[RD] Omega v. Plato: A Rebuttal of the Republic [Series]

Either what you said is true, or Socrates/Plato are flaming hypocrites who only care about questioning the state when they're not the state (which was the interpretation I got out if it, personally).
Socrates died for his ideas rather than flee, so I'd say he's pretty much covered when it comes to backbone.
What I'll repeat, is that Plato used Socrates a lot as a proxy, putting his own opinions in his mentor's mouth.

IIRC, for example, Socrates was actually a proponent of democracy while Plato heavily disliked it.
 
Following Alexander's death, a trial was being prepared in Athens against Aristotle.. He did flee, although he died next year anyway :)

Re the thread: i do hope this isn't going to be a sociology thread, cause surely there is no need to bring philosophy into this. And already i am reading a lot of simple reductions of Plato to something which looks more like what a teen would conjure as an easily dismissed antagonist.
Anyway, i haven't read most of the Politeia, although at least going by book 7 which i fully read, it is dealing with philosophical issues as well, eg they discuss which fields of knowledge the ideal state should be teaching in primary, secondary and higher order schools/academy. Which brings about a known view in Plato and some of the presocratics, about value of math and more purely notional fields, against value of fields dealing with external phenomena such as astronomy or even physics.
 
Organizing a discussion about this will be just as alien to me as likely my ideals are going to be to about one out of five of you.

Fixed to reflect the prevalence of ideology in OT. :)
 
So what if Plato's Republic actually was a genius piece of satire, what if it was "Il Principe" by Machiavelli more than a millennium before Machiavelli? Is there any evidence leading to this?
 
I dont think so. We would have heard by now.
 
So why was it held in such high regard by philosophers from all eras and considered some model for government? Well, because Plato suggested a rule by philosophers, so it's no wonder they loved the idea.
Reminds me of when Plato brilliantly reasoned, that since God's are vastly powerful, they have nothing much else to do than philosophize. And that is also what philosophers do, so they are the most god-like among humans and definitely the best and happiest and most virtues and most awesome guys you can find.
*shades dropping*
 
It has been noted before that The Republic actually prescribes a rather horrible form of government. Completely divided in castes, elitist to the bone, deliberately lying to the masses in order for them to accept their submission... pretty horrendous stuff.

So why was it held in such high regard by philosophers from all eras and considered some model for government? Well, because Plato suggested a rule by philosophers, so it's no wonder they loved the idea.
In all fairness, when the immediate alternative for most of that history seemed to be government-at-whim by illiterate tin-plated mobsters, it probably seemed like a just and reasonable alternative.
 
So what if Plato's Republic actually was a genius piece of satire, what if it was "Il Principe" by Machiavelli more than a millennium before Machiavelli? Is there any evidence leading to this?

Socrates was a demagogue. Demagogues are the enemy of The Republic. So what was Plato really saying?
 
Socrates was a demagogue. Demagogues are the enemy of The Republic. So what was Plato really saying?

I think we're uncovering a major conspiracy here.. :crazyeye:
 
In all fairness, when the immediate alternative for most of that history seemed to be government-at-whim by illiterate tin-plated mobsters, it probably seemed like a just and reasonable alternative.

And Athenian democracy was basically just people lynching their admirals and voting for naval mob rule.
 
Let's not forget to also comment that if democracy (even of this type) wasn't developed here, it would have appeared somewhere x years later. Cause ultimately no idea is ever developed depending on a culture, and given enough time the island of the Cyclopai would have higher civilization than the ionian megacities.

Hephaistos might be convinced to create a SJW Talos to step upon any dissidents.
 
Right, due to forum moving shenanigans, plus an actual paper I need to focus on tommorow, I am going to delay Book 1 until later this week. Thank you for your continued patience.
 
I will read this although I am in the pro-Plato 'camp'. I find his ideas interesting, such as how the Philosophers trained from a young age, chosen in a meritocratic way, rule the state based on virtue. This type of government may seem authoritarian nowadays, but back then, when Athens had a direct democracy which resulted in demagogues and catastrophic decisions (after the lack of a strong leader like Pericles), it was an alternative which could work better. Demosthenes himself blamed the Athenian system of government for giving the edge to Philip II as there could be no fast decisions or consistent policy. Parliamentary democracy solved this type of problem with a relative strong executive government.

Plato did attempt to put his theory into practice by attempting to train a Syracusian tyrant (leader, not tyrant in the modern sense) into becoming a Philosopher King. He failed but it was mostly the tyrant's (do not remember his name right now) fault, not Plato's. Interestingly enough, Aristotle too preferred a Philosopher King to a democracy and even helped a friend of his (Ermyas I believe?) who was a leader of an area in Minor Asia but who was put to death by the Persians.

Anyway, this seems an interesting idea to write about although I do not believe that Plato could be accused of sexism as the very idea of gender equality back then was totally unknown. It would be like accusing an ancient Chinese for not being a democrat: technically you are right, but they very idea of democracy did not exist back then in China.
 
Top Bottom