Skip to main content

The Republic- Book 3



Book III starts by exploring the concept of courage. The idea of the Gods for the Athenians is something that is bothering Plato. His main concern is if the traditional way of thinking about the Gods is fostering real virtues of courage.  This dialogue makes us understand the importance of questioning the consequences of things that we hear or read. Socrates questions Homeric writing “ It’s not that they are not poetic and sweet for the many to hear, but the more poetic they are, the less should they be heard by boys and men who must be free and accustomed to fearing slavery more than death.” (387b) It seems then that the media is that shapes what we ought to fear and we ought not to fear. This is interesting because I am currently taking a class where we are talking about End of Life and how currently the media has distorted our perception of death. If an alien were to land on earth and tried to understand the concept of human death and got his first glance from a TV news feed it would seem that death is something that happens tragically by either car accidents, suicide, natural disaster. But this is not the true idea of death; death can occur naturally, on a hospital bed, it happens at any age. 
Similarly, Socrates is making this deep insight about questioning what we read or hear.

Now moving on to moderation of the citizens through music and poetry. I think that Plato is taking the influence of poetry and the arts and analyzing it in moral grounds. He knows that certain poetry is not beneficial for his city. He is working thinking the assumption that people imitate from these sources. What I take out from this book is that Socrates makes a valid point when trying to control the source that is influencing and impeding the people from his city be just. But is his action just? I think Plato would say that it is, because in the end everyone that belongs in the city must give up certain desires to belong to the city. All for the greater good of the city.

Another take away is the fact that Plato is explaining the effect of the social atmosphere in people. This reminds of the field of sociology! So I guess we can say Plato has some sociologic perspectives as well not just philosophical. Good Job Plato!!




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle- The Politics Book 1

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements.  According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each...
Post a Comment
Read more

Studying the Beginning of Philosophy through the Milesians

Learning about the first philosophers like the Milesians was important to me for understanding the characteristics of the history of philosophy. The school of thought of the Milesians taught that the explanation to their questions and inquiries were found in the principles of matter. The three Milesians Patricia Curd talks about in her book A Presocratics Reader are Thales (the founder), Anaximander (his pupil), Anaximenes (the youngest). It was helpful for me to compare them to understand the nature of the beginnings of philosophy. Previously, it was implied that philosophy surged from the mytho-poetic traditions that inspired the earliest philosophers. Can we say that this is true from Thales, the “founder of philosophy”? The three Milesians knew that the question to all their answers relied on a principle. The principle is differently defined per each philosopher. Thales’ principle is that water is the basic unit of life, the arkhē, the beginning and origin. This sounds like ...
1 comment
Read more

Xenophanes a Reformer?

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche  based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane. According to A Presocratic Reader , Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the...
1 comment
Read more