Plato's Republic Book 10
I started this thread in response to a comment by Jamal about Platos Republic:
They all belong together and they're all important, although book 10 is weird and some would say adds nothing of much value to the whole work's argument.
I want to look into it in order to see how much value it might add.
In book 2 Socrates said:
I begin book 10 at its beginning. The discussion begins:
What is at issue is the difference between an imitation and:
knowing things as they actually are. (595b)
It is only when one knows things as they actually are, that is, knows the truth, that one can judge the image.
Socrates makes a three-fold distinction:
1) Beds and tables as they are by their nature, the singular forms.
2) Beds and tables as they are made by the craftsman with an eye to the form
3) Beds and tables as they are made by a maker of images, whose model is the beds and tables made by the craftsman.
In order to see what the just soul is Socrates likens it to the just city and inquires into the sort of thing justice is in the city. (368e-369a) This raised several questions.
Justice itself is what it is by nature, the form Justice. But justice itself is not found in the world. What Socrates presents is an image of the original form. At best justice once removed. Both just soul and just city, however, are compounds or composites of forms not forms. They are, it would seem, images without an original form.
Imitation, Socrates says, is surely at a far remove from the truth. (5598b) Even if there were such a thing as the form of a just soul or just city, any existing city or soul would be at a remove from it. Since Socrates city is made in speech, it is twice removed. An image (3) of an image (2). As such we do not know the truth of the just soul or just city by looking at the image Socrates makes.
To what extent is justice in the soul like justice in the city? Initially we may have gone along with the image presented earlier, but it would seem that Plato is now leading us to reconsider how much the soul is like the city. To what extent should our idea of the one shape our idea of the other?
Socrates poses the following question to Homer:
Dear Homer, if you are not actually at a third remove from the truth about excellence, a mere craftsman of an image, someone we defined as an imitator, but if you are indeed at a second remove, and would be able to recognise what sorts of activities make people better or worse personally and as citizens, then tell us, which cities have been better governed because of you, as Sparta was because of Lycourgos? (599d)
We can pose the same question to Socrates. If he is a second remove rather than a third, then what is original that he has made an image of? In addition, if the city of Athens is the judge of such things then Socrates made the city worse not better.
When he goes on to say:
Come on then, consider this carefully. The maker of the image, the imitator, according to us knows nothing of what is, but does know what appears. Isnt this so? (601b-c)
Shouldnt the same consideration be given to Socrates own images?
By Zeus, said I, this business of imitation is concerned with something at a third remove from the truth. Isnt it so? (602c)
This seems to be a good place to pause to consider all of this.
They all belong together and they're all important, although book 10 is weird and some would say adds nothing of much value to the whole work's argument.
I want to look into it in order to see how much value it might add.
In book 2 Socrates said:
Do you not know that the beginning of any work is most important((377a)
I begin book 10 at its beginning. The discussion begins:
Yes indeed, said I, I have all sorts of ideas in mind as to why our city has been founded in the best possible way. I say this particularly when I reflect upon poetry.(595a)
What aspect? he asked.
Our refusal to admit any poetry that employs imitation.
What is at issue is the difference between an imitation and:
knowing things as they actually are. (595b)
It is only when one knows things as they actually are, that is, knows the truth, that one can judge the image.
Socrates makes a three-fold distinction:
1) Beds and tables as they are by their nature, the singular forms.
2) Beds and tables as they are made by the craftsman with an eye to the form
3) Beds and tables as they are made by a maker of images, whose model is the beds and tables made by the craftsman.
In order to see what the just soul is Socrates likens it to the just city and inquires into the sort of thing justice is in the city. (368e-369a) This raised several questions.
Justice itself is what it is by nature, the form Justice. But justice itself is not found in the world. What Socrates presents is an image of the original form. At best justice once removed. Both just soul and just city, however, are compounds or composites of forms not forms. They are, it would seem, images without an original form.
Imitation, Socrates says, is surely at a far remove from the truth. (5598b) Even if there were such a thing as the form of a just soul or just city, any existing city or soul would be at a remove from it. Since Socrates city is made in speech, it is twice removed. An image (3) of an image (2). As such we do not know the truth of the just soul or just city by looking at the image Socrates makes.
To what extent is justice in the soul like justice in the city? Initially we may have gone along with the image presented earlier, but it would seem that Plato is now leading us to reconsider how much the soul is like the city. To what extent should our idea of the one shape our idea of the other?
Socrates poses the following question to Homer:
Dear Homer, if you are not actually at a third remove from the truth about excellence, a mere craftsman of an image, someone we defined as an imitator, but if you are indeed at a second remove, and would be able to recognise what sorts of activities make people better or worse personally and as citizens, then tell us, which cities have been better governed because of you, as Sparta was because of Lycourgos? (599d)
We can pose the same question to Socrates. If he is a second remove rather than a third, then what is original that he has made an image of? In addition, if the city of Athens is the judge of such things then Socrates made the city worse not better.
When he goes on to say:
Come on then, consider this carefully. The maker of the image, the imitator, according to us knows nothing of what is, but does know what appears. Isnt this so? (601b-c)
Shouldnt the same consideration be given to Socrates own images?
By Zeus, said I, this business of imitation is concerned with something at a third remove from the truth. Isnt it so? (602c)
This seems to be a good place to pause to consider all of this.
Comments (136)
I believe the best representation of this three-fold distinction is like this.
The basic example consists of three beds, one made by God, one made by a carpenter, and the third being a painting of one made by the carpenter. You can see how the third is an imitation, and not even a real bed. So artists, poets, and playwriters who imitate (sometimes translated as narrate) like this are frowned upon, for producing something less than real. The point is that there are different perspectives, and the artist's imitation is from a perspective, therefore lacking in truth, and inherently deceptive.
Now, to understand how this relates to good and bad, and Homer's representation of the divine, we are guided to take the analogy one step further. So, consider the following. The carpenter makes a physical bed. This physical bed is a copy of the carpenter's idea (form) of a bed. The carpenter's idea of a bed is itself a representation of the ideal bed, the divine Form of bed or best bed. The carpenter attempts to produce the ideal form of bed. Notice how the carpenter's material bed suffers the same problem of "imitation" that the painter's bed suffered. Rather than being based on the divine Form of bed itself, it is based on the carpenter's representation of what he believes is the divine Form. So it's an imitation produced from a perspective, and therefore lacking in truth.
This is how we are instructed to look at Homer's representation of good, bad, and the divine, as opinion. There are three levels, the divine, the poet's ideas of the divine, and the poetry. We are inclined to believe that the poetry is a representation of the divine. But this leaves out the very important medium, which is the poet's own ideas of the divine. So the poetry really only represents the divine through the medium, which is the poet's ideas.
First of all thanks for starting the thread. I look forward to hearing more. It is, as you say, a response to Jamal's comment - a reply to my question here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/937134
It surprised me - I had thought Book 10 would be the main conclusion. Perhaps echoing what Jamal said about Book 1:
Quoting Jamal
So, perhaps a resolution of everything before?
I wish I had asked about the 'weirdness' and who the 'some' were. I wondered if they leaned more to the hard philosophy or literary side. 'Nothing much of value' seems far too dismissive of Plato.
It seems this has been a 'Problem' for readers since 1150 C.E., Averroes. From p12-13 of this fascinating dissertation: The Psychology of Plato's Republic: Taking Book 10 into Account
Daniel Mailick
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Quoting Academic works
I am attracted to the latter interpretation. The dissertation conclusion convinces me of Book 10's value. (pdf 274- 283) It is an end come full circle. About how to live the best possible life.
Quoting Fooloso4
As is the end.
1) The purpose.
2) The technique/skill ('techne'/'arete' perhaps?).
3) The sensory impression ('imitation').
Quoting Fooloso4
1) Purpose = Nature
2) Ability = Individual
3) Imitation = Law
The laws of a city is an imitation of natural laws. The human 'soul' is a 'natural law'. The individual is allowed to reconstitute itself in the face of nature and the contraposition of the 'imitative' force of nature embodied in 'law'.
The main problem with the last part is Plato trying to equate the idea of 'imitation' of a 'visible image' with a 'narrative'.
edit NOTE: I am not stating Plato's position here.
My statement that Book 10 is weird is based on my own experience with it, and so far this is a quite vague impression. My comment that some people have a low opinion of it is based on my secondary readings (including some of those referred to in your quotation from that dissertation). I am on my second and more thorough read through the Republic after having read it a few weeks ago, and I don't have a stable view either way. But certainly, Book 10 feels different from what has gone before.
Plato critiques poetry and the arts for being imitative, potentially misleading, and emotionally manipulative, distancing people from truth and rational understanding.The layers of imitation (the forms, the craftsman's creations, and the imitators' representations) reflect the complexity of human understanding and the challenge of grasping the transcendent order. It re-emphasizes the importance of striving for a direct encounter with the real rather than settling for mere representations or ideological constructs, much like the Simile of the Cave.
It could be inferred that Platos critique of poetry reflects a broader philosophical concern about the ways in which individuals and societies can become detached from genuine understanding. The danger lies in accepting images or ideologies as sufficient substitutes for reality, leading to a distorted perception of justice and truth.
I can understand how some people see it as a footnote though because it seems to re-examine points already made in the book.
Good stuff. I may say more when I've read it again.
You are way ahead of me, and better placed to have a supported view after a second read.
I've been hovering around the Republic, hardly daring to enter its complexities. That will have to be rectified.
From the little I have gleaned, Book 10 is certainly different but that's not the same as being 'weird'.
I wonder if this is due to the turn from the abstract to parable. The Myth of Er and the judgement of souls. Socrates is telling a story. Plato has decided to conclude his Dialogue on the Ideal City ( against poetry) with a poetic narrative. A spiritual nature.
I think this shows that Book 10 does indeed have a symmetry with Book 1.
I remember our discussion about the elderly Cephalus. His concerns and comments about any rewards or punishment after death. You suggested a negative picture of Cephalus - his contribution as frivolous.
I took the opposite view:
Quoting Poets and tyrants in the Republic, Book 1
Again, your impression: 'Plato wants to portray Cephalus as ordinarily just, but complacent.'
Annas was mentioned as viewing Cephalus as a contemptible figure.
It will be interesting to hear your thoughts after a second read. :sparkle:
I agree with this. What Plato's describes here is the logical procedure toward the separation between human ideas, and the separate or divine Forms, which Aristotle and Aquinas followed up on, to a much more significant degree. This is the means by which traditional "Platonism" or Pythagorean idealism is dispelled. The principal issue is the deficiency of the human mind, in its attempts to grasp "the ideal", as the best, most perfect, divine ideas. The human mind naturally comes up short, and this creates a separation between human ideas, and the divine, perfect, ideal "Truth".
The separation extends throughout all of humanity's mental enterprises, from the most vague ideas about beauty, good, and just, to the most precise ideas about numbers and logic. The cold hard reality is that the human mind cannot produce perfection in any of its conceptions, therefore there is always a separation between human ideas, and any supposed "independent Forms" such that Platonism, which holds human ideas to that high esteem, is necessarily incorrect. This separation, through its development by Aristotle and the cosmological argument, is fundamental to Thomism.
Humans can and do express their feelings and thoughts from a distance - however, that is not to deny them any 'truth' as experienced. It is true that there are daffodils and that they provide inspiration.
William Wordsworth's poem 'I wandered lonely as a cloud'. Words painting a picture of a host of golden daffodils dancing in the breeze of the Lake District. Just as Plato paints pictures.
Socrates makes an image of 'just souls or just cities' but I find it hard to see this as any 'truth', given that it is in his, or Plato's, imagination. I have not experienced similar, that I know of. I can, however, value it as a way of stretching my mind and thoughts.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't have any idea of the shape or structure of a 'soul'. However, I know what a city is like and its various structures e.g. socio-political. It is easy to compare what Plato suggests with our own.
To judge the value of his way of thinking...
Quoting Fooloso4
We can also consider whether it is Socrates' or Plato's imagination based on What is and What could be? An Ideal state of affairs. But then, they must both know that this absolute perfection is questionable, no? And so it has proved to be...as thought-provoking as intended.
How did Socrates make Athens 'worse not better'? Ah, you mean according to the Athenian judges. Returning us to the Apology...
I find the specificity of Socrates' letter to Homer interesting. Here is the continuation after your quote:
This places Plato's effort in a continuum which is rarely expressed so directly in the Dialogues. It also points to a negative space where people can assemble. A way of life that does not talk about itself. That points back to the question of what Simonides meant to say in Book 1
And if the poet is inspired?
Are these two claims the same:
(1) The poet expresses his ideas about the divine.
(2) The divine expresses itself through the medium of the poet's ideas.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But what if it is not the poet reaching out toward the divine ("Ah, but a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"), but the divine taking hold of the poet?
The argument would have to be that a poet's ideas (or his words, really) make too poor a material for the divine to use to express itself. But what is that argument?
I don't think so. Many of the problems raises in the dialogues do not seem to have a resolution. Some might find the odd or unsatisfactory, but I think it is a reflection of life. There is much that we do not have answer for.
What are the natural laws? How are they known? If they are known then what is the purpose of imitation of the laws? Or is it that the law givers attempt to approximate something that is not known?
Quoting I like sushi
What do you mean?
There is another side to this that I will be addressing.
Can you say more about this?
Book 10 concentrates on different ways a soul might get what is their due, in this life or afterwards. Plato placing tradition in continuum with previous challenges puts the immediate discussion in a broader context. The traditions Socrates is found questioning in many of the Dialogues involve a collision with a code of silence of sorts.
For example, when Socrates challenges Antyus in Meno, the talk about learning virtue is seen by Antyus as an assault upon his honor. There is a vivid Homeric logic to what might happen next.
Euthyphro provides another point of contrast but without the threat of violence pointed to in Meno and Republic Book 1.
Being "inspired" does not equate with being able to represent the divine. The principal force of Plato's criticism of Homer is related to how Homer represents the divine. He uses the argument concerning "imitation" to attack Homer's credibility on the subject of the divine.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
No, clearly these two are very different. In (1) the poet is the active agent. In (2) the divine is the active agent. The improper assigning of "activity" is what Plato demonstrates to be the deficiency of the theory of participation. By the theory of participation, beautiful things partake in the Idea of Beauty. Notice, the beautiful things are active in partaking, and the Idea is passively partaken off.
So Plato grasped a very difficult problem, which was the question of how forms, or ideas, could be causally active in the creative process. In modern days we have a simple representation of this problem, known as the interaction problem. Plato introduced the idea of "the good" as a causal principle, and Aristotle provided the term "final cause", defined as "that for the sake of which". This is provided as the means toward understanding how ideas are active in the creative arts.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The whole point is that this, "the divine taking hold of the poet", is the false representation which Plato wants to rid us of. What Plato points out is that the human mind is a medium between the divine and the poetry produced by the human being. That's the point of the three layers. Further, the human mind provides only one perspective, and therefore truth is lacking. And instead of being guided by "the truth", the human perspective is guided by "the good". This renders the human being, with one's own free willing mind, as the agent in the creative act, the good is the object aimed for. So the claim that "God has taken a hold of me" and makes me do such and such (He came to me as a burning bush, and gave me this tablet of ten commandments, for example), is the deceptive claim. Would you accept "the devil made me do it" as an excuse for acting poorly? Why would you accept "God made me do it" as an explanation for the quality of one's poetry? The human being is a medium, an agent with free will, and is really speaking one's own opinions about the divine. The divine is not appearing to others, through the medium, no matter how the divine appears to the medium.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But this is just denying that divine inspiration is a thing. It was already clear what your view on the matter is.
And maybe it's Plato's too.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But it's not the Forms that would matter here, but the Muses. And he doesn't seem to mention them. Maybe I overlooked it.
But as near as I can tell no one is bothering to present an actual argument against the efficacy of the Muses in the production of Homer's poetry.
Your incredulity is not an argument.
Right, I was trying to clarify Plato's argument. If you don't agree with it, maybe you could provide an argument for the other side, attempt to refute Plato or something.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I've explained the argument. It's you who has not provided a counter argument. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. But here's the gist of it:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Fooloso4
Their Nature is their Law (Natural).
The Soul is its Nature.
The Law (of polis) is an Imitation of Nature.
The Nature of things is what their Truth is.
Found the reference to Homer's muse, a little later, but alas it's the "pleasure-giving Muse" (607a-c), not the "true Muse -- that of discussion and philosophy" (548b).
Not question-begging at all.
Carry on.
Yes. A reflection of life. And how best to live it. In not reaching any definite conclusions, Plato shows us that philosophy is never-ending. Inner and outer conversations continue, as long as we have a mind to.
So, Book 10 - is both an ending and a beginning. It is an important part of the whole.
It offers the opportunity to return and re-examine. From a different perspective with a new eye.
Just as we are doing here...to carefully consider and increase our understanding. Hopefully.
'There is much that we do not have the answer for'.
Yes. But in general, our knowledge has increased in fields other than philosophy. Modern Neuroscience, for one. And at other levels, accessible to the ordinary, interested reader - e.g. a growing body of literature, easier to comprehend than the Republic. Now, we have Eco Literature and others, more inclusive. Like feminism and gender issues. The whole wide world unknown to Plato.
Plato is a dinosaur of a dazzling writer.
I think that's an important point. Plato was not advocating an all out ban on the creative arts. Music actually plays a very important role in his proposed state. But the reason it plays a very important role is that it has a certain power over the soul. This type of power can do both, culture good character, or corrupt character. That is simply the nature of "power". As is explained earlier in the book, the person with the capacity to do the most good, has also the capacity to do the most harm. The "power" in and of itself is neither good nor evil, it is how it is used which is good or evil.
Plato grasps the power of the creative arts, and understands that art can have a good influence or a bad influence over the culturing of human disposition. The problem is, that due to the nature of human intention, and free will, the specifics of this type of influence are very hard to get a handle on. So Plato approaches with a very general attitude, starting with the very broad principle, that all imitative type art, which is presented by the artist in a way that makes it appear like it is telling a true story, in the mode of narrative, ought to be banned, because it is actually not telling a true story. That's why Plato deemed it deceptive, it appears to be representing truth when it is not.
However, Plato is very heavy handed in his use of irony. You'll notice that right after he gets finished explaining how this type of art needs to be banned outright, he proceeds into telling such a myth, to end the book. There's irony all through Plato's work, and much of it is quite humorous to the prepared sense of humour. But this particular example is probably better described as hypocrisy, the division between irony and hypocrisy being the seriousness of the intended message.
At the end, 621c, Socrates says, "But if we are persuaded by me, we'll believe that the soul is immortal and able to endure every evil and every good, and we'll always hold to the upward path, practising justice with reason in every way." If the myth presented is meant in seriousness to be believed as "the truth", if Socrates is actually intending to persuade anyone with that story, then Plato is practising what he say's ought to be banned (that's hypocrisy). But if it is presented as obviously false, a humorous presentation of irony, Socrates knowing that he's not going to persuade anyone with that story, therefore it's not meant as an imitation or narrative of any real occurrence, then that story is simply presented as an ironic way of exemplifying what he is talking about. Which is it, irony or hypocrisy? Could it be both?
We might be surprised at Glaucon's reaction. But for Homer, to lose ones life is to lose ones soul. It enters Homers joyless kingdom of the dead. (Odyssey 11.105) It is this image, above all others, that Socrates quarrels with. He does not do so by replacing images with reasoned argument but by presenting a different image.
Socrates defense of justice depends on an afterlife, on what awaits the just and the unjust after death. (614a) This differs from his own defense in the Apology where he raises the possibility that:
(40c)
Here however he ignores that possibility and presents the myth of Er, the story of a man who comes back to life. (614b)
The problem remains:
(595b)
Unlike the poetry that Socrates criticizes, the purpose of the story of Er is not to bring pleasure to the listener. (607c) It may bring hope to some, but fear to others. It may not be the truth of what happens in death but it could be considered leading rather than misleading, for:
Whats at stake is becoming good or bad, and so we should not neglect justice, and excellence in general (608b)
Or, as mentioned above, it may be typical Platonic irony, taken to the extreme, the boundary of hypocrisy.
I think of Socratic/Platonic irony as a turning around, and this not simply as saying one thing and meaning another, but of things being more and other than they may seem to be, requiring us to look again, to look more closely, to make connections.
You jumped from 602c to 608d. Did you not think the missing sections to be important as to an understanding and assessment of Book 10's value?
Quoting Platonic Foundation - Book 10
[emphasis added]
You didn't want to follow this question?
Quoting As above
Socrates then goes on to suggest that poetry leads us to remember past events and the accompanying sorrows. There is a desire for this which is 'irrational and idle and a friend of cowardice.'
The troubled one is highly susceptible compared to the one who has an 'intelligent peaceful disposition.'
(604E)
He continues:
Then it is obvious that the imitative poet has no natural affinity with the good part of the soul, and his wisdom is not designed to please this if he is going to be well regarded among the general population. He has, rather, an affinity with the troubled and complex character because it is so easy to imitate. (605A)
What a load of... ass-umptions...he makes it worse...by design...
[emphasis added]
The question of poetry and its value has been revisited. It is seen to have been reasonable to have banished it from the city. The argument seems to have 'proved' this. But has it? Not here but perhaps later with the use of images and a myth? An intended irony or just plain sarcasm?
To talk of justice at the same time as comparing men and women. The latter unfavourably and then to talk of poetry as a 'she'...bad and irrational. Even if there is irony involved, it sets up a certain kind of 'truth'. A smell that pervades Philosophy. The way male Philosophers are privileged and seen as good.
Kings of Reason. Peaceful and Intelligent. They go to Heaven, don't they?
And then, another truth but so condescending with it:
A fine thing to say. Easier said than done. We can only do our best...
It is. I will address some of it in relation to the myth of Er, but that does not mean the rest is not important.
I wanted to address what @Benkei referred to as:
Quoting Benkei
but got sidetracked and left it undeveloped. I touched on the first part with the distinction between leading and misleading. And with regard to emotionally manipulative, the story is Er is emotionally manipulative in so far as it brings hope to some and fear to others, with the intend to lead to the listener being just.
Quoting Amity
I think it is ironic because he does some of the same things he faults the poets for doing. The difference is his intent.
Quoting Amity
In the Republic women are regarded as equal to men when it comes to the capacity to be philosophers. But, of course, this should not obscure the differences attributed to men and women.
In the myth of Er Necessity and her daughters play an important role. I will have more to say on that.
At what cost are they regarded as equal? What are the criteria? Temporary sexual relations to perpetuate the guardian class. Children to be cared for, communally. Equality is based on abstract political principles.
Quoting The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor
The guardian class is the middle class. Philosophers are the ruling class. Do you think that the ruling class is supposed to be male only?
I question this assumption. The purpose, as stated at the beginning of Book 2, is not to make an ideal state, but to persuade those listening that it is better in every way to be just rather than unjust. (357a-b)
Adeimantus says:
(366e-367a)
In other words, the ideal city would be one in which each acted as his own guardian to assure that he is just while shunning injustice as the greatest evil. In such a city there would be no guardian class.
The city Socrates creates in speech suffers the same problem as the bed made by a maker of images. You can't sleep in this bed or live in this image of a city. In addition, far from being ideal such a city is in its first iteration first, in Glaucon's words, a city of pigs. (372d) Glaucon wants a more conventional city, one with couches, tables, relishes, and desserts. (372e) Socrates goes along in the making of this "luxurious city", but although it accommodates some of our human desires, it it far from ideal. Even with the compromises away from what Socrates calls the "true city", a "healthy one" (372e), it is not one that any of us would want to live it.
Rather than a proposal for an ideal state, it is anti-idealist. Whatever we might imagine the ideal to be, its implementation involves great injustice. Socrates starts as we must with what is there to work with. Human beings with all their flaws and weaknesses.
I agree.
Taylor treats the 'ideal' city as a kind of governance in the way being discussed in Book 8. The focus there is that particular kinds of people predominate in particular kinds of Cities. In those accounts, there are many discussions of the roles of men and women and children. The metric of the 'city of words' is used to measure what changes in the field.
One thing that strikes me about the myth of Er is that the reassignment of souls requires a level of election by the self where a man could become a woman, a human an animal, and vice versa. An equality of all possible fates.
An interesting point. Socrates says:
(618b-c)
At this point, I think the class system as imagined by Plato is a fiction within a fiction tied up in a bow of confusion and contradiction.
There are different interpretations and translations. With some holding firm views and dismissive of others.
Given that there were only a few women admitted to Plato's Academy, the majority within a ruling class would be males.
Given that one of the roles of women is to have sex with select males on a temporary basis, it's clear that they are seen as baby producers. Like machines churning them out. Year in, year out. What toll would that take on their ability to rule?
What does it say about how women are valued? They are used.
I am not convinced that many women of wisdom would be happy or healthy in such a state.
There is more than one way to be a 'philosopher'. Even the so-called lower classes have the power to think critically and behave as justly or unjustly as those ruling the roost.
It is not an assumption but one interpretation out of many.
If you say so. I clearly don't have the same degree or depth of knowledge or experience as you and @Fooloso4 who has read, re-read, reflected and taught this to students, over many years.
It is also clear that I shouldn't have engaged with a Book 10 discussion without reading the whole Republic at least once! I should follow @Jamal 's lead.
I don't know about Book 8. Taylor references Book 5
Quoting The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor
Starting here:
Quoting Plato, Republic, Book 5, section 451c
The entire proposal is imaginary, that's pretty clear. To say that one particular aspect is a fiction within a fiction is not really meaningful. You are just isolating it as a separate part of the overall fiction. It's generally not very helpful to attempt to completely separate aspects of a conception like this, because the various aspects tie together, and rely on each other for meaning. Analyzing a specific aspect, in isolation, usually will lead to confusion, because the ties, associations, required to develop the intended meaning are dropped.
Quoting Amity
If you consider the selection process, you'll see that the men are selected as "baby producers" just as much as the women are. This selection process is known by us as eugenics. In agriculture it is a very important part of what is called husbandry. Notice, Plato compares the guardians to dogs, and makes an analogy with the breeding of dogs. Advances in science have brought us into a new realm of husbandry known as GM.
Quoting Amity
Health ought not be a problem. There is nothing to indicate that a person would be less healthy in Plato's type of state. In fact, Plato describes the means to physical health through gymnastics, and mental health through music. And happiness, in relation to the breeding program, is ensured by the "noble lie".
I understand that there are many specific notions and fictions tied together in different books of the Republic. And yes, it does lead to confusion.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Please point me to where it tells of the 'selection process' in this fiction.
The males don't go through the travails of repeated pregnancies.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I did note the dog breeding analogy. How perfect is that. Not.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Health will always be a problem for women if treated like bitches.
Physical health through gymnastics. Didn't that involve being naked?
Imagine a pregnant woman riding bareback...
Must go now. Late for an appointment.
I believe, that it is this way of looking at things which is what leads to confusion. Instead of looking at the work as one united fiction, parts tied together in unity, building a cohesive conception, you are looking at a number of different fictions, which are somehow, supposed to be tied together.
This way of looking, which you describe, removes each section from the context of the whole, understands that section on its own, then attempts to establish a relation between it and other sections. Since the separated section cannot be adequately understood on its own, out of context, it is misunderstood. Then the attempt to relate it to other sections is very confusing, filled with the appearance of incoherency and contradiction between the distinct sections, due to that misunderstanding of the sections.
The proper way to understand a work of philosophy like this, is to take the whole as that which gives context, and then understand each section according to the context it is in. This will assist greatly in preventing you from giving a faulty interpretation to an individual section, i.e. an interpretation which does fit with the rest of the whole. That type of faulty interpretation is a great cause of confusion.
Quoting Amity
In Bk 5, the males are subjected to a false (fixed) lottery to determine who gets to breed. The true selection process is not revealed by the rulers. The males go through the travails of repeatedly losing the lottery.
Pregnancy is a fact of nature, which is irrelevant here. Since Plato was strongly into eugenics, I'm sure that if he could have conceived of a way to have laboratory babies instead of having women pregnant, he would have jumped on that opportunity.
What I specifically challenge in the Taylor passage is this (emphasis mine):
Quoting The Role of Women in Plato's Republic - C. C. W. Taylor
I read Book 5 as describing a city where the complete separation of public and private works and interests has been established. They are not proposed as a means to an end. Plato recognizes that anything like this result runs strongly against the way polity actually has formed and changed over time. Book 8 focuses on this process:
While looking at each of these 'regimes', the relationship between husband and wife and the raising of children is examined as a part of the 'psychological' examination of the best life we can aim for in the 'less perfect' cities. It is not clear how this evaluation relates to the 'ideal' described in Book 5. In the language of Book 10, how does the craftsman make this in the way a chair becomes something we can sit upon?
Hi, Paine. As always, thanks for putting in the time and effort to explain your perspective. I'm still listening but will hang back for now. :sparkle:
Thank you for the friendly response. I want to make it clear that I am not arguing on the basis of any authority. There are plenty of scholars who disagree with me for many different reasons. Maybe I could find common ground with Taylor on other statements. That 'radical' feminism is in collision with Plato's view of society must somehow be the case.
:up: and thanks for the clarification.
Unfortunately, my last post to @Fooloso4 was a bit 'short' in every sense. I guess it reflected my frustration and I could/should have done better. Apologies to Fooloso4 :yikes:
Returning to this, with a bit more patience:
Quoting Fooloso4
Thanks for further explanation and references. I appreciate all your time and effort, as I think you know. I'm taking myself out of here, until I read/listen to the Republic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/938996
I look forward to hearing more from you and others. :sparkle: :flower:
Appreciated but no apologies necessary.
From my last response to your thread "With philosophy, poetry and politics on my mind..."
I think in discussions of Plato we are doing at least two things:
I'll add that those involved in the dialogue do not know where it will go or how it will end. We can imagine ourselves to be participants of the dialogue and add our responses to what is being said.
A most generous and helpful response to my concerns.
Quoting Fooloso4
I read that with a sense of relief. No pressure. If and when...
Imagine. I can do that...and know that you welcome curious minds.
I can also appreciate being introduced to the deeper levels. Simply by listening.
OK, then...over to you :sparkle:
:up:
I've now read the Myth of Er. See: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939277
It is striking in so many ways.
'The Spindle of Necessity'. Plato's description is not easy to follow or visualise.
He naturally assumes that the reader knows what an Ancient Greek spindle looks like and how it is operated. And then, there is the whorl of the celestial spindle with its 8 orbits. Wiki helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er
Now, apply these principles to Darwinian natural selection as juxtaposed with Darwinian artificial selection in husbandry, and go have some fun.
The description of the spindle whorls is hard to visualize on the cosmological scale. I went searching for information that could give me a leg up from the statement: "The nature of the whorl is as follows: its shape is like the ones we use...." The most succinct explanation I could find is on this site where the section, Process of Ancient Spinning and Weaving can be found.
Here is another, Picturing Homeric Weaving, that has helpful references to the process as a part of the whole art of producing fabric.
Here is a single image of the whorls shown together in the first website.
The are some seemingly impossible features of the subsequent descriptions of the whorls within other whorls I won't try to wrap my brain around right now. Maybe in the coming week. I will end with two observations:
The humble beginning of this elaborate image connects this process with the techne emphasized at the beginning of Book 10, where the carpenter makes usable beds and chairs.
When the souls are choosing their future habitations, Epeius selects:
The footnote provided: "Epeius built the wooden horse of Troy; also distinguished himself at Achilles funeral games as a champion boxer (Hom.Il. 23.664ff.).
I think I have come to a better understanding of the spindle. It is not used as in loom weaving.
It is hand-held, as in the depiction of Ananke: The Goddess of Necessity and Mother of the Fates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananke
Quoting The Republic - trans. C.D.C Reeve
Quoting Paine
Yes. Somewhat convoluted. My understanding is limited to this:
These are smaller, inner circles nesting within the main circle circumference of the whorl. Looked at from above or below. They correspond to the Orbits -the distance between planets. Struggling to see beyond...
There is a helpful Note, p357.
Quoting As above
***
I found suggestions for visualisation. You can download as PDF.
Plato's Myth of Er : The Light and the Spindle by Griet Schils
https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1993_num_62_1_1163
Clever work. Connecting the dots. Fascinating to observe the various 'returns' in Book10.
The myth, the spiritual aspect of Socrates/Glaucon final conversation mirrors the beginning of the Republic. From Book1:
:100: Excellent.
The Myth of Er - Plato's Republic - Book 10
:up:
The level of detail in the composition blows my mind.
I am going to be slow to respond to the other parts of the Er story because I am a slow reader. I will check out your sources. This is an interesting part of the dialogue that I have skimped over in the past.
You might notice the basic principle of Aristotle's doctrine of the mean at 619a:
"And we must always know how to choose the mean in such lives and how to avoid either of the extremes, as far as possible, both in this life and in all those beyond it. This is the way that a human being becomes happiest."
This section deals with the art of decision making. And, it's interesting that those who have had a good life are portrayed as being bad decision makers because they are rash in thinking that they already know what's best, but those who have had to suffer take their time to deliberate, grasping the importance of avoiding a repeat of suffering.
I recognize how the Aristotle view is a part of the conversation.
The myth is concerned with decision making and I think the big issue is the relation between possibility and necessity, and the role of each in the art of decision making. Each soul is free to decide its own destiny by choosing the life which it wants, from the vast multitude of possibilities. However, the drawing of the lots is the necessity which forces the decision.
As depicted in the story, the options are listed as what the lottery offers. Some are left scrabbling for the last bits.
In the eponymous dialogue Timaeus he identifies two kinds of cause, intelligence and necessity, that is, Nous and Ananke. Given the earlier emphasis in the Republic on the Forms, the introduction of ananke is both surprising and significant. Here at the end we must, by necessity, begin again. Forms and their imperfect images do not tell the whole of the story.
Platos concept of necessity differs from ours. What is by necessity is without nous or intellect. Necessary causes can act contrary to intelligible causes. What is fixed and unchanging cannot serve as the cause of a world of change, contingency, and chance. It should be noted how often necessity occurs in this story. The various cases helps to give us a better sense of the scope of what necessity means and what it entails
The Fates, Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos are the daughters of Necessity.The are respectively what was, what is, and what will be. Clotho, with a touch of her right hand, helps turn the outer revolution of the spindle, pausing from time to time, while Atropos, with her left hand, does the same for the inner revolutions, and Lachesis lends a hand to each revolution in turn, with each hand in turn.
In less figurative terms, by necessity, what was, the past, influences what is and what will be. What is, the present, influences what will be. The influence of what was on what will be is not eliminated by what is. In other words, by necessity we cannot undo what has been done.
Each soul chooses a daimon and also a pattern of life. (617e) The daimon is the guardian of that life. (620d) Nothing is said about choosing a daimon, on what basis it is chosen, or how closely it reflects the soul that chooses it.
Before choosing a life the souls are told that one who chooses wisely will choose a life midway between extremes. In this way a human being attains the utmost happiness. (619 a-b) They are warned that:
(619b)
The first to choose by lot chooses extreme tyranny. (619b) We might think that this person had led a life of hardship and oppression and now wants to be on the giving rather than receiving end, but:
(619c-d)
The first to choose had chosen quickly out of stupidity and greed. He came to lament his choice. He blames chance and the spirits, everything but himself. (619 b-c)
(619d-e)
The last to choose is Homers Odysseus:
(620 c-d)
Unlike most souls who made their choice based upon the habits of the previous life, (620a) Odysseus now chooses a life of moderation. The suggestion seems to be that although he has chosen last he is an example of someone who has attained phronesis, someone who engaged in philosophy, consistently, in a sound manner. He has become, so to speak, a philosophical hero. Put differently, Socrates has transformed Homer. The soul that was Odysseus comes home again after his journey from there to here.
The point though, is that the order in which the souls get to choose, is dictated (necessitated) by the lottery, which as a lottery, appears as random chance. So those who have the number of possibilities available for their choices, severely restricted (scrabbling for the last bits), suffer from a necessity which is imposed by chance, the lottery.
Compare this lottery to the one Plato proposes earlier, the lottery which selects breeding partners. The breeding order is necessitated by the lottery. Just like in the case of the souls whose order of choosing is determined by the lottery, to those involved in the selection process, the necessity appears to be imposed by chance. In both cases, to those being selected from, it appears like the order is produced from a purely random, chance lottery. However, we see that in the one example, there is really intelligence behind the scene which creates the appearance of random chance for all those being selected from, and only a distinct class of people are privy to that information. Plato has guided us to allow for the possibility that what appears as a chance lottery, which is behind the necessity that imposes itself on us, there might really not be a chance lottery at all.
I don't see where Plato's concept differs from ours. What is needed or must be done by the rulers is intelligible. Human needs are only fixed in as much as nature is fixed. If such needs (biological/erotic) are seen as bad for a city, then rules of law need to be initiated. So, needs cause change.
I didn't notice the frequency of the word 'necessity' as I read Book 10. However, I searched for it in the pdf. of the Republic.
It is mentioned 18 times, including some in the Bibliography and the name of the Goddess Necessity'.
I've just read from Book 5 458d about the breeding programme: the selection of mates. Socrates suggests both females and males are driven (naturally) by 'necessity' to have sex with one another.
He asks Glaucon if he thinks the word 'necessities' is right here. G. says they are not geometric necessities but agrees they are erotic ones.
The discussion turns to how unregulated sexual intercourse would not be a 'pious' thing in a city of happy people. And how to solve this problem by breeding humans in their prime. Mating the best to the best is good. The worst to the worst is bad. The offspring of the best to be taken away and reared by special nurses in a separate part of the city. The inferior or disabled will hide in a secret, unknown place.
All of this can only be achieved by subterfuge by the rulers. The 'drugs' of lies and deception by lottery.
All to keep the race of guardians pure.
Just as MU says:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This does not make sense to me. If people were in heaven, then they will already have been judged as good. Even if their virtue is through habit, it is part of their character, formed and informed by life experience and doesn't mean 'without philosophy'.
There is an assumption that they are 'untrained in sufferings'.
However, Life and others within are the trainers. No academic philosophers required. In fact, arguably, they are the least qualified.
Quoting Fooloso4
I am not sure this is correct. Choices were made by those from heaven. Of different character and ways of thinking. Odysseus' soul made its choice, not because of unthinking habit but:
620d.
This is a set-up to enhance the virtues of philosophy. There seems to be an assumption that the ordinary individual will not be troubled by sufferings or thoughts of being honourable. What kind of love would the ordinary person have? And how would it be regulated...if necessity or rulers required...
I believe we can take modern usage of "necessity", and divide it into two principal categories. We have on the one hand, what is said to be "necessary" as determined by the physical forces of the universe, or the laws of nature. This is the sense which is at the base of determinism. On the other hand we have what is "necessary" as determined by the needs of a free willing being. This is the sense when people desire something as the means to an end, it is needed for that purpose.
We can see, that in much of common, modern usage, it is usually not hard to distinguish the two, it's a pretty straight forward analysis which is required to make that judgement. However, then we have a type of necessity which can be understood as "logical necessity". This is what forces logical conclusions. A thorough analysis will show that this sense of "necessity" is really a subdivision of the sense which is based in the needs of a free willing being, "the means to an end". However, many people will not accept this designation, wanting to assign "logical necessity" more force, making it closer to the sense of "necessity" which is at the base of determinism. However, they generally find that it doesn't quite qualify as a determinist "necessity" because it cannot be shown to be driven by the laws of nature. So they propose another distinct sense of "necessity", a third principal type.
The acceptance of this third type of "necessity" produces a lot of confusion, making the judgement of a specific instance of usage much more difficult. Instead of seeing logic as the means to an end, we now have to distinguish the use of logic as distinct from other decision making practises, to place it in a distinct category which some want to portray as closer to being "necessity" in the sense of being driven by the laws of nature than to being "the means to an end". Furthermore, since decision making generally involves some form of logic, it pulls the whole model of "choice" away from the "means to an end" portrayal toward the determinist portrayal.
In reality, a complete and very thorough analysis of "the concept", "necessity", shows that the opposite is what is the case. The "necessity" of determinism is just a special type of "logical necessity", which is a special type of "means to an end" type of "necessity".
We can see, that in Plato's day these distinctions were even less clear than they are today. The concept "|necessity" was young and underdeveloped. But we have to keep in mind, that since the "means to an end" sense is the overarching sense, it is the other sense, the highly specialized determinist sense of "necessary by the laws of nature" which is not yet developed at Plato's time. It is portrayed as "fate". So we see a recognizable representation of "the means to an end" sense of necessity, but the determinist "laws of nature" sense is not well portrayed at all. It is presented as "a lottery". What we call "the laws of nature" present us with one's "lot in life", the circumstances of one's being, and this is presented by Plato as random chance, with some sort of "necessity" lurking beneath it, which drives it. That sense of "necessity" is some how comparable, or related to the "necessity" which is "the means to an end", but the relation is not really intelligible to those people involved in that discussion because they have a primitive understanding about the laws of nature and determinist forces.
Thank you for your post. Interesting to consider. The understanding of the Cosmos. How it was made intelligible by Plato.
As far as possible.
Quoting Fooloso4
Checking out the Timaeus, I think I begin to understand:
Quoting SEP - Plato's Timaeus [ emphasis added]
So, not random but deliberate. 'Necessity' driving it. We might not be convinced by the story of a divinely created universe. However, there is no doubting the force of Plato's imaginative description. How we can enter into it; admire the images and probe its concepts. The process of philosophy is well on its way. Just what he wanted or needed. Intellect and imagination working together in dialogue.
Philosophy and poetry dancing...as one.
I wonder if the language of Hesiod plays a part in this:
Quoting Fooloso4
The relationship between the choosing and the daimon seems to be an assignment by a daughter of Necessity:
The daimon impels a movement forward as well as enforcing the consequences of the choice.
Comparing the myth of Er with Hesiod's Theogony, shows the Fates literally having a darker story in the latter version:
The role of the daimon emerges as a dynamic belonging to an individual life.
In the Timaeus necessity is called the wandering or errant cause. (48a) The necessary connection between necessity (ananke) and chance (tyke) is discussed in Platos Laws:
(889b-c) Emphasis added.
Thanks. Following the process has not been easy for me. I confused the 'soul' with the new life and then the choosing of a new 'spirit' (daimon). Soul and life seem to be used interchangeably.
- see underlined bolds below.
I didn't understand the daimon 's role or how the spindle of Necessity fitted in. Also, missed the prophet as intermediary.
From Reeve's translation, 617d:
[emphasis added]
I don't quite understand what is being said here of Virtue. However, this might relate to my earlier confusion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939791
[emphasis added]
I need to put the theory of reading slowly and carefully into practice. Especially here.
Even then, I welcome insight, clarification and advice from those more experienced with Plato.
One can be brought up with good habits, but that does not mean that philosophy is part of their education. Good habits do not preclude philosophy, but may not be the result of philosophy.
Quoting Amity
Perhaps given their wealth and good fortune Cephalus and Polemarchus are untrained in suffering. Socrates repeats a common assumption to Cephalus:
(329e)
Cephalus agrees and goes on to say:
(331b)
Quoting Amity
I agree. As I understand it, what is meant by philosophy here is something different. I will have more to say on this in connection to the River of Forgetfulness.
Yes, the choice of the soul does seem to be separated from the work of assignment by Lachesis.
I am not sure how it relates to your previous comment about virtue, but I read the role of 'assignment' in this passage as meaning that much more is required for our life to happen than the initial choice. Those requirements, however, do not allow us to "blame the gods" for our choice.
:up: That makes sense.
OK. :up:
I took Lachesis' role to be that once the choice of a daimon and of a life is made by the soul, that choice becomes part of the fate of that soul. There is a connection here with something Socrates tells his friends in the Phaedo:
(64a)
The best preparation for making that fateful choice is something you can do now.
With regard to virtue or excellence, it too is a choice:
(617e)
I agree with that interpretation. I also agree with your view of Odysseus as a 'repurposed' life.
The distinction between the choice and the "assignment" of fate also has the cosmological dimension of depicting the life we encounter. Just as the Timaeus does in your comment here.
Edited to add @Fooloso4:
The cosmological element is also what I was thinking about above when comparing the three daughters as depicted in Er and in Theogony. Like Homer, Hesiod is preserved and changed at the same time.
Looking back I see that I did not include quotation marks for the passage from the Laws. I have edited it.
Because of the heat and harsh conditions of the Plain of Forgetfulness it is necessary for the souls to drink from the River of Heedlessness. (621a) In his closing comments Socrates refers to the river as the river of Forgetfulness rather than the river of Heedlessness. What is the connection between heedlessness and forgetfulness?
Those who are prudent are not heedless. They are made prudent by the study and practice of philosophy.
(618e)
Philosophy is about self-knowledge. Forgetfulness is forgetting yourself. To act heedlessly is to forget yourself. Human wisdom, knowledge of ignorance, is not the divine knowledge of the gods. It is, more moderately, phronesis not sophia.
Socrates tells Glaucon:
(621b-c)
Socrates began the story by saying:
(614b)
Starting with this fairytale opening and by telling us that the body of Er, unlike the other bodies, had not begun to decompose, we have reason to doubt the truth of the story. But
Quoting Fooloso4
is limited by things as we can actually know them. We cannot know things as they are after we die but we can come to know ourselves as we actually are. The mythological truth lies in recollecting and heeding the message of the story. In this way we may be saved.
This differs from other translations. From Reeves:
Quoting Perseus Tufts - Plato's Republic, Book 10, Section 621a
No mention of a River of Heedlessness.
Quoting Fooloso4
Why does it matter if it is the same river? The same water.
Quoting Fooloso4
Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on the definition?
Quoting Fooloso4
Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on the definition?
Quoting Fooloso4
Hmmm. The word 'actually' bothers me. It can mean 'according to one's beliefs, views or feelings'.
There is no certainty that we can be so thoroughly objective.
Quoting Fooloso4
If there is a 'mythological truth', it can vary according to person and interpretation. Not all myths or stories are heeded or recollected. Historical myths, even if remembered, will not always 'save' people.
Whatever that means? What is the message from either Plato or Socrates?
To be good, to care, to think, to be wise, to be just, to study and practise philosophy?
Does knowing ourselves save us from ourselves?
To ask silly questions about confusing texts? Like:
If no vessel can hold the river's water, then how can it be properly measured? What is a 'certain measure'? Handfuls are of different size and capacity. Some water slipping through fingers.
And what if they drink from different parts of the river. Will some become heedless rather than forgetful? Or are they already heedless?
To be 'saved by wisdom' or 'good sense' - does it take philosophy? Or are some born with it? Re-born?
How wise is it to keep reading Plato - as opposed to any other philosophical, religious, psychological texts or works of literature? Knowledge of the sciences? How to live and be as well as possible.
Just a quick note on the Greek: the place next to the river is called a plain: "??? ????? ??????"
?????? (pedion) is defined in the lexicon as: flat, level, on or of the plain. Jones and Preddy translate this word directly:
Edit to add:
By way of description, there is mention of the 'river of carelessness': ??? ??????? ???????.
??????? (amelta) is defined as neglectful, heedless, etcetera. I will look around for a translation that expresses this distinct usage. For now, it should be noted that two different words are in play here.
Edit #2 I found Horan makes the distinction:
Quoting translated by Horan
Yes. I think that is the translation used earlier by @Fooloso4.
From your Jones and Preddy translation:
Quoting Paine
Yes. Already noted. Now we can add 'carelessness' to the mix.
It doesn't make sense to me. However, 'river of forgetfulness' does.
The question is why must they drink the water. I thought it was to forget their previous lives and also the current process of re-birth.
To start again, in a new circle of life. Without memories of any lessons learned.
Why was it important to drink a certain measure, if everyone similarly forgot their previous life experience? Or were some memories retained or 'saved' by the wise who took the correct dose?
Heedlessness is Horan's translation. Bloom translates it as carelessness. The Greek is ???????? It means, according to Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, not to be cared for.
See the note in the Perseus translation you linked to:
2. In later literature it is the river that is called Lethe.
The later literature calls the river of ???????? the river of Lethe (????)
I see that Paine has edited his post to include this.
Quoting Amity
I do not think Plato uses words heedlessly or carelessly. To say why it matters we must first make note of the difference terms. Someone who forgets might act heedlessly, but one might act heedlessly without forgetting.
Quoting Amity
If you mean the definition of philosophy, I am going off of what is said beginning at 618e through 619e.
Quoting Amity
Actually is used to mean how things are as opposed to one's beliefs, views, or feelings. More to the point, as opposed to how things are represented in images.
Quoting Amity
Yes, all of the above.
Quoting Amity
If to know yourself is to know what is and is not good for you then you are saved unless you are heedless and do things that are contrary to what is good for you.
Quoting Amity
I took this to mean that the whole of heedlessness is greater than what any vessel can hold. The heedlessness of souls is without limit.
Quoting Amity
I am not sure. Perhaps enough so that we forget what has transpired but not so much that we forget yourself.
Quoting Amity
I think that this is what he means by philosophy.
Quoting Amity
Some will be born with it if they did not drink too much.
(618 b-c)
Quoting Amity
Reading Plato need not preclude reading other things. In part it depends on what appeals and resonates with you.
It is by necessity. Given the conditions the souls all get thirsty. There is not other source to drink from.
If you mean why does the story include this, I think it is a response to the anticipated question of why we don't know what happens in death.
The question of 'drinking too much' oblivion reminds me that the mythology of Hesiod and the Orphic mysteries have the role of Lethe set over against the role of Mnemosyne (or Memory).
Sipping the water of Mnemosyne is not given as one of the options in the Er account. That is interesting considering that Plato uses the mythos of Recollection (anamnesis) or call to mind, in different discussions of learning. That suggests to me that the role of recollection is principally the activity of the living soul.
The absence of Mnemosyne in Plato's account suggests to me that he is not concerned with remembering past 'life' of the soul in the way that interested Plotinus and other Neo-Platonists.
I agree. Quite the opposite. Each word counts. And it is why I wonder at the change from 'Heedlessness' to 'Forgetfulness'. When it seems clear that the purpose of the drinking from the river is to forget, rather than to become 'careless'. I think it is the word choice of the translator rather than a fault of Plato.
The 'thirst' of souls can't be physical, can it? So, a spiritual need?
***
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. Unfortunately, it is not always known what is and is not good for us. Facts are not always facts but opinion. Science changes what we know about our body, brain, the world, the universe, everything.
And since we are human, we are not always wise or have insight about our selves and behaviour.
I don't believe we can be 'saved' from either the hell or heaven in life as bodies or souls.
Perhaps, we can turn our minds from 'madness' to relative 'sanity'.
So, we can do the best we can with the knowledge we have and the wisdom gained through life experience. That usually entails moderation or keeping a sense of balance.
Just as in the Horan translation:
It is about attaining utmost happiness by choosing a 'happy' medium.
What concerns me is the reference to 'all other studies' being set aside.
This speaks to me of a clear and understandable bias for philosophy. And the almost obsessive focus on the degree of 'justice' of the soul, or in one's life. It doesn't seem balanced and excludes other qualities, virtues or knowledge from other areas.
***
Quoting Fooloso4
So, it is about 'forgetfulness' not 'carelessness'.
Quoting Fooloso4
Hah! Wisdom in a bottle.
***
Quoting Fooloso4 [emphasis added]
This is in contrast to the previous 'all other studies' to be 'set aside'. It is assumed that philosophy is the answer as to how to distinguish between the good and the bad. We all know the different versions of the 'truth' don't we? The continual arguments, the endless Dialogues - started by Plato. Even if we seek answers, there is no certainty. Ain't that the truth?
Behaviour once judged as 'degenerate', 'bad' or 'mad' is now better understood and treated.
Some judgements pronounced against women in particular were prejudiced.
Thinking 'hysteria'. Just the tip of the iceberg of structural injustices in society.
Plato's Republic not at all helpful...given the different interpretations and meanings used to support extreme political agendas. Mentioned previously by @Metaphysician Undercover.
Quoting Fooloso4
Of course we can read other things. But that is not what is advised, here, is it?
There is a continual focus on 'justice' and who can best decide the what, who, how and why.
But yes, I realise that it is not all philosophical argumentation but involves poetic narrative.
Repeated patterns and themes bring home the message. Some might call that 'brainwashing'...
I have a strange and strong sense of déjà vu :chin:
I wish I had your knowledge! I had to look this up:
Quoting Wiki - Mnemosyne
Quoting Paine
Interesting, indeed! :up:
I wonder if Plato didn't include this as an option because he was arguing against the use of poetry?
And, yes, I did have a vague memory of Plato using recollection in the ways we learn...
Quoting Wiki - Anamnesis
We should not forget that in the Phaedrus there is the plain of Aletheia or truth. (248b)
Quoting Paine
I agree. In the Phaedo the distinction between recollection and being reminded are blurred:
He goes on to give an example of recollection:
' (73b-d)
The two words, 'forgetting' and 'carelessness' are both clearly in the account. I fault the translations that fail to convey the difference between the two. I am curious why it is ignored by many translators. The water can have two properties at the same time. The 'lack of measure', displayed by many, is a kind of carelessness.
The convergence of the two properties makes sense as an observation of life. The oblivion of forgetting is like the not-remembering where you are that being thoughtless inculcates. The opposite of both properties is needed for 'seeking justice with intelligence' called for by Socrates in the final address to Glaucon. Departed souls don't get to do much seeking.
Quoting Amity
I agree with @Fooloso4 view of the poetry being re-directed to Plato's ends to address the weakness of Homer and Hesiod discussed at the beginning of Book 10. What is included or not of the commonly told stories becomes a discussion amongst the stories.
Quoting Fooloso4
:up: Where the image of the charioteer speaks of the reality beyond images..
Socrates' task as set out at the beginning of Book 2 is to persuade them, as Glaucon puts it:
(357a-b)
Quoting Amity
It is about the connection between them and with philosophy as phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence, thoughtfulness)
Yes. Thanks. I know the 2 different English words are used. However, I'm not clear if there are 2 different Greek words. Or if it is one Greek word with different meanings. Grateful for further help.
Quoting Paine
What does 'etcetera' include?
I don't have the Ancient Greek translation. Is there only one Greek translation?
What is the Ancient Greek for 'forgetfulness'?
Quoting Fooloso4
Thanks for clarifying the translation of the word ????????.
Is that the single Greek word used with different English meanings.
Is it the same as the Greek word ??????? ?
I did note the river is later called Lethe. But that didn't tell me much. Not sure whether I can rely on this from wiki:
Quoting Wiki - Lethe
And now, I read of the Lethe as known as 'river of unmindfulness'.
How confusing :chin:
Paine:
I understand that a river, or the water in a river, can have at least 2 different physical properties. However, this concerns a single Greek word and concept. The name of a river. The meaning of the name. What idea is being conveyed.
Translators will differ as to the importance of differentiation. Depending on how they interpret the sense of the word in context.
If most go with 'river of forgetfulness', then that is what makes sense to me. It fits with my initial intuition or impression.
But I've said this before. Moving on...
It is two different Greek words. I meant to say that with my first comment on the passage and now realize that I did not introduce enough background to make that clear. The wiki is correct when it says: "Also known as the Amel?s potamos (river of unmindfulness)"
Quoting Amity
I wonder if this aspect is why the two separate meanings got collapsed into one (by some). The reference to the "plain of Lethe" is not given primacy over the "river of carelessness" in the text. The different meanings are related to their effects. Looking at how the mythology is developed; the mapping of the underworld follows the story of the origins of the quality being described.
I wonder if the insistence of the river with a name comes from poets such as Virgil where the role of Lethe is located in the afterlife (and pre-life) and has no role amongst the living.
Thank you for the clarification. The words can be synonyms, the change of meaning is a choice of the translator. The introduction of ambiguity is not helpful. English synonyms for 'forgetfulness', depending on context: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/forgetfulness.html
Quoting Paine
Perhaps. But I don't see that 2 different meanings have been collapsed into one. As explained, I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context.
Why would the plain of Lethe be given primacy? Isn't it only part of the journey description and a reason for the 'thirst'? A barren place of hot desolation? 'through burning and choking and terrible heat, for it was empty of trees and earthly vegetation' 621a.
Perhaps in the contrast we can see the river as some kind of oasis. A place of relief. From whence the souls can refresh and rid themselves of the hellishness they have suffered? Forgetting.
Yes. I agree it is interesting to consider the mythology and the mapping.
Quoting Paine
Why do you use the word 'insistence'?
I found an interesting site which references and describes the Lethe in different contexts. Symbolism and significance. Literature - Modern Interpretations - Art and Music. Philosophical perspectives.
Quoting Mythical Encyclopedia - Lethe - The Spirit and River of Forgetfulness - [emphasis added]
Here, 'unmindfulness' means forgetfulness - a state of being unaware. This is different from its other meaning of 'carelessness' or 'heedlessness'.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/unmindfulness.html
Edit: Unfortunately, there is no link to the Phaedo reference. Although, I note this:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Fooloso4
I would not attach too much specific importance to these words. These are generally emotion based concepts, and the words for feelings are used in a variety of ways, and ways which are rapidly changing as the days pass by, making them not well-defined. Furthermore, we have a second layer of ambiguity created by the word employed by the translator, and it being not well-defined in the same way.
It might be important though, to note that "thirst" is an important symbol to Plato, in his example of how the body is distinct from the soul, and very clear proof that the body is directed by, or ruled by, the soul. Thirst drives a man with a hard and fast desire to drink, which is extremely difficult to overcome with will power, when the water in front of one is known to be in some way not safe for human consumption. The capacity for a thirsty person to resist the desire to drink water which is known to be unsafe, is Plato's principal example of how reason, as a property of the soul, has the power to rule over the body. Notice in the myth, that the souls are forced to drink, as they are ruled by a power which is even higher than human reason.
In regard to our discussion of the meaning of the two different words, I was not arguing for primacy for either term. I was only arguing for a difference. We will have to agree to disagree that there can only be one meaning: per you saying: "I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context."
Quoting Amity
My beef with the translators is that a quality of the stream is overlooked in the interest of giving it only one function. The reference to Virgil is to a scene where the river only has the job of wiping the hard drive of mortals:
This view of processing the dead gives the water a role similar to references to the river Styx, a location firmly outside the realm of life. In the context of the story of Er, however, the stream is known in our lives by its effects. In the world of Hesiod, that makes Lethe a relative of Strife, Hardship, Starvation, Pains, Battles, Wars, Murders, Manslaughters, Disputes, Anarchy, Ruin, and Oaths.
Quoting Fooloso4
The mythos of the charioteer does speak of our soul's life beyond this mortal coil but provides a connection to it as well:
Quoting Phaedrus, 248b, translated by Horan
This story varies sharply from the allotment of Fates depicted in the story of Er. The "plain of Aletheia" is set over against "forgetfulness and vice." This narrative is closer to the one given in Phaedo than Er:
Quoting Phaedo, 75d, translated by Horan
So, what to make of Er in light of these differences is the question for me. I think that likening the three sisters to spinners of thread is to look at mortality as a production. The experiences of the soul are seen through a "mechanism" of life coming into being. The souls may be immortal but the work of each daimon is complete when Atropos cuts the thread.
I think it is important to note the words used in translation and interpretation.
As already mentioned, I think the meaning matters as to the best fit in the context and circumstances. I won't rehash my view again.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure what you mean by 'emotion based concepts'.
Is it that one can be seen as 'bad', the other 'good'?
So, I prefer 'forgetfulness' to 'heedlessness' or 'carelessness'. Other translators or readers prefer 'carelessness' which in my view has a negative connotation.
The Lethe is a symbol in Greek mythology. Not just a word.
So, it is important to understand its meaning, in the context of Book 10.
The words 'thirst' and 'hunger' are interesting to consider.
Don't they show both a need and a desire?
They are signs or symptoms of both body and mind, arguably on the verge of unhappiness, dehydration or malnutrition should they not be properly assessed and action taken. This has nothing to do with 'virtue', rather practical wisdom.
If the hunger is for more than is necessary then I agree that can be problematic in terms of morality. Greed and Gluttony being 'vicious'.
This combines all of Plato's 3 parts of the soul: reason, spirited emotion and appetitive desire.
It seems that reason should be given the higher power but is this 'just'?
Isn't desire one of the main motivating factors. The desire to be healthy and well.
And fear - or concern - is the other. It is prudent not to die, if it can be helped.
The worry of excess is understandable. It could be argued that there can be an excess of cold, objective reason to the detriment of the spirited soul.
Passion and learning in the arts and literature are still being judged as having lower value than philosophy.
What do you mean by this?
If the function of the river Lethe is to forget any previous life, then how do we know its effects?
Why would the function of drinking its water be to provide 'carelessness' or 'heedlessness' ?
What is the quality of the stream?
Perhaps we need a negotiator? Haven't heard anything from @Jamal or any previous participants for a while... @Benkei @Srap Tasmaner ?
I am not saying I am correct. It is my interpretation.There are clearly other interpretations of the reading, no?
I'm working through the Republic but I'm still on book 1. I read the whole thing in my youth, and again a few weeks ago, but I'm not thinking about book 10 at the moment. I can't do everything at once, no matter how much you badger me.
:lol: So, you will be getting back on the Book 1 horse soon, then ?
Missing ya' :groan:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15484/poets-and-tyrants-in-the-republic-book-i/p1
I'm dealing with Thrasymachus, but have been distracted by some novels. I don't know if I'll be posting anything here anyway.
That's what I thought. Our loss. Weeping uncontrollably :sad: :broken: :cry:
Novels are good for the soul :halo:
Plato uses two different words ???? (621c) and ???????? (621a) when referring to the same thing, the river. Heraclitus might say it is not the same river but by this he means something different. Although we might ask him whether we should use the same name if the river is not the same.
????, forgetfulness, and ????????, heedlessness, carelessness, or unmindfulness, do not mean the same thing but there is an overlap in meaning, just as there is with the three terms used in translation.
Lethe and Aletheia have the same root. We might think of Lethe as having forgotten the truth, and Aletheia as remembering or recollecting the truth. There is, however, not a single truth but overlapping truths at issue. The truth of what has happened, the truth of the soul, the truth about yourself.
Is it Plato or the translator?
Quoting Fooloso4
Where is the overlap in meaning? I can imagine 'forgetfulness' as being separate and yet together with the others. More like being on a spectrum? With a range of values. But still that is pushing it.
We need to be clear on what is happening at the river Lethe.
This is one definition of Lethe: a river in Hades whose water when drunk made the souls of the dead forget their life on earth. Also, in Classical Greek, the word lethe (????) literally means "forgetting", "forgetfulness".
What do you think is the purpose of its meaning 'forgetfulness' - in its place just before the re-birth?
What do you think is the purpose - at this spot - if its meaning is 'heedless' or similar?
A clear and simple explanation would be appreciated in relation to Book 10 and nowhere else.
Quoting Fooloso4
I think I can understand and appreciate this perspective. The overlapping 'truths' of the past, present and imaginings of the future. Through the lens of life and death. Applicable to self, its narrative journey or mythology. How we experience and try to understand the world (or underworld) and our place in it. Physically and mentally. The forgetting and the remembering. The loss and recovery. The cycle.
The cosmic rhythm and change. How death shapes life. :death: :flower:
Nevertheless, the root 'lethe' means 'forgetting or forgetfulness'.
Why twist it with the addition of 'truth' to mean something else?
What is the problem with accepting the simple version?
It is Plato.He uses these two different words. As Paine pointed out, the fault of the translator lies with those translators who fail to distinguish between these terms. I think Plato intends for us to try and work though the connection.
Quoting Amity
Doing certain things will cause me trouble and pain. If I do them anyway I am being heedless or careless or unmindful. We often fail to learn from our mistakes. Have we forgotten what happened in the past?
Quoting Amity
I would like to, but I forgot.
Quoting Amity
It explains why we do not remember what happened. Er remembers because he did not drink from the river.
Quoting Amity
We can avoid being heedless by keeping to our proper measure in all things. Determining what that is has something to do with knowing who we are, which includes knowing who or what we are not.
It's late and I'm tired, so I should probably leave this.
When I asked if it was the translator, I didn't mean the English translators.
I was wondering about any of the Greek translations. How many versions are there of the 'original' Greek text? Who were the publishers?
How do we know those words weren't changed over the centuries?
[quote="Fooloso4;940796"I ]think Plato intends for us to try and work though the connection.[/quote]
You know Plato better than I do. He certainly makes heavy work for us.
I am not convinced it is worth it, for me. I will read it on my terms. Probably away from here. Even it is different from your interpretation. I will stick with the one that makes sense to me.
Quoting Fooloso4
Trying to read Book 10 is causing me trouble and pain. As well as some degree of pleasure. I do it anyway and don't consider myself in such negative terms.
If I fail to learn from mistakes, it doesn't mean I have forgotten what has happened in the past. It means I'm pretty stupid but can still be 'just' or a good person towards others. I give myself a chance to recover and persevere, as far as I am able.
I don't believe in heaven, hell or rebirth. I am showing patience and tolerance in order to understand but there are limits. I do learn from mistakes. It is one way to grow and progress. Trial and error.
Right now, I am using a cost/benefit analysis to work out whether it is in my best interests to continue with this 'argument' or to do as Paine wisely suggested. To agree to disagree. Sure sounds good to me.
Quoting Fooloso4
Forgetting is necessary if we are to start again. In a new form. Human or animal.
A multitude of past lives would get in the way.
Quoting Fooloso4
Can we? Can a frog avoid being heedless if it doesn't drink the 'right' amount.
Even if that were known? We are assuming a rebirth as a human.
Quoting Fooloso4
A problem for frog spawn, tadpoles or froglets.
Knowing. Forgetting. Remembering. Not always possible.
The scenario is unfair and unjust.
So much for Plato.
Good for some. For others, not so much. A matter of taste as much as intellect.
Good night :yawn:
I think we need to consider "context" as the entire work, "The Republic". This is what I said earlier, we look at the whole, and try to see how the part fits into the whole, and this is how we ought to understand, or interpret, that part. That is why multiple readings is the best course for understanding a philosophical piece. The first reading gives an overall, general idea about what is going on. This allows one to go back and reread, and better understand each part, in relation to how it fits into that understanding of the whole. Then, the person can develop a better understanding of the whole, and be prepared for a repeat.
Quoting Amity
The translation to words with bad or good connotations is something which needs to be determined in relation to the overall context. Plato has separated mind from body, throughout the text, and has proposed a third aspect of the being, passion, or spirit, as the medium between these two. This conception is known as Plato's tripartite soul. In a healthy human being, the mind rules over the body through the means of the passions. This is the same way that the rulers rule over the working class through the means of the guardians, in Plato's proposed republic. In the case of an unhealthy, or corrupted soul, the situation is reversed, the passions are responding to the body, with the result being the suffering of the mind.
Now, in the situation described by the myth of Er, the people are dying, so the circumstance is one of unhealthiness. I believe it is better to consider them dying than dead, because Er managed to come back from this near death experience to tell the story. And, since it is a circumstance of unhealthy souls, the words are best understood to have bad connotations. So these words, "forgetfulness", "heedlessness", or "carelessness", are all best understood as the bad passions which are completely extinguishing the mind's rule over the body, and this will result in death.
The image of "thirst", I believe is very significant, because thirst is the example which Plato uses to show how in the case of a healthy soul, the mind can rule over the desires of the body. In the described circumstance of the myth, the mind is losing that capacity, and the soul is "forced" to drink, and this is what finalizes the end of the mind's rule over the body. This is also the death of Socrates, being forced to drink poison. So these words, heedlessness etc., are the words which are used to refer to those passions which overcome the mind, and lead to the end of the rule of mind over body.
Quoting Amity
The important point about the tripartite soul, is that the middle part, what you call "spirited emotion", is fundamentally neutral. You can think of it as power, and power can be used for good or for bad. If the emotions are directed by reason, the mind uses the emotions to control appetitive desires, and the soul is happy and good. Conversely, the appetitive part may use the emotions to overpower the mind. This relationship is best seen in the corresponding three parts of the state. The guardians are the median group. Corresponding with "spirited emotion", they are bred to be like watchdogs, serving their masters, the rulers, with honour. But when the state starts to corrupt, the guardians become more interested in money than honour, and they switch allegiance, from rulers to the ruled, the tradespeople.
In summary then, desire must be ruled by reason to avoid all sorts of moral problems. In this way, "the desire to be healthy and well" is given priority over the desire for instant gratification. There must be some kind of power there, as a motivating force, but it cannot be desire itself, or else reason would not have the capacity to overcome desire (Plato's example of thirst). So motivation, as power is assigned to the middle aspect, this allows that reason can overcome desire, or desire can overcome reason, depending on the disposition of the emotions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. I understood what you said earlier and have not forgotten. There was no need to repeat. I agree that it is of benefit to read the Republic as a whole. It can also be read in context with the other Dialogues and what Plato is trying to achieve. What is his overall message. His purpose.
However, I am where I am. And persuaded to stay. Encouraged by @Fooloso4 to discuss 'ideas and issues that arise in the part of the dialogue we are reading'. Asking questions of self and others. Interacting in good faith and hope for an improved understanding.
There are contexts within contexts within contexts. That reminds me of the whorl of the spindle of necessity and its nestings. Perhaps I am on a different planet!
The context I am referring to is the literary context. It is just the situation where an event takes place, and any description or statement is given. Involving characters and views. The souls arriving at the river Lethe in the Myth of Er.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That is an interesting perspective. The circumstance is not of people dying. The majority are souls about to return in another life. Human or animal. They have no physical body. Er's soul seems to have departed his body on the cusp between life and death. Just as the river can be seen as a border to cross. He is there in the Myth as an observer to return and tell the story, of the Myth.
It does not follow that the words are 'best understood' as having bad or negative connotations. Or as 'bad passions' which do as you suggest.
I could zoom in a bit more. However, I think I need to contemplate on 'carelessness'.
Thanks to @Paine for showing patience and persevering with this.
Earlier I asked @Fooloso4:
What is the message from either Plato or Socrates?
To be good, to care, to think, to be wise, to be just, to study and practise philosophy?
Does knowing ourselves save us from ourselves?
To which he replied: Yes, all of the above.
I think care lies at the core. So, 'carelessness' seems to be negative.
However, there are different ways to see 'carelessness'. As 'free from care' - having no worries, problems or anxieties. I can accept this as being necessary and welcome for the souls about to start a new life. They don't want to worry or about events in the past, present or future.
Drinking from the waters of the river Lethe can induce this state.
Of carelessness or forgetfulness. Of oblivion. To become a newly born with a blank slate...
Thanks to you and everyone for a most stimulating conversation :sparkle:
So who will volunteer to start one on Plato's Republic? :wink: :monkey:
The lyrics of George Harrison
I wonder what Plato or Socrates listened to... :chin:
Hmmm...Hymns?
I'm returning to this. You are right. However, this purpose is at a different level. That of Plato's or Socrates' overall aim in story-telling. Through the Dialogues. It is a rhetorical context. Crafting a message.
To persuade that it is better to consume and consider wisely and carefully. And so on.
I am viewing this in its literary context. The perspective of the individual souls in the Myth of Er.
The need to drink from the river of Lethe as a way to progress, without care or anxiety, to a new life as a new-born. To blankly go where they haven't been before. Well, as far as they know...
I agree that in general, there's a need for balance - 'keeping to a proper measure' - to achieve wellbeing.
However, here at the river, there is no regulating vessel with which the souls can measure the water.
All souls (human or animal) who drink, forget. Perhaps some remember more in their next life according to the amount imbibed. But that is speculation.
Drinking from the river, in this context or circumstance, does not necessarily mean that they will avoid being heedless in the next life.
Time for a break and cuppa tea. With milk and no sugar. Thanks for the exchange of views :cool:
That's very clearly not the case. Er's soul did not depart his body, otherwise the body would have started the decomposition process. These experiences are known as "near death". Er went on the trip with the others, without his soul leaving his body. The adventure occurred within that context. We can conclude therefore that this is the context of that trip, it is the process of dying, not the condition of being dead. This is prior to the returning in another life, which only occurs after the drinking of the water, which Er did not partake of.
The drinking symbolizes finality for Plato. It is the finality of Socrates when he drinks the poison. And, the will power to resist drinking non-potable water, when a man is thirsty, is the example Plato uses to demonstrate, that it is necessary to conclude, that the mind rules the body. This argument, concerning the will power of a thirsty person to resist the desire to drink, when the water is known to be likely unfit for drinking, is a very strong argument for the idea that the mind can rule over the desires of the body. Therefore drinking is a very powerful symbol in myths like this, and being forced to drink is very significant as representative of that moment when the body overpowers the soul, and puts an end to that rule. This is when the harmony of the parts, which is the effect of the soul ruling the body, is lost, and decomposition of the body begins.
Quoting Amity
Again, this is clearly not the case. The situation described by Er is a situation in which the rule of the soul, over the body is being lost. By Plato's principles this is explicitly bad. Therefore the terms used here "forgetfulness", and "heedlessness" or "carelessness", mean that something bad is occurring. It would constitute misunderstanding, to deny the bad connotations of these words. This is undeniably a bad situation.
Quoting Amity
You appear to have an irrational inclination toward glorifying death. Death ought not be represented as freeing oneself from the problems of life. In no way does the myth of Er imply that this is the case. Notice, the souls in the final stages of dying are presented with the most difficult decision, what sort of life would be better than the one I just had. And, the souls are bound by fate to be subjected to the consequences of that final choice. Therefore, rather than being freed, the souls at this point are bound and sentenced to a lifetime of living out the consequences of that one, most important choice. That 'most important choice' is, 'what is the best possible life which a soul could have?'. Notice, the possibilities are restricted to those handed out by fate, and "having no worries, problems or anxieties" is not an option.
Quoting Amity
Again, you are neglecting the essence of the myth. Read 618 please. The message concerns the 'all important', most significant, choice which must be made, "the greatest danger of all" 618b. That is the choice, to choose from the available options, the best possible life a soul could have. To the extent that we all have regrets, and no one would ever choose to live a life exactly as one has, the choice is "To blankly go where they haven't been before". But, as indicated in the translation below with " But there was no determination of the quality of soul, because the choice of a different life inevitably2 determined a different character", we need to decide which will be the best life. This is the problem, we must choose a life which is different, but by what principles will we know that the different will be better rather than worse.
However, this going forward which is presented, this proceeding, or "way to progress" is irreversibly conditioned (because the nature of time) by that all important, primary choice, which is forced upon the soul. Refusing to choose would mean a lifetime in purgatory. And if one is overcome by forgetfulness, or haste, the soul will be punished with suffering. Therefore a lifetime of experiences, in the future life, is dependent on this one choice, "what is the best possible life a soul could have". So it's completely opposed to the message of the myth, to say that the souls proceeds "without care or anxiety". If you believe that you can progress without care or anxiety, you will surely choose the life of tyranny.
[quote=Perseus Digital Library] [618a] And after this again the prophet placed the patterns of lives before them on the ground, far more numerous than the assembly. They were of every variety, for there were lives of all kinds of animals and all sorts of human lives, for there were tyrannies among them, some uninterrupted till the end1 and others destroyed midway and issuing in penuries and exiles and beggaries; and there were lives of men of repute for their forms and beauty and bodily strength otherwise [618b] and prowess and the high birth and the virtues of their ancestors, and others of ill repute in the same things, and similarly of women. But there was no determination of the quality of soul, because the choice of a different life inevitably2 determined a different character. But all other things were commingled with one another and with wealth and poverty and sickness and health and the intermediate3 conditions.
And there, dear Glaucon, it appears, is the supreme hazard4 for a man. [618c] And this is the chief reason why it should be our main concern that each of us, neglecting all other studies, should seek after and study this thing5if in any way he may be able to learn of and discover the man who will give him the ability and the knowledge to distinguish the life that is good from that which is bad, and always and everywhere to choose the best that the conditions allow, and, taking into account all the things of which we have spoken and estimating the effect on the goodness of his life of their conjunction or their severance, to know how beauty commingled with poverty or wealth and combined with [618d] what habit of soul operates for good or for evil, and what are the effects of high and low birth and private station and office and strength and weakness and quickness of apprehension and dullness and all similar natural and acquired habits of the soul, when blended and combined with one another,6 so that with consideration of all these things he will be able to make a reasoned choice between the better and the worse life, [618e] with his eyes fixed on the nature of his soul, naming the worse life that which will tend to make it more unjust and the better that which will make it more just. But all other considerations he will dismiss, for we have seen that this is the best choice, [619a] both for life and death. And a man must take with him to the house of death an adamantine1 faith in this, that even there he may be undazzled2 by riches and similar trumpery, and may not precipitate himself into tyrannies and similar doings and so work many evils past cure and suffer still greater himself, but may know how always to choose in such things the life that is seated in the mean3 and shun the excess in either direction, both in this world so far as may be and in all the life to come; [619b] for this is the greatest happiness for man. [/quote]
Do you really expect me to wade through all of that? Not gonna happen.
Perhaps edit to make important points stand out?
As it is, I can't see anything to make me change my mind. Too much clutter.
What makes the destination 'just for Dionysus' is because he wants to follow the route used by Heracles. The passed over option of "Plain of Oblivion" is the same Greek phrase used by Plato, suggesting he is working with an established story line and combining them with others.
I want to take this observation into a new direction. If the relationship between a soul and its daimon is over at the end of each life, that underlines a register of personal experience that does not survive death. This aspect makes the Er story differ from the other mythos Plato puts forward. This makes me wonder if Book 10 is a focus of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's view of nature.
In De Anima, Aristotle rejects the notion that souls can be inserted into just any body. That countervails against the arbitrary power of the Fates in the Er story. It also touches on the mention of the Pythagoreans at the beginning of Book 10, who Aristotle specifically rejects because of their version of metempsychosis.
On the other hand, Aristotle concurs with the Er view of personal mortality when the means of memory are strictly tied to the time when the form of life becomes joined with a particular batch of matter.
Thank you, tim, for joining the discussion. I find it fascinating to read how translators decide to decode ancient works so that modern readers can understand them, as far as possible.
A long time ago, I made an attempt to learn Ancient Greek. I thought this would help me to read and evaluate the English translation(s). What I learned was that even simple words, sentences and texts are challenging and difficult.
It made me appreciate the years, if not decades, of work that it can take for professional translators to produce their best work possible. There is also collaboration with past and present authors/interpreters.
How best to approach it. There is no easy way. What matters is that the reader engages with Plato and gets the best sense, appreciation and understanding of his message. Each reader has different aims, aesthetics and will prefer one style over another, given their time, energy and intellect.
Setting out, I said I would stick with Reeve's translation. That sounded dogmatic but it was so I could focus on one, rather than be confused. However, I was open to other interpretations, as always. I have gained much by participating in this discussion. Still puzzling on...
There is nothing 'easy, open and clear' about English translation(s) - for their authors or readers.
And that, I think, is what Plato intended.
I've just finished reading the Foreword, Introduction and Beginnings of Horan's The Dialogues of Plato. The translation recommended by @Fooloso4.
Quoting Platonic Foundation - Introduction by David Horan
There is more than this. I've been inspired by what I've read in the Foreword and Introduction.
I think it's time to move on and not get stuck in the mud.
To get over a sticky patch and to progress...to make it to the end. I think it most worthwhile.
Will you be joining in the fun?
Grateful for the return to poetry and the chosen passage.
Quoting Paine
Yes. I wonder if @Jamal would consider this a 'literary easter egg'?
I am puzzled by this. When did Atropos cut the thread? It seemed to me that she was part of the spinning. The daimon continued to be 'the guardian of the life who fulfils what has been chosen'.
From Horan's 620e:
Quoting Paine
It is not clear to me that the relationship is severed at death. Where does it say this in Book 10?
***
Quoting Atropos - The Final Fate Who Severs the Thread of Life [emphasis added]
So, I'm still confused. The fates are also daimons?
I will try to put forward a more nuanced response in the coming week. For now, I will make two observations.
In Homer, fate is the timing of a mortal's death. It has a role in the fortunes of the gods but not the absolute closure experienced by mortal life. I think the original idea is important to absorb before looking at how the work got broken up into parts.
In the story of Er, the diamon is chosen/assigned before birth. Its job is to make sure the individual life follows the pattern selected/assigned. If a former human decides to become a hippopotamus, the pattern will differ along with the constraints needed for that life to endure (as long as that life lasts). A different diamon will need to be brought on board to cover the action.
From my pocket Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary: Care as a noun ( anxious thought) - ???????
Quoting tim wood
Yes. I'm not interested in providing translations! As you know, to be able to read and listen requires you first to know the alphabet and its sounds. Then to see and hear the words in sentences, short passages. So, there is a need to translate if you want to understand the meaning rather than just the sounds.
Quoting tim wood
OMG. Yes. It's all coming back to me now! I remember the frustration. And then, the search for audio materials. They were few and far between. I don't know why but I hadn't realised the relationship between the dreaded 'accents' and poetic rhythms. Now I do, thank you! :sparkle:
Quoting Paine
OK. I'm turning to Homer for a bit. I found a new translation by Emily Wilson who was the first woman to translate The Odyssey into English.
Quoting BBC Culture - The Iliad - How modern readers get this epic wrong
Emily's website includes her pronunciation guide. You can scroll down to hear a Greek snippet from the Iliad: https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/pronunciation-guide
Sounds scary!
Here's something a bit more sombre. Listen to and read the text at the same time:
Quoting Harvard Classics - Homer, Iliad 1.1-16 Read in Greek by Gregory Nagy
This from the OU is pretty good.
Quoting OpenLearn - Getting started on ancient Greek Session 2: Sounds9 Listening to Homer
I asked earlier what Plato might have listened to. Well, d'oh! Homer - of course :roll:
@Paine - I look forward to hearing more. What do you consider the best translation of the Iliad?
Anyone? A free online version preferred.
Quoting Paine
:smile: Interesting to imagine the different patterns in the lives of animals...wild, caged or tamed.
I thought it would be the same daimon - multilingual, able to adapt to whatever. Seems not.
It seems the thread is turning towards poetry and Homer's Iliad. I'm enjoying it but not too sure where we're heading.
Is it about a poetic continuation in Plato? He isn't breaking away from poetry in any radical sense. The poets' influence seems clear. There is intertextuality.
I feel like I'm missing a deeper connection. Help?
Emily Wilson's 5 crucial decisions she made in her Iliad translation
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=72989
Emily Wilson's Translation of The Iliad
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=72905
My focus remains on where Plato has taken us in Book 10 after showing the poets in a new light. To that end, I am trying to get a better handle on the version of Er that Plato tells. Getting a clear view of the three daughters is difficult because there are other stories than those given by Hesiod who names them with different parents than spoken of in Er. I will keep looking around.
It does seem safe to say that the connection between 'spinning a thread' and mortality was well established in Homer. One example:
The plural spinners are ?????? in Greek. That matches the name of Clotho, the middle sister, in the Er story.
The discussion of Homer translations is interesting. But I need to stay focused on the architecture of mortality and a surprise plumbing malfunction.
OK. I think I begin to see what you're getting at. Plural sisters acting in unison.
Fate encircling the life and death of body and mind.
What do you mean by the 'architecture of mortality' ?
Is this a daimonic determination of destiny. A web being spun.
I've read that:
Quoting Britannica - Fate - Greek and Roman mythology
So, the connection to Plato's Myth of Er is a structure of morality.
After death, judgement day.
The moral, the good and the just are rewarded > Heaven
The immoral, the bad and unjust are punished > Hell
But that's not the end of it...
If you believe the myth.
Be a wise, little philosopher, or else ?!
Quoting Paine
:smile: That's fine. I was just going with the flow...
The role of the daimon is not as clearly set out as the powers that make a life a certain length. The most terrible idea of the spinning thread is that much is determined at birth.
Socrates is presented as receiving instruction from his daimon at particular times. Those moments are not presented as unavoidable fate. It sounds more like thinking for oneself.
Socrates had a daimonion. This was an inner voice which gave Socrates warnings. If the daimonion was silent, then this was taken as approval.
Like an inner advisor, I suppose it could be interpreted as talking/thinking to yourself.
Perhaps an inner dialogue...asking questions, awaiting response. From the universe?
Or an auditory hallucination!
There are the accounts of Socrates' daimon giving him warnings. In Phaedo, the voice said he should set poetry to music. Plato shows him as withdrawn from others before going to the party in Symposium. Plato keeps pointing to these personal experiences but does not turn them into a single story. They seem to vary as much as the different myths that are used throughout his works.
That is a contrast to Xenophon who does speak of 'conversations' with a divine agent in his Apology.
No court reporters at the time so verification of who is closer to what was said is not possible.
I wonder if it makes much difference to talk of Socrates' daimon or daimonion. Perhaps he has both.
I can't recall where he explicitly talks of either. I do remember previous discussions.
From @Fooloso4's Phaedo thread - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1
Quoting Fooloso4 [emphasis added]
Quoting Paine
Yes. I remember reading this and wondering about his mental health. What with his daimonion and now this odd behaviour; his absence being described as a 'fit'.
Quoting Gutenberg - Plato's Symposium [emphasis added]
Quoting Paine
Yes. The variations seem to suit the different contexts, audience and subject matter. The Symposium is one of my favourites. Party Perspectives on Love.
This is a story. But not just any old story.
Who or what can persuade us?
Arguments, stories or arguments within stories...stories within arguments.
To fare well.
It is a completely normal thing to have. Just shunned in modern society. Plenty of people hear voices and live perfectly normal lives benefiting from these voices too.
All kinds of behaviour are shunned in any society. I am not unduly concerned re Socrates. Simply noting his behaviour as told. And wondering. I think sometimes he needed to be alone with his thoughts. Perhaps, this was a way of preparing himself...
How helpful or harmful are the 'voices' we hear in our heads? Are they our own reflections or something inserted by 'God' or any other being - a daimon? What do they tell us to do? Can we control them. Do we think of them as a guide we rely on? Or are they a result of brain/body chemistry? Dreams. Daydreams. Imagination. Whatever. They are all mental.
The problems start with delusions...and that's a different story...
It seems it does make a difference. With explanations and excerpts related to the daemonion:
Quoting Socrates and the Daimonion
I think its value is pretty clear. With the final reflection on the Myth of Er, we can see the importance of poetic creativity in questions of philosophy.
As @Fooloso4 said here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15484/poets-and-tyrants-in-the-republic-book-i/p1
Thanks @Fooloso4. Take care. Go well :sparkle:
Socrates may have been "catching forty winks" before that dinner party. If I remember correctly, he ended up staying up all night drinking. Alternatively, you might consider that since he was described to be less drunk than the others, after that all night drinking, he may have been intentionally avoiding the pre-dinner cocktails, shots, or whatever was the custom. Those are real kickers to one's inebriation.
Quoting Amity
Consider, every minute aspect of description, written by Plato, has importance, and small things mentioned earlier can develop more importance later. And, the association between the earlier and the later is usually not mentioned, leaving it up to the reader to draw the link (deduce causation). A significant part of the dialogue concerns etiquette (notice "beauty" is the property of institutions), and Socrates is a bit of a social misfit. If you are socially inept (as I am), you may find some good party strategies in this dialogue.
I am not sure how to talk about these different experiences in a modern context.
In the Republic, the most repeated ratio is the individual soul being the measure of what happens in a City.
Socrates becomes a voice in the City like his internal voice works on himself.