Class Notes (835,587)
Canada (509,265)
POL200Y5 (152)
Lecture

10-17-12.docx

7 Pages
127 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL200Y5
Professor
Clifford Orwin
Semester
Fall

Description
 Review: Last lecture we talked about…. (Speech of Leontius and the Parallel of the city of the soul, Life of men/women, Community of the children) - Express the aspects of tension of justice as ordinarily understood and Eros, desires or longing - Eros: your desire for the object of it is so deep, to be without it makes you miserable, when you possess the object, Eros to be gratified and happy; deep desire and prolonging  Questions mostly posed most vividly by Glaucon; relationship between justice and Eros - Justice is simply repressive (justice always says no) – but, he hopes that justice will not turn out to be repressive, but it would turn out to be the ultimate satisfaction of the object of the longing; inferring happiness - Goodness for the practice of it ourselves, not only compatible with human happiness but somehow conferring human happiness (Glaucon hopes that Socrates would show)  Leontious tale; very important stage on the – discrepancy between what the tale actually shows for the benefit of the thoughtful reader - Socrates succeeds in persuading Glaucon on the aspect of the soul as in the city, the spirited class serving to be the reasonable class to control desires - Leontious’ shame (spiritedness) anger projected inward, serves not his reason, but societies convention of generalization; decent people don’t gawk - Spiritedness causes the anger inward; shame – seems to be pro-social - to ourselves, (spiritedness as the ‘anger’)anti-social, just as we are shamed of ours we question the norms of the society, angry that others would question those norms - How so contrary to the life the norms that we share – spiritedness play strong role in the defense of the city or society, defends justice as the given society defines society - Opposes not simply desire of usual sense but desire of reason, desire to know, all with intention with reason - Reason is reason always questionable, Possibility that the opposite is true (never satisfied what a given society tells us) – reason is not the whole passion arbitrary to desire but mere calculation, rather own desire to know extending even to the cases of the forbidden, reason itself is erratic, the tripartite soul with the compartments of reason, anger, and desire won’t really work; it is much too simplistic  Reason in the soul of the individual proves to be ‘transcendent’ (going beyond the ordinary limits); - Overleaps the bounds of the city, don’t look what is elsewhere or opposite of contrary - Be satisfied with what you already know – philosophic dog; life of reason unjust in the usual sense of that term, unlike the dog it longs for something new walls of the city not possibly contain because it is not devoted to local - Not satisfied, Leontius curses eyes, remains loyal or semi-loyal Athenian - Socrates would not curse his eyes; his mind he fully indulges his longing for the truth however strange or remote - Analogy between the parts of city and the alleged parts of the soul can’t be sustained - Socrates arguing here for the goodness of the soul; not fully convincing since it depends entirely on this analogy - This analogy made Socrates to prove what he set out to prove that justice in the individual would be identical with happiness  Justice is the best thing for the city, individuals as the microcosm of the city, it must be the best thing for the soul too  It must be the same as in which case happiness for the individual, following necessarily from the parallel, explains what parallel is crucial for the argument  If justice in the city is the health, beauty, and good condition of the city, then therefore, the parallel between the soul of the city, if the justice is the harmony of the soul, its unity or integrity: vice, injustice is contrary to the sickness and weakness of the soul, decidedly the dividedness of the soul  Justice is anonymous with the human happiness, precise health of the soul that all human beings strive for; we most admire and envy (445a-b): the analogy brilliantly succeeds in persuading Glaucon  Even if the health of the body too evil of the human being show much greater for the sickness to the soul (justice = happiness, core of the soul, greatest of the human beings) - Just individuals remain as an abstraction because definition is purely formal - What would the just look like, what would they lived for, what about their relations to the city - Paradox with Socrates teaching injustice: justice of an individual becomes a merely internal matter - Proper relation of the parts of the soul becomes a very internal matter (443C – 443A) - Just man always does what is best for himself; is justice identifiable and sufficient with happiness (as Glaucon wanted Socrates to show); or is it any way compatible with happiness (Adeimantus wanted Socrates to show), if we redefine the justice as happiness (what Socrates has essentially done) - This too is the consequence of the parallel between the city and the soul - Tremendous paradox redefining justice as an internal matter, matter of the relations with the other people justice puts in life - Justice is the virtue of propagating with others - An individual possessing a just soul in regards to the happiness would have a healthy soul? Would he look like a good citizen? Or, would he look like a tyrant? (Thrasymachus) - What relations justice in noble sense bares the justice in the common sense?  It has nothing to do with the relations of the city and its neighbors (it was an internal matter) more of conforms with the common usage, but we raise the question whether a certain regime is just or unjust - Not primarily how it treats other countries or other people whether the given regimes is just, the evaluation is primarily based on the domestic state; quality of the democracy and how it treats own people - In order to understand justice as an internal feature of the regime or the matter of domestic affairs, only secondarily questioning the relations with the other regimes to societies - Not the way we think of justice as the individual how it treats other people - By simulating the model of individual to the model of the city ranges of the justice becomes primarily internal matter in an individual (this too follows from the parallel), how it would manifest itself in his affair to the other - Socrates’ conclusion does not coincide with anything we expected him to tell us about ‘justice’the most about; how justice relations with the society in the others would be  How the just citizens would treat the others in the society to be  Socrates’ attention to the justice and happiness in the proper state of the soul or the reasonable way of life;  What this life would look like or commonly understood – not answered the question yet  Reason has desire of its own (the desire to know) we have to wonder whether the fully reasonable life, wouldn’t involve the class of the satisfaction of desires, reasonable soul = erratic soul of certain kind, how is that related to the justice as usually understood? Leontius’tale self-transgressive  Community of Women and Children - 445AB: no point in arguing (Glaucon tiding up), but it turns out Polemarchus points of the realms yet unimagined - Community of women and children how would that work; Adeimantus and Glaucon both overlooked the question; way of the life as the just human beings understood fully reasonable - Socrates robbed them of the part of an argument: not a reasonable way to defend justice  Community of women and children and how will that be arranged, where did he slip this off – 423-424A;  Socrates to Polemarchus: ‘you don’t know how great of argument your swarming’  Republic; dealt with men, women/children hardly any figured at all  451C, what kind of drama is this female one? Tragic(No)/ Comedy(No)  Absolutely evoked nothing, real disconnect our reaction to Socrates’ suggestions and interlocutors  Female activities previously exclusive to male, gymnastics/music and war is ludicrous, interlocutor conveying their time and place, we convey out time and place - View of Gender in Modern Society  We take it as more or less granted, assume that his point is our point, men/women same as our society – we have trouble seeing the point  Why do we believe that there should be same opportunity to women as men? Presumably, our way of life has become unisex, white collar way of life, giving the principle that women do have rights  Awomen is defined as a person same as men; therefore, the same rights, self-fulfillment not to be hindered by any conventional barriers  Why is it necessary for society? Society can’t reach its full potential unless all the members are taking part, we need the women contributions - whether either of these arguments has the counterpart in Socrates’presentation - In Socrates’sense of women and children:  They have no equal rights, as rectifying some injustice to them; no consultation on part of the women as to whether they favor such scheme  One sided imposing such activities on women, has nothing to do with the happiness of the female guardians do with it  Emancipation of the women to lead a life as happy as the life of the men do – Socr
More Less

Related notes for POL200Y5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit