Getting started with political philosophy

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Or even changes to your responses on a re-read ?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Georgeanna:
Can you remember your initial reactions to Book 1 ?
I do not know how accurate my memory of this is. I am sure that there was much confusion, questioning, and uncertainty on my part.

I was amused by Cephalus. As a young man the idea of being freed from the pleasures of sex, “a sort of frenzied and savage master” (329c), seemed in one way right, but if I had a choice I would have remained a slave. I had a friend who has an ascetic. I always thought that he was missing out. I still do.

I could not come up with a definition of justice that could stand up to Socrates’ objections, but still I had some sense of what justice meant. Or did I? Maybe it was too nebulous for it to be anything other than whatever someone believed it was.

Although I rejected Thrasymachus’ argument, as I understood it, that might makes right, I could not think of an argument to show he was wrong. My objection was probably to the idea that I would lose my freedom and since that was something I objected to it must be unjust. I agreed with Socrates’ distinction between good and bad and so the just city could not be the one where someone has gained power and does whatever he wants.

I found the analogy with a good doctor somewhat persuasive, but the health of the body seemed to be less a matter of dispute than the health of a city.

I thought that Socrates was on the losing end of the argument when he said:
… injustice is never more profitable than justice. (354a)
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Burning ghost »

Georgeanna wrote: September 10th, 2018, 10:17 am Or even changes to your responses on a re-read ?
Just reread it today.

In brief I took it as a lying out of the land for the rest of The Republic. It is an introduction to the different views and opposite claims about various items surrounding “morality” in general. It ends with an example of how subtle differences in concepts each of us may have lead to us believing the other is saying the opposite of what we think even when it may well be te case we basically agree yet have made some error in setting out what we meant or used a term differently to someone else.

Also, in pointing out polar positions it also begins to highlight how one extreme end leads into the opposite conclusion. To be safe we must be adventerous in part, to be victorious we have to lose in part, etc.,.

I’d actually forgotten about the opening and the old man’s reference to wealth, sacrifice and attitudes towards life.

The most difficulty people have in understanding it is due to the lack of clarity over the terminology used (eg. “ability”, “skill”, “technique” often being spliced with the more generic English “good” and being further derived from various other terms and translated, with cautionary notes, as “just” - which my opinion suffers huge misrepresentation without at least a slight understanding of the subtle differences in which the same terms are used among ancient Greek writers.)
AKA badgerjelly
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Fooloso4 wrote: September 10th, 2018, 11:46 am Georgeanna:
Can you remember your initial reactions to Book 1 ?
I do not know how accurate my memory of this is. I am sure that there was much confusion, questioning, and uncertainty on my part.

I was amused by Cephalus. As a young man the idea of being freed from the pleasures of sex, “a sort of frenzied and savage master” (329c), seemed in one way right, but if I had a choice I would have remained a slave. I had a friend who has an ascetic. I always thought that he was missing out. I still do.

I could not come up with a definition of justice that could stand up to Socrates’ objections, but still I had some sense of what justice meant. Or did I? Maybe it was too nebulous for it to be anything other than whatever someone believed it was.

Although I rejected Thrasymachus’ argument, as I understood it, that might makes right, I could not think of an argument to show he was wrong. My objection was probably to the idea that I would lose my freedom and since that was something I objected to it must be unjust. I agreed with Socrates’ distinction between good and bad and so the just city could not be the one where someone has gained power and does whatever he wants.

I found the analogy with a good doctor somewhat persuasive, but the health of the body seemed to be less a matter of dispute than the health of a city.

I thought that Socrates was on the losing end of the argument when he said:
… injustice is never more profitable than justice. (354a)
Cephalus as the as the traditional head of the family, hailed from Sicily and was a businessman who is now having troubled thoughts about past misdeeds. His road is coming to an end and he fears for his fate at the hand of the gods. Hades. A retribution - will he have to pay for all the injustices that he might have carried out.
I wonder if he was the original Godfather. The Capo - the head. However, it does seem that his sons don't want to carry on in the family business.
Or do they ? They seem to be political aspirants with differing views of justice.

Justice, then, is discussed from different perspectives - quite confusing at times. Socrates challenges all, convincing some and totally frustrating Thrasymachus. This part I found quite amusing - the pantomime entrance of the Thrasymachus, Socrates' rival in the art of persuading the young that their way is the right way.

Thrasymachus entering like a wild beast - Socrates now fearful and all in a flutter (336b).
And then you remember, it is a play. Socrates is the narrator to an Athens audience the following day.
Just before this, Socrates had concluded that 'it is clear that it is never just to harm anyone'.
Again, not convincing - given that there will be a counter-example somewhere - as in the above quote ' injustice is never more profitable than justice' (354a).
Why didn't Thrasymachus provide one ?

I also didn't appreciate when the concept of 'usefulness' was brought into the discussion. The virtue of an eye is in the seeing; the vice is in the non-function - being blind. That just didn't compute with me. I understand that the physical has obvious uses and when things go wrong - they cease to function and are useless. However, this is not the same as an abstract concept such as 'justice', is it ?
My notes exclaim - what's useful got to do with it ?

It's a bit like the criticism of philosophy as being good for nothing.
And that is what Book 1 is all about I suppose - the groundwork for Socrates to prove the value of philosophy.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Burning ghost wrote: September 11th, 2018, 5:17 am
Georgeanna wrote: September 10th, 2018, 10:17 am Or even changes to your responses on a re-read ?
Just reread it today.

In brief I took it as a lying out of the land for the rest of The Republic. It is an introduction to the different views and opposite claims about various items surrounding “morality” in general. It ends with an example of how subtle differences in concepts each of us may have lead to us believing the other is saying the opposite of what we think even when it may well be te case we basically agree yet have made some error in setting out what we meant or used a term differently to someone else.

Also, in pointing out polar positions it also begins to highlight how one extreme end leads into the opposite conclusion. To be safe we must be adventerous in part, to be victorious we have to lose in part, etc.,.

I’d actually forgotten about the opening and the old man’s reference to wealth, sacrifice and attitudes towards life.

The most difficulty people have in understanding it is due to the lack of clarity over the terminology used (eg. “ability”, “skill”, “technique” often being spliced with the more generic English “good” and being further derived from various other terms and translated, with cautionary notes, as “just” - which my opinion suffers huge misrepresentation without at least a slight understanding of the subtle differences in which the same terms are used among ancient Greek writers.)
I had another quick look at it today - I was surprised that it had taken me so long to read. It's only about 30 pages long. However, I had decided to take it easy, given that if no other book was read, this one would be the most important. As you say, it is a lying out for the rest of the Republic, if not more besides. You need to understand the baseline and the significance of the various characters.
I agree about the difficulty in understanding the terms and concepts used.
However, don't think anything much could go wrong in interpreting the sex question - especially if viewed as pantomime with accompanying non-verbal gestures.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Burning ghost »

Sex question?
AKA badgerjelly
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Burning ghost wrote: September 11th, 2018, 11:57 am Sex question?
You don't get it ?

Socrates to Cephalus : Do you still feel the need for sex ?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Burning ghost »

“Release from mad masters”. With age things certainly change.

Anyway I’ll probably read through the entie thing again. It’s been a while.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Georgeanna:
I think this exceptional ‘most important intellectual experience’ he mentions must be of a life-changing type … a provocation or an answering of an existential question or angst - who am I and what kind of a life do I want to lead ?
Is that what happened to you ? And do you think you were alone?
Yes, it was something existential for me. I had started out planning to major in sociology - so I could help fix the world. Instead I turned to the problem of fixing myself. I believed in the Forms and that I was on the ascent out of the cave. It was a kind of religious quest. It took me several years to figure out that one does not escape the cave of ignorance by listening to stories of a transcendent reality, no matter how appealing they may be. This did not turn me off on Plato though, but rather turned me in a new direction, a different way of reading him. A peak behind the mythology of Forms.

As to the kind of life I wanted to live, it would have been an idealized notion of academia, with students and colleagues eager to read and discuss important books.

I was not alone. My roommate and I took our first philosophy class together where we read the Republic. He went to graduate school at the University of Chicago to study with Bloom and others. Along with the professor who taught the class another professor in the Political Science department and a few students discovered the Republic at about the same time and were profoundly influenced as well. We met regularly in class and out. A moment in time. I did not know then how rare it was.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Georgeanna:
And then you remember, it is a play.
That is an important point. One that is still missed by standard textbooks and some scholars. The setting and the action as well as what is said are all important for interpreting the text.
Just before this, Socrates had concluded that 'it is clear that it is never just to harm anyone'.
Again, not convincing - given that there will be a counter-example somewhere - as in the above quote ' injustice is never more profitable than justice' (354a).
Why didn't Thrasymachus provide one ?
He does. If you are not the ruler you are harmed by being just:
… justice and the just are really someone else's good, the advantage of the man who is stronger and rules, and a personal harm to the man who obeys and serves. (343 a)

So, Socrates, injustice, when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice; and,
as I have said from the beginning, the just is the advantage of the stronger, and the unjust is what is profitable and advantageous for
Oneself." (344c)
But if it is true that when injustice comes into being on a sufficient scale it is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice, then the unjust becomes the just because it can be used to their advantage in making them stronger.
I also didn't appreciate when the concept of 'usefulness' was brought into the discussion.
I don’t see what your objection is to the connection between 'usefulness' and 'justice'.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Burning ghost »

Georgeanna -

If I may. This part has numerous holes in it. If you read on, to part 3, it does resolve (at least partially!)

For what it’s worth I take one of the meanings of the use of “just” to be something between “better” and “fair”. The general thrust of the argument being that “just”, by definition, must mean movement toward something better (in the opening it is remarked on by what is “expedient”, “duty”, “profit”, “interest” - 336)

I generally take the meaning of “just” to be something of all of these terms and that the point of the dialogue is to see past the different views of each person and get to the heart of what each mean and how subtle differences make a big difference to moral views.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Adding to the comment that it is a play:

It is a dialectical play and the play of dialectic. Nothing that is said should be taken as the final word. Nothing is settled, and if they say it is settled that should put us on alert that it is not settled. The reader is intended to play a part in the search. Book 2 opens with Socrates saying:
Now, when I had said this, I thought I was freed from argument. But after all, as it seems, it was only a prelude. (357a)
I agree with Strauss that our attitude toward the text should not be one of superiority. If we come across an apparent contradiction we should not assume that we have caught something that slipped Plato’s attention. The apparent contradiction signals the beginning of an inquiry not the failed terminus. It has been my personal experience and that of many others as well, that the apparent contradictions are pointing us somewhere. This does not mean the dialogues resolve all contradiction, but those contradictions may be in the nature of things rather than in the author’s claims and arguments.

It may be that the question of justice is not adequately addressed via definition. As we shall see, the definition Socrates eventually gives is peculiar to say the least. It is ironic, both playful and serious.

What does Thrasymachus agree to at the end of book 1?

A bad soul necessarily rules and manages badly while a good one does all these things well.
The just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one.
The man who lives well is blessed and happy, and the man who does not is the opposite.
The just man is happy and the unjust man wretched."
But it is not profitable to be wretched; rather it is profitable to be happy.
Injustice is never more profitable than justice. (353 e-354a)

All of these refer to soul and the man. It says nothing directly about one’s dealings with others. The stage is set for the inquiry into the well ordered soul.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Burning ghost wrote: September 12th, 2018, 11:55 am Georgeanna -

If I may. This part has numerous holes in it. If you read on, to part 3, it does resolve (at least partially!)

For what it’s worth I take one of the meanings of the use of “just” to be something between “better” and “fair”. The general thrust of the argument being that “just”, by definition, must mean movement toward something better (in the opening it is remarked on by what is “expedient”, “duty”, “profit”, “interest” - 336)

I generally take the meaning of “just” to be something of all of these terms and that the point of the dialogue is to see past the different views of each person and get to the heart of what each mean and how subtle differences make a big difference to moral views.
I am indeed tempted to read on so as to continue this course without further ado. However, I feel an obligation to my self to return to at least some of the arguments so as to pin down or better articulate my sense of unease. Perhaps I need a refresher course in logical fallacies.

You say 'this part has numerous holes in it'. I understand this to mean faulty analogies or use of ambiguity, and more besides.
It would be helpful if you could provide an example of any particular argument in Book 1, to illustrate and explain any 'holes' and how they are made. This makes the reading of greater learning value, to me at least.
In addition, we might consider why Plato would use this seemingly underhand method to allow Socrates to 'win'.

I think knowledge of fallacious arguments is important - given their use in everyday politics. I'm thinking of the manipulation of the word 'patriot' where a political stance is correct because it is called patriotic and anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. This can lead to charges of treason simply for having a difference of opinion. The other manipulation is in the pious mask of Christianity which some politicians assume to garner votes.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by Georgeanna »

Burning ghost wrote: September 12th, 2018, 1:51 am “Release from mad masters”. With age things certainly change.

Anyway I’ll probably read through the entie thing again. It’s been a while.
With age, yes, things change. Also, things can change regarding self-mastery at any age.
Philosophy, psychology and study into human nature, the use and abuse of power - mind control. All good stuff. I think the Republic is full of it...
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Getting started with political philosophy

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Georgeanna wrote: September 13th, 2018, 5:34 am I think knowledge of fallacious arguments is important - given their use in everyday politics.
I think you might find this list useful.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

But beware, although a person might employ a logical fallacy in the protection of a claim, the claim itself might be a valid one in its own right.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021