deceive human beings in any way and thus the poets are not to describe them in any other way.

In Book III, Socrates continues his discussion about censorship with Adeimantus, but now considers how to best rear future Guardians in training to become most courageous. He explains that it is best to teach courage by neglecting stories in which death is feared. It is imperative to get the population to believe that being dead is not a terrible thing and that slavery would be a worse fate. Moreover, terrible names about the afterlife such as ‘those below’, ‘the withered dead’, Styx, and Cocytus are to be avoided because they will inspire fear in the minds of the people who hear them, thus making them afraid of death (387c). Socrates then asserts the importance of omitting the tragic stories about the heroes. He cites Achilles, son of a goddess, in particular as an example of a hero that is not to be spoken of due to his misdeeds and misadventures. Socrates explains that this is of great significance because a decent man looks to such heroes as role models and if such tales are allowed to persist than the young will naturally echo the thoughts and actions of such flawed men.

Socrates turns his attention to the subject of lying, considering if, when, and for whom it may be appropriate. He explains that it is appropriate for the rulers to lie for the benefit of the City, but others are to be restricted from the practice under threat of intense punishment. Socrates further explains that moderation is an important attribute to be encouraged. This would mean being obedient and controlling inner desires such as sex, eating, and drink. Stories that depict lack of moderation should be censored, while those conducive to moderation should be told. Finally, Socrates concludes that if people are allowed exposure to the stories in which gods take part in evil, this will provide a justification for humans taking part in evil. Therefore, it is crucial that people are not allowed to believe such.

Now, I will begin my analysis of Socrates reasoning in regards to his proposal explicated in the previous pages. First, as a preamble, I find it necessary to remark that freedom, by definition, is the ability to act, think or speak as one wants without restraint. Thus, if one intends to force another not to partake in such an ability than the onus is on them (the restrictor) to provide a sufficient justification as to why one should not be allowed to do what they otherwise would when left unhindered. This is to say, freedom should be the default position when considering a matter and the responsibility of justifying one’s position is left on the one who intends to restrict an activity. This is typically a large burden proof to meet, if satisfactory justifications can be met than indeed said activity should be restricted, if not, than one should maintain the default position (freedom). Therefore, the burden of proof lies on Socrates who proposes to limit and control individuals’ freedom within his City. In this text (The Republic), Socrates does indeed give reasoned arguments in favor of censorship in the City for the good of the City at large. I will now explore if his arguments merit sufficient justification for the curtailment of both the individuals and societies freedom, as well as provide for an efficient educational program.

The first important question that Socrates raises is whether false things are to be taught (or spoken of) or rather only true things. At first glance, it may appear odd that one would intentionally teach ideas that are false however, consider the fact that this practice regularly occurs in our own educational system today (that is, teaching what is known to be false or may be false but is not yet known). For instance, in Physics, it is common practice for college students to first be educated in Classical Mechanics (Newtonian Mechanics) even though Newton’s framework has been superseded by Relativity theory and Quantum theory for nearly a century. Moreover, it is generally understood that Relativity and Quantum theory are not absolute truths, and in a very real sense false (just a matter of how many decimal places one is concerned about). Nevertheless, all of these frameworks contain a domain of validity and are thus important information to impart to students, even though they are not in the strictest sense “true”. Furthermore, in other academic subjects as well as Physics, multiple hypotheses are taught about a single topic because a definitive answer is not yet know. But to say something is not completely known is far different from claiming that one knows nothing about a given matter. To say false things are not to be taught but only true things is thus highly restrictive on the educational process and presupposes one has absolute truth about a given subject, which is a very strong claim indeed. Socrates may counter that there are such truths that are absolute (such 2+2=4) and that in these specific areas, it would be folly to teach falsehoods or half-truths, and only the complete truth is to be taught directly. I would counter that it is important to note that even in a subject such as Mathematics where truths can be proven (closest form to absolute truth we possesses), it is still not only truths that are taught to the young (or students of any age). For instance, teachers often intentionally make mistakes (teach falsehoods), or otherwise leave problems for students to independently solve in order to allow students to discover the answer for themselves, even though they will inevitably make mistakes in the process (stumble along falsehoods).

Socrates makes this claim with regard to the nature of the gods as well (that he possess absolute knowledge about them). He declares that gods are good and only good therefore, the poets are propagating lies on their behalf (because they have a different conception of the gods). Socrates would need to give the reader an objective tool (not rhetoric) he/she could use to determine whose conception of the gods (presuming such gods exist) is more correct than the others. In the absence of such a measure, it appears dubious that Socrates views about the gods are any more “true” than Homer’s.

In conclusion, in this paper I have provided an account of Socrates arguments for censorship of the poets presented in the Republic of Plato, as well as several objections I have to challenge the validity of his proposal. First, I have argued why, when considering matters of limiting individuals activities, the default position should be for freedom putting the onus on the restrictor to provide sufficient justification on why an activity should be prohibited. Additionally, I have argued that an educational program within Socrates censorship program would be less than ideal and why teaching only truth is, in my view, not desirable nor feasible. Finally, I have challenged Socrates knowledge about the nature of the gods which is the basis for a substantial portion of his program. Therefore, I submit that although I agree with Socrates that his censorship proposal is likely to yield high levels of conformity, obedience and thus order within the Guardian class, it is in fact not a just, efficient nor desirable scheme as Socrates professes.

Reading Response #2

“…we’ll deny that this is truly told. And we’ll not let our men believe that Achilles-the son of a goddess Peleus, a most moderate man and third from Zeus, Achilles who was reared by the most wise Chiron-was so full of confusion as to contain within himself two diseases that are opposite to one another-illiberty accompanying love of money, on the one hand, and arrogant disdain for gods and human beings, on the other” (Socrates, 391c).

In the above passage, Socrates is outlining what he believes is appropriate for the young to be told within the framework of his “ideal city”. He reasons that if the young are made aware of the fallibility of the gods, as depicted by poets such as Homer, than they will inevitably internalize these thoughts and behaviors and believe that it is an acceptable way of being in the world. Socrates rejects first, the notion that the gods are fallible (as promulgated by the poets) and maintains that gods are perfect and thus devoid of any flaws. Second, that it is acceptable for the youth to be “corrupted” by such thoughts/ideas and that a program of systemic censorship should be introduced to combat/eliminate these writings. The purpose of this program of censorship is aimed at setting the bounds of acceptable thought and behavior in order to keep the guardians functioning most efficiently. Socrates argues that, at least in this instance, the good of the city is all that is to be thought of.

The author’s argument makes the assumption that the systemic conditioning of the guardians would be for the benefit to the City, and that what is best for the City trumps personal liberties. I disagree with first the premise of the argument (censoring said information from the guardians is for the “good of the City”) as well as the implicit assumption that what is (viewed as) good for the majority necessarily trumps one’s individual good. There appears to be a clear contradiction in Socrates reasoning in which his stated goal is to construct the hypothetically “ideally just” society which, by his arguments, would be founded upon lies, deceit, censorship, thought control, and general restrictions upon personal freedom. This appears to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of his own argument. If the concepts of freedom (e.i. of thought, activities, ect.) and/or honesty can be shown to be inextricably linked to the concept of justice than Socrates argument (in favor of censorship and conditioning) would be dismantled (and therefore not part of an “ideally just” society). Furthermore, Socrates needs to provide justification for his tacit assumption that the good of the City as a whole is to be regarded ahead of its constituent’s individual autonomy.

Socrates may counter my arguments opposing his views by “biting the bullet” and defending the justness of thought control via censorship. He may reason that if people are given the opportunity to explore information and behavior freely, then they may think and/or behave incorrectly (unjustly) and put society as a whole at risk therefore there is a trade-off of sorts to consider between individual rights and a properly functioning City. To this objection one point I would make is that this is an assumption on Socrates part and he would have to prove that when people are introduced to controversial or objectionable ideas that it necessarily follows they will be corrupted by them. Is it possible to know the stories of the gods and heroes and not be corrupted by them?