Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book I
I'm interested in interpretations of a comment by Socrates in Book 1 of the Republic.
Polemarchus first defends his father's view that justice is "giving to each what is owed to him," appealing to authority by attributing it to the poet Simonides. When Socrates shows that this definition cannot work, Polemarchus says that Simonides must have meant that justice is "to give to each what is appropriate to him," and Socrates gets him to make this more specific: justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies.
Socrates proceeds to make Polemarchus abandon this definition by means of several arguments (which are not important here), and concludes:
In other words, since the definition is false it cannot have originated from a wise person, and since Simonides et al were wise, it follows that it did not originate from them. [hide="[*]"](Unless the translation is inaccurate, this doesn't adhere strictly to Socrates' argument, since in fact he hedges on whether it follows necessarily from the falsity of the definition that a wise person could not have said it. A more accurate version of the argument would be that since it's highly unlikely that a wise person could have come up with that definition, we can be confident enough in fighting against those who claim so).[/hide]
But Socrates then casually speculates that it came instead from a rich and powerful man:
From what I can tell, these men were known as unjust rulers who used their wealth and power to subjugate their political rivals; it's clear that Socrates is not a fan. [hide="[*]"](For the purposes of this OP what matters is that they were regarded as unjust, basically as bad guys --- but for some historical context and details about these men, see LeMoine, Rebecca, "Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues.")[/hide]
On the surface, Socrates, not content with having refuted the definition, is rather facilely associating it with real injustice, and we get the feeling that he has just made it up. In doing so he is probably suggesting that the definition is merely the biased opinion of self-serving rulers. This would be an important point, but expressed as it is here it is itself merely Socrates's unargued, and perhaps biased, opinion (or a vague hint at a possible development of the argument).
But I tend to think this is too vulgar a move for Plato to make here, and there's another interpretation. In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets. Now, at this point in the Republic, the problem with poets has not yet come up, and one could interpret this call to defend the reputation of the poets as ironic foreshadowing. Since nobody in the conversation seems to know for sure where the definition originated, and since Socrates is well aware of this and does not even pretend that he knows for sure himself, he could be intentionally associating the poets with tyrants and injustice without actually saying so. The noble call to arms in defence of poets might then be a sarcastic criticism of the poets, and at the same time a criticism of those like Polemarchus who would rather trust their words than think for themselves.
Notes
Plato, Republic, translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett (2004)
LeMoine, Rebecca, Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues.
Polemarchus first defends his father's view that justice is "giving to each what is owed to him," appealing to authority by attributing it to the poet Simonides. When Socrates shows that this definition cannot work, Polemarchus says that Simonides must have meant that justice is "to give to each what is appropriate to him," and Socrates gets him to make this more specific: justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies.
Socrates proceeds to make Polemarchus abandon this definition by means of several arguments (which are not important here), and concludes:
335e:SOCRATES: So if someone tells us it is just to give to each what he is owed, and understands by this that a just man should harm his enemies and benefit his friends, the one who says it is not wise. I mean, what he says is not true. For it has become clear to us that it is never just to harm anyone.
POLEMARCHUS: I agree.
SOCRATES: You and I will fight as partners, then, against anyone who tells us that Simonides, Bias, Pittacus, or any of our other wise and blessedly happy men said this.
In other words, since the definition is false it cannot have originated from a wise person, and since Simonides et al were wise, it follows that it did not originate from them. [hide="[*]"](Unless the translation is inaccurate, this doesn't adhere strictly to Socrates' argument, since in fact he hedges on whether it follows necessarily from the falsity of the definition that a wise person could not have said it. A more accurate version of the argument would be that since it's highly unlikely that a wise person could have come up with that definition, we can be confident enough in fighting against those who claim so).[/hide]
But Socrates then casually speculates that it came instead from a rich and powerful man:
336a:SOCRATES: Do you know whose saying I think it is, that it is just to benefit friends and harm enemies?
POLEMARCHUS: Whose?
SOCRATES: I think it is a saying of Periander, or Perdiccas, or Xerxes, or Ismenias of Thebes, or some other wealthy man who thought he had great power.
From what I can tell, these men were known as unjust rulers who used their wealth and power to subjugate their political rivals; it's clear that Socrates is not a fan. [hide="[*]"](For the purposes of this OP what matters is that they were regarded as unjust, basically as bad guys --- but for some historical context and details about these men, see LeMoine, Rebecca, "Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues.")[/hide]
On the surface, Socrates, not content with having refuted the definition, is rather facilely associating it with real injustice, and we get the feeling that he has just made it up. In doing so he is probably suggesting that the definition is merely the biased opinion of self-serving rulers. This would be an important point, but expressed as it is here it is itself merely Socrates's unargued, and perhaps biased, opinion (or a vague hint at a possible development of the argument).
But I tend to think this is too vulgar a move for Plato to make here, and there's another interpretation. In the Republic, Socrates attacks not only the abusers of power and wealth, i.e., tyrants, but also poets. Now, at this point in the Republic, the problem with poets has not yet come up, and one could interpret this call to defend the reputation of the poets as ironic foreshadowing. Since nobody in the conversation seems to know for sure where the definition originated, and since Socrates is well aware of this and does not even pretend that he knows for sure himself, he could be intentionally associating the poets with tyrants and injustice without actually saying so. The noble call to arms in defence of poets might then be a sarcastic criticism of the poets, and at the same time a criticism of those like Polemarchus who would rather trust their words than think for themselves.
Notes
Plato, Republic, translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett (2004)
LeMoine, Rebecca, Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues.
Comments (56)
Or undermining any claims to authority with respect to wealthy men and poets alike.
Other than that, I've got nothing.
Thank you for starting this discussion. An exceptional OP with clear thoughts, quotes and sources.
My first attempt at reading Plato's Republic was some time ago. I think on the OnlinePhilosophyClub site. Even with help from @Fooloso4 and an online course, I found it perplexing and gave up on it.
Quoting Jamal
Yes. I look forward to hearing more. As yet, I don't understand enough to participate with any confidence. Now motivated to pick it up again and pleased to say that I rediscovered the online Open Yale course.
Prof Steven Smith is excellent and has an easy rapport with his students who are active participants. The video lectures include transcript and audio. Also available on YouTube.
https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-4
The Seven Wise Men could not have been wrong nor would they teach such a distasteful doctrine. I think this reasoning (or lack thereof) adds more to the character development of Socrates, specifically giving the reader another reason not to trust him. Probably a reference to his arguments in Protagoras
I searched for the free online version for ease of reading and using quotes.
Reeve's approach seems sensible. From the Preface:
Quoting The Republic (trans. C.D.C. Reeve)
Guilt by association, yes, and several levels of it: (1) the definition is suspect because it came from these bad guys; (2) Polemarchus is ignorant or insuffiently virtuous for the same reason; and (3) is the weird one that I'm advancing, that the poets are bad too. The trouble with (3) is that Socrates explicitly says the opposite, and that's why I'm saying it's ironic.
Quoting Benkei
Yep, that's part of what I'm getting at, I think.
Quoting Benkei
No no, you did well.
Thank you.
Quoting Amity
It is rather perplexing, yes, and only gets more perplexing the closer you look. The last time I read it, a long time ago now, I read it too shallowly. What's working for me this time is the Reeve translation and secondary literature such as An Introduction to Plato's Republic by Julia Annas, which is a pretty thorough analysis that's very good for encouraging you to read more closely than the text seems to demand at first.
I haven't watched the Yale videos but I did find a series of lectures that works as a reliable introductory guide (I've found many other videos, such as those by Michael Sugrue, to be engaging but unreliable and shallow).
I considered leading a reading group here but I have mixed feelings about them.
It should be noted that what I'm interested in here is a side-issue. Many introductions and guides don't even mention it, so it's not important for reaching a basic understanding of the work.
EDIT: To be clear, the side-issue is what Socrates means in this passage from Book 1, not his views of poets and tyrants.
He seems to be nice to the poets, but is he really? He only believes the idea of doing good to friends and harming enemies didn't originate with them. It doesn't logically follow that Socrates thinks poets are absolved from wrongdoing. And we find no irony in his approach as a result.
Well, he does hold up Simonides as a man of wisdom, and he does (on the face of it) imply that Simonides could not have been wrong.
The question of whether a saying or definition should be credited to someone who is wise is secondary to the question of what the saying or definition means:
(331e)
Socrates attempts to clarify what Simonides means:
(332a)
He goes on:
(332b-c)
What is owed and what is appropriate are not the same thing. This is a crucial distinction:
(335e)
There is a shift from what Socrates thinks Simonides meant to what:
(335e)
Prior to this Socrates asks:
(331e)
This leads to the longer answer.
There are several themes that are developed at the beginning of the dialogue including the questions of persuasion and inheritance. We need to take a step back.
Socrates asks Polemarchus :
(327e)
The question of persuasion and its means is of central importance. On the one hand, it is behind both the arguments of Thrasymachus and the other sophists as well as those of Socrates and the philosophers, and, on the other, of the poets stories of men and gods. The stories of the poets are an inherited means of persuasion manifest as belief. From an early age children are told the poets stories.
Socrates asks:
(330a)
In response Cephalus says:
(330b)
Polemarchus inherits his fathers argument regarding justice. (331e) What will he make of it? Will he become more just or less just than his father? What shapes his idea of justice? Does he depend on the wisdom of the poets or those who make arguments?
This is reflected in what Socrates says next:
(331e)
It is not simply a matter of inheriting wisdom, as if it can be passed down from generation to generation as wise sayings, but of how one is to understand what is said and how one makes use of it. In other words, it is not simply either the poets or the philosophers but of how one understands and makes use of the stories of the poets and the arguments offered by sophists and philosophers.
The opening exchange with Polemarchus asks about the connection between persuasion and power. Socrates accuses the sophists of making the weaker argument the stronger. It is, however, not at all clear what is to stand as the weaker or stronger argument. Thrasymachus reduces justice to power. Argument is regarded as a means to power. The power of argument, however, depends, as Polemarchus points out, on whether someone is willing to listen. Otherwise it is powerless.
Cephalus believes his money is power. It is used in his old age to protect himself. His only interest in being just is self-serving. He is persuaded by the fear engendered by the poets stories of what will happen to him when he dies.
We might ask whether Socrates is wise in claiming that we should not harm our enemies. How can one win a war without harming his enemies? It is at this point that Thrasymachus enters the argument. What Socrates means is put on hold but remains in the background. Socrates agrees in part with Thrasymachus. He does not deny that there is an element of self-interest in being just. He attempts to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that being just is itself a benefit, both to oneself and to others. To this end, he acts the poet, weaving stories together with arguments.
Maybe it's just the phrasing, but that seems a little harsh. I had rather a good impression of the old man, and I thought Socrates did too. His age and circumstances allow him to be more interested in less worldly matters, like talking with Socrates, which won't make him or his family any richer.
Implying (unintentionally) that philosophy is only good when you're old and have nothing better to do, hardly something that would enamour him to Socrates.
But I agree that F's picture of him is a little one-sided.
I wasn't talking about TPF, exactly.
Still, as I recall, Socrates says he's interested in talking to him precisely because of his advanced age, and seems to hope it will be a more reflective time of life, when matters of the soul might loom larger than worldly affairs. And he crosses that interest with a question about his wealth, whether he can only spare his attention because of his financial security. (Maybe he doesn't specifically ask that, I don't remember, but he's interested in how much interest he has in money and why.)
To me, the idea of old age being naturally a philosophical period strikes me as quite reasonable and very Greek, if I may say so. At the other end, Socrates tries to get at the (noble) young before they're too caught up in responsibilities and cares. Also natural and reasonable, in the same way.
By "Greek" I mean that obsession with stages of growth and development, progression toward embodying your deepest nature, that stuff.
I don't know if it's relevant, but back then, there were no academic credentials to add weight to an idea. It was common for people to pass their own ideas off as the ideas of famous people in order to gain credibility. An elaborate example of it is the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. From the text, we can tell that this book was written much later than it purports to be. They used the name of Daniel because he was a folk-figure. He was supposed to have been a wise man, but there's no record of his existence.
Plato might have been sensitive to this issue because he himself was using Socrates as a mouthpiece. So it's possible that the exchange is the sort of thing we do when we argue over sources, but the whole issue was much more wide open. There might have also been some clever subtext to it as well.
In Book 2, the trio begins sorting the poets into different baskets. Adeimantus says:
Fathers, when speaking to their sons and offering them advice, and indeed anyone 363A who cares for anyone, speak to them presumably about the need to be just, by praising not justice itself but the good reputation derived from it, saying that by seeming to be just, from the reputation alone, they may secure positions of authority, and marriages, and whatever else Glaucon listed just now, all from having a reputation for being just.
Quoting Plato, Republic, 363A, translated by Horan
It is odd that Adeimantus puts such an emphasis upon reputation when it seems the virtuous are receiving actual benefits from the gods themselves, not just looking cool to other people. This oddity is continued in the talk immediately following of succeeding generations getting a benefit from virtuous living.
In any case, Simonides probably belongs in the first basket rather than the ones about to be introduced in the dialogue. The Thrasymachus thing is more obviously presented in the subsequent baskets. So, what to make of Socrates pulling this particular beard?
In those days, poets existed [made their living] through the patronage of the rich. They penned praises for their patrons.
That portion of the story plays a part in the Republic.
I don't think we get an indication that Socrates hopes old age will be a more reflective time of life. The point is different. When Cephalus says that old age brings peace and freedom from the appetites, Socrates says
[quote=329e]I imagine when you say that, Cephalus, the masses do not accept it. On the contrary, they think you bear old age more easily, not because of the way you live, but because you are wealthy. For the wealthy, they say, have many consolations.[/quote]
And this is not just or primarily about how you live when you're old but about how you have lived throughout your life and what kind of character you have, a point that Cephalus has in fact already made. So Socrates approves of Cephalus to that extent.
Socrates next focuses on wealth and seems to drop his interest in old age. It's not clear how they relate to each other, but if old age is connected to power, as it was in prominent families of Athens, then the conversation leads quite naturally to Socrates' criticism of wealth and power in relation to the tyrants (Periander, or Perdiccas, and Xerxes, and Ismenias of Thebes). In other words, in the conversation with Cephalus it's not really about old age as such, but about traditional authority.
EDIT: I've realized that what I've said above is not a clear response to you. But I'll leave it and hope you can get something out of it.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Good point. You can't be a philosopher king until you're 50. However, this is a final promotion following a life of preparation directed to the most noble way of serving the community, whereas Cephalus' turn to discussion in old age seems frivolous -- he has done the important work in his life already, and since he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question, it looks like he's not so interested in discussion as he claims, or else he really just wants a chat.
But yes, Cephalus is not simply a bad or contemptible character. As is often the case in the Republic, Plato is dialectical in more than just the ancient Greek sense.
Quoting L'éléphant
Excellent points. Thank you.
Great, I'd forgotten about that.
Thank you for your contribution, which is informed and interesting. The point about inheritance is particularly good I hadn't thought about that much.
Quite how your post relates to the OP, though, I am struggling to understand, because you don't actually say (except to suggest that the question of attribution is secondary, and the bit about P's appeal to authority).
A better way of using quotations is to illustrate an argument you make in your own words (an interpretive argument in this case). As it is, when you do proceed to use your own words, it's contextual exegesis that does not seem to produce any relevantly pointed conclusions or questions. I'm quite a good reader, but reading the great works of philosophy is hard enough without having to struggle to understand people you're discussing them with.
Quoting Jamal
Thanks for clarification. It seems I was misled by the title: Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book I
It seems that you are limiting the discussion to a particular passage and what Socrates means by it.
Fair enough. However, I've never been a fan of speculating about the meaning of a quote without understanding the wider context.
Plato's views about poetry are part and parcel of this. And how he uses Socrates in the Dialogues to express them.
Quoting L'éléphant
I think there is more to be said about poets and the different types. Interesting to read that some travelled in groups and attended the various city festivals. A festival is the starting point of Book 1.
It is important to recognise this and the religious/political aspects.
Quoting Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture - Bryn Mawr
Context needs to be understood as to why Plato might wish to banish poets, even as he wrote in such a poetic and creative manner.
Quoting Plato's Philosophy of Poetry in the Republic
So, poetry had a social function. Poets are highly influential. However, there is a danger of misinterpretation and manipulation. Do they reflect a true state of affairs?
Plato in his Dialogues and as a poet has also been interpreted in different ways. And I think that was his main project. To show the importance of philosophy, to arouse both the intellect and passions. The danger lies in misinterpretation...
Quoting Jamal
Do you intend to widen the focus beyond Book 1 ?
Well, everything in Book 1 is relevant to the rest of the work, so even though I'm focusing on a particular passage there, I'm not intending to restrict the conversation. My point was that my particular focus, even if it's a way into the wider themes, is not itself indispensable on the way to an understanding of the work --- there are other, perhaps better, things to focus on. It's probably an eccentric focus. It's a bit like a literary easter egg, (although in the Republic you could argue it's not quite so trivial or irrelevant as that).
EDIT: Another way of saying this is that my focus is more important from a literary than from a philosophical point of view.
This is one of the fascinating tensions in Plato. Relatedly, he denigrates mere images but uses imagery all the time.
Quoting Perseus Tufts - Plato Republic Book 1
Quoting Jamal
Who says that Cephalus is bad or contemptible?
It is not the case that he leaves the debate the moment he gets a difficult question. He engages with Socrates up to the point where he agrees but then he must leave to attend to religious matters.
He talks of old age in the wisest of terms and uses poets as support. Sophocles, 329c.
From the Perseus site (excellent with notes):
You are right, he replied. Then this is not the definition of justice: to tell the truth and return what one has received. Nay, but it is, Socrates, said Polemarchus breaking in, if indeed we are to put any faith in Simonides. Very well, said Cephalus, indeed I make over the whole argument48 to you. For it is time for me to attend the sacrifices. Well, said I, is not Polemarchus the heir of everything that is yours? Certainly, said he with a laugh, and at the same time went out to the sacred rites.49 [331e]
He is thinking ahead to his death and how to please the Gods.
He uses Pindar 331a to talk about the 'ledger of his life' - Cephalus is perhaps haunted by any wrong doings or injustice at his hands and wants to make amends.
Various commentators suggest that he is a somewhat contemptible figure (e.g., Annas), and @Fooloso4 is less than complimentary here (the source of my exchange with Srap). I don't disagree too much with them, but there's another side to it.
Quoting Amity
He leaves when Socrates shows that his view of justice is inadequate, even though the discussion is continuing. (I used "gets a difficult question" loosely, to mean the question as to the meaning of justice that Socrates brings up and shows to be harder than Cephalus might have realized).
Quoting Amity
That's possible, but I don't think it's implied, and I don't personally think Plato is hinting at it, since I think he wants to portray Cephalus as ordinarily just, but complacent.
I agree.
Quoting Fooloso4
Thank you for explaining things further. The importance of poetry as a means to persuade has not always been apparent.
Quoting Fooloso4
Again, thanks for the questions you raise. It motivates me to read more. Particularly, the last one.
Which path will be taken. Poetry v Philosophy? Both are open to misinterpretation.
Quoting Fooloso4
Totally agree. It is how the various texts are understood. How they are used. How will they impart wisdom on the inexperienced reader? Each generation learns anew.
Quoting Fooloso4
Cephalus is indeed financially comfortable but perhaps not spiritually. The 'self-serving' aspect re 'being just' - is this about his concerns as to death and his legacy? How 'just' was he in his life? How will he judged by the Gods? Have you an example of the 'poet's stories' that might have engendered this fear in him?
Quoting Fooloso4
Again, thanks for taking the time to engage in a meaningful way. Explaining and asking questions.
I read the exchange and found it less than charitable. Indeed, a 'harsh 'reading.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Perhaps rather than speculate and talk about impressions, read carefully and ask questions?
I've always found @Fooloso4 willing to read and respond to any relevant criticisms.
Edit: Apologies to @Srap Tasmaner if that sounded too personal. My intention here is not to sow discord but to progress the discussion in a positive manner. Good to hear your perspective. :sparkle:
(331b)
Cephalus has been freed from eros,
(329c)
but has not escaped the fear of death.
He is, by all appearances, a gentleman. To the extent that he is just, he credits his wealth. The gentleman is not at fault for not being a philosopher, but the philosophers understanding and practice of justice differs significantly. The philosopher's being just does not depend on wealth, and because he is just he does not fear death.
Maybe part of my good impression of Cephalus is that we know what the wealthy and powerful will do to Socrates, but here's Cephalus who says, "Socrates! So glad you're here. I wish you'd come see me more often." And when he has to go see to the sacrifice (meant to mention that, as @Amity did), he encourages Socrates to carry on the conversation with the young folks, so not evidently concerned they'll be corrupted.
Sure, but even with all that there's the suggestion of complacency, especially when you take his son's conversation into account too. Thrasymachus is the antagonist; Cephalus & Son are merely too thoughtless to produce any defence against him not that they're bad guys themselves.
And his good character. He says that wealth is not enough.
You quote the text:
(emphasis added)
Who does "the one who said it" refer to? As I read it, what is at issue is the distinction between what is said and what is meant or understood. Socrates says that the poets speak in riddles. (322b) We do not know what Simonides said or did not say, and so cannot comment on what he meant. But whether or not he said this, the question remains as to how we are to understand it.
You say:
Quoting Jamal
We cannot too quickly conclude that either Simonides is not wise or if wise did not say this. It may be our own wisdom or lack of wisdom that is being called into question.
You go on to say:
Quoting Jamal
I think it is a conventional opinion, one shared by conventional men such as Cephalus and Polemarchus. Socrates questions the the conventional understanding. It is, however, the starting point.
Quoting Jamal
But it has been brought up! Cephalus opinions about such things as justice are shaped by the poets. Consider how frequently the poets are appealed to.
Quoting Jamal
This connection requires textual support. Again, I see the question of origination as secondary to how it is to be understood. The truth or falsity of what is said does not depend on who might have first said it.
Quoting Jamal
Agreed, wealth is not enough, but we should not understate the importance it has for Cephalus. As he says:
He himself brings into question how just he would have been if he were not wealthy.. But, of course, as I am sure he knows, it is not sufficient. There are plenty of wealthy people who do intentionally cheat and deceive people.
The other thing he cites is fear of punishment in death. Something that he never took seriously when he was younger. As far as I know we do not know anything about him prior to his old age. We do not know to what extent fear of death might have changed his behavior.
Your point is broadly good, but Socrates does on the surface mean to show that Simonides and other wise men could not have --- or at least probably did not --- say it. That this doesn't matter relative to how we are to understand Socrates in the way you explain is fine as far as it goes, but in the OP I took things in a different direction with a view to uncovering a possible covert criticism.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, Cephalus quotes Pindar. I just meant that poetry as a problem has not explicitly been brought up by Socrates. He does this later.
Quoting Fooloso4
It's not quite clear, but it's also possible that he is not confessing to his own fears, but is referring to those of the masses:
[quote=330d]CEPHALUS: What I have to say probably would not persuade the masses. But you are well aware, Socrates, that when someone thinks his end is near, he becomes frightened and concerned about things he did not fear before. It is then that the stories told about Hades, that a person who has been unjust here must pay the penalty therestories he used to make fun oftwist his soul this way and that for fear they are true. And whether because of the weakness of old age, or because he is now closer to what happens in Hades and has a clearer view of it, or whatever it is, he is filled with foreboding and fear, and begins to calculate and consider whether he has been unjust to anyone. If he finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in terror, as children do, and lives in anticipation of evils to come. But someone who knows he has not been unjust has sweet good hope as his constant companion [...][/quote]
Cephalus might be suggesting here that unlike many of the masses, he is not "filled with foreboding and fear," because he has not found many injustices in his life. But either way is fine with me; it seems likely that he is familiar with such feelings. In any case there is little indication from the text that he has led an unjust life, and it doesn't matter; what matters is that even if he hasn't, he has not been just in the way that Socrates likes, i.e., able to account for it rationally. This makes him at the very least a useless example to set against Thrasymachus, or a useless partner in an argument against nihilism and cynicism.
I agree with the second and third sentences here. I was attempting to identify a literary foreshadowing or a literary easter egg. I probably need to break that down, but to me it jumps off the page (if you look at it right).
The criticism that damages my interpretation the most is my own: Simonides is not the only wise man mentioned, and the others were not poets.
Earlier, I referenced the powerful influence of poets. Perhaps understanding poetry as historical narrative in its social and personal context is preferable to taking part in the rhetorical argumentation of philosophers which often lead to no conclusion. Although interested and encouraging, Cephalus has other priorities.
He provides us with an example of the importance of poetry in the lives of Ancient Greeks. Their focus on the spiritual and Gods. Distinct from the rational but that doesn't mean he is irrational, or 'useless' in the Dialogue, just unwilling to take that particular path.
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
Quoting Jamal
This is truncated. What is at issue is how what he is purported to have said is to be understood. If it is misunderstood this does not mean the a wise man could not have said it, but that what the wise man said is not understood.
Socrates says:
(332a)
After purposing a possible answer he follows it with:
(332b)
What we might regard as wise is not independent of us. If we are not wise can we adequately judge who or what is?
Quoting Jamal
Yes, that is understood. But the criticism is quite overt. The larger issue at stake is the relationship between philosophy and poetry. What Socrates will later call the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry. (607b)
To suggest that Socrates is covertly claiming that the poets are tyrannical seems to overstate the case.
Socrates' goes on to say:
(607c)
The argument would have to show that poetry and imitation which aims at something other than pleasure does have a place in a well-regulated city. What we should not miss is that this is precisely what Socrates himself does. He makes full use of poetry and imitation, only the aim is not simply pleasure. The cave, for example, is:
(Republic 514a)
The image of the cave and the images on the cave wall originate with the poets. The education they provide goes far beyond pleasure.
Quoting Jamal
Perhaps, but there is a big difference between not having acted unjustly and being unaware that one has acted unjustly. In any case, it seems he believes the poets regarding such things.
In a nutshell, I think Socrates is saying to Polemarchus something like, "when you repeat that saying, you might as well be quoting one of these bad guys." And that's even if it was in fact said by Simonides. Thus the emphasis is on an independent understanding of the saying rather than who said it, and Socrates is neutral about its factual origin.
This does still mean that his comments in praise of Simonides and the sages are ironic, but it's an irony that is more complex than I thought.
[quote=331e5]SOCRATES: Well, now, it is not easy to disagree with Simonides, since he is a wise and godlike man[/quote]
[quote=335e7]SOCRATES: You and I will fight as partners, then, against anyone who tells us that Simonides, Bias, Pittacus, or any of our other wise and blessedly happy men said this.[/quote]
If it's true that Socrates is neutral as to who originated the saying, that it's our understanding of the saying itself that matters, then of course he is open to the possibility that Simonides did in fact say it. This would make the above comments ironic, not exactly because he is sneakily associating Simonides with the injustice of tyrants while saying the opposite, but because he continues to praise Simonides, pretending to believe that he could not have been wrong, while in fact he is neutral as to the wisdom of the real Simonides. It's an exaggerated concession to his reputation, in other words, paying lip service. What matters is to question our reliance on all cultural authorities, including Simonides.
So the targets are people like Polemarchus who ascribe erroneous notions of justice to wise people, something Socrates gets across bluntly by ascribing them instead to bad guys; and generally those who rely on cultural authorities, whether these authorities are poets or sages, without having thought about them deeply.
I came across another interesting interpretation in a paper entitled "Socrates on Poetry and the Wisdom of Simonides." The idea is that Plato is not interested in Simonides as a historical figure but is rather making him stand as his ideal poet. This is in contrast to Homer, who by this point in the the conversation with Polemarchus has already been mentioned dismissively:
[quote=334a9]It seems, then, that a just person has turned out to be a kind of thief. You probably got that idea from Homer.[/quote]
But Homer is later replaced, as not deserving of Socrates' defence, while Simonides is elevated:
[quote=335e7]You and I will fight as partners, then, against anyone who tells us that Simonides, Bias, Pittacus, or any of our other wise and blessedly happy men said this.[/quote]
Again, the crucial thing is that the real Simonides is unimportant. The new element is that because of this he can function as a blank canvas onto which Plato can project his ideal poet, in contrast with Homer, who is problematic. This is quite compelling, and it's actually sort of compatible with the first interpretation, although it does bring the ascription of irony into question (or it would make it an even more complex kind of irony). It doesn't matter what the real Simonides might have said, but it does matter what Homer said, because Homer loomed so large in the culture, and comes in for direct criticism later in the Republic.
Notes
Futter, Dylan. (2021). SOCRATES ON POETRY AND THE WISDOM OF SIMONIDES. Akroterion. 65
(Phaedrus 275d)
(Protagoras 347e)
I'm curious. Does that mean your focus has now turned away from the 'literary easter egg'? Or what?
Quoting Jamal
I was intrigued by your novel and extraordinary approach to discussing Plato's Republic, Book1.
However, I was concerned that any Easter Egg Hunt would narrow the reading. Hidden treats are sometimes not as delicious as we might hope for. Too many can ruin the appetite for the main meal.
I suppose, though, they capture interest and imagination...and that can lead to deeper exploration.
I searched for 'literary easter egg' with regards to Plato. And found this podcast and transcript.
You need to scroll down to find the passage starting:
Quoting The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I
He gives examples but I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind.
The whole transcript, with its informal but informed style, is worth a read.
The philosophy behind it is to make the Classics accessible.
I think so, because the idea of a literary Easter egg doesn't do justice (no pun intended) to the kind of subtlety that Plato is using. What we have now is literary subtlety in the service of a philosophical theme, rather than a hidden criticism.
Quoting Amity
Cool. I'm not surprised that others have had the same idea.
[quote=The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I;https://www.greecepodcast.com/the-hunt-for-justice-platos-republic-i]Well, the Republic is full of such Easter eggs. They are hard for us to spot, but audiences in Platos day would have been able to. Just to give you one example, again on the very first page. When Polemarchus and Adeimantus and company run into Socrates and Glaucon, Polemarchus makes a joke. He says, Hey Socrates, do you see how numerous we are compared to you two? You better do as we say and come to my house.
In other words, hes making a joke about factionalism. During times of social harmony, such jokes may be funny. But to Platos audiences, this is a very dark joke. Because his audience knew, as we discussed last time, that Polemarchus himself, would later become the victim of the kind of factionalism he now makes light of. Platos audience would also know that this road from the Piraeus back to Athens is where, decades later, the Thirty Tyrants would be overthrown in a battle (the Battle of Munychia in 403 BC) and their leaders killed.
In response to Polemarchus joke, Socrates says, What if we persuade you to let us go? To which Polemarchus jests again, saying, Can you persuade someone who refuses to listen?
Again, its easy to read past this stuff and not think much of it. But how brilliant is this setup? That one question alone, sums up the essence of factional division. How do you persuade someone who refuses to listen? Not only does this Easter egg build up a dark sense of irony, it also subtly broaches the topic of factionalism, which will figure prominently throughout the entire dialogue. There are little Easter eggs like this all over the Republic, and unfortunately we dont have time to go through them[/quote]
Yeah this is good stuff. I didn't think primarily of factionalism so much as power vs persuasion, irrational vs rational, etc., but it's a good example.
In which case, maybe literary Easter eggs is the right concept after all.
No, neither did I but it makes sense when you think about it. The factions of dissenting groups within a bigger organisation. The power struggles of poets v philosophers. Political justice within different societal structures. The tripartite mind. The rational part (philosophers) must rule, according to Plato.
@Fooloso4 made the point earlier:
Quoting Fooloso4 [emphasis added]
The question:'How do you persuade those who refuse to listen?' - still relevant after all these years...
Divide and Rule. Where is the justice? Who are the 'just'?
Your introduction of how well the eggs can be understood through time prompted me to think about how different a book the Inferno by Dante was for the generations closest to it.
Yes, the transcript above pulled me in. [The Hunt for Justice - Plato's Republic I ]
As have you! I think I now want to explore Dante...perhaps later and elsewhere. :sparkle:
The idea of a 'knowing' audience who would immediately recognise any 'easter eggs' made me think of 'intertextuality'. The way that all texts can use other texts either explicitly or implicitly to capture or enrapture the audience.
It's about recognising or understanding a reference - that 'Aha!' moment which brings more meaning to the reading or visual. It can widen the personal and cultural experience. There is also the challenge of keeping alert. Being and becoming aware of what is going on at various levels.
I am now more aware of how Plato uses the cultural elements of that time to connect with his audience.
His means of persuasion. Particular themes or messages are emphasised by drawing on existing texts.
We already touched on Cephalus and Plato's insertion of Sophocles and Pindar:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/936223
I remain a bit confused by this:
Quoting Jamal
You've mixed up the order of the paragraphs, which is important. Maybe that's why you're confused :grin:
Have I? Oh dear :yikes:
That's what comes of not paying attention and reading carefully, I suppose.
I think it is the idea of Simonides as an 'ideal poet' in contrast with Homer that I don't understand.
and also this:
Quoting Jamal [emphasis added]
Perhaps, I need to return to the passage...
Cool. The first and third paragraphs in the mixed up quotation are about that. Here they are in order, with the quotations from the Republic removed:
This is the alternative, or further developed, interpretation that I mentioned in my post, which I got from this:
Futter, Dylan. (2021). SOCRATES ON POETRY AND THE WISDOM OF SIMONIDES. Akroterion. 65
So it's not my idea and I'm not committed to it, although I do find it quite persuasive. If you're particularly interested in it have a look at that paper, otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.
Simonides does not function as a blank canvas. Quite the opposite. He was too well known and influential to be treated this way. In the Protagoras Socrates says he has studied a particular ode of Simonides closely . (339b) The theme is a good or bad man and the significance of circumstances in his being the one or the other. There is an obvious parallel to Socrates discussion with Cephalus and another saying of Simonides.
Protagoras, the famous sophist, tells Socrates that Simonides like Homer and Hesiod concealed his skill as sophist in his poetry. (316d) By putting the sophists and poets together, the "ancient quarrel between the philosophy and poetry" is extended to include the quarrel between the philosopher and the sophist. What the poets and sophists have in common is a rhetorical or persuasive way of speaking whose strength can be separated from the logos.
Protagoras later says:
... a most significant part of a mans education is proficiency in relation to poetry. This consists of being able to ... give an account of them when questioned. (338e-339a)
[Added: And again turns to Simonides.]
What the poet says requires giving an account, one which includes both explication and a defense of its soundness if it is to be accepted. (339c)