Philosophers and social relationships
- TBTWU
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 7:10 pm
Philosophers and social relationships
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Philosophers and social relationships
Well if you don’t mind sticking your neck out you could introduce Plato’s Beast analogy. It is very insulting so could get you in trouble. It occurs in book VI of the Republic in a passage where Socrates explains why the philosophers should rule the state. The masses which comprise the Beast lack knowledge but are captured by opinions so collectives are formed reflecting similar opinions. The sophist who understands psychological dependency and knows how to manipulate the Beast, controls the Beast.TBTWU wrote:I am doing a paper on the need to belong. I want to incorporate philosophy into my paper, but I am having no luck finding philosophers who have written about the relationships, society, groups or anything similar to those. Does anybody know what philosophers that have spoke about the need to form relationships?
From Book VI
As you know, progressives today consider you part of the Beast. Each collective is a part of the Beast. It is what you belong to since your individuality no longer exists. Where individuality was once an admired trait, It is being abandoned in favor of belonging to the BeastI might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
On the other hand some consider themselves individuals and not part of a group with a strong defense of opinions. Do you belong to a collective and defined by the collective or do you consider yourself an individual not belonging to and defined by progressive politics? What are you willing to sacrifice in order to belong to a collective determined by your political superiors?
- Rex_AC
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 13th, 2017, 12:45 pm
Re: Philosophers and social relationships
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023