Recap of the equality of the sexes
socrates warns us that there is something from ordinary perspective that there is soemthing comical
about the equality of the sexes
one of the first things he suggests with respect to excersing-a greek convention that there were public
places to exercise. The young and the elderly. Places like athens and corinth people were naked.
If there is equality of the sexes both sexes should exercise in the nude.
Joe isn't sure if its supposed to funny or not
socrates offers three separate rationales for the equality
the analogy of dogs (sheepsdogs we don't distinguish between male or female dog they both do fine as
sheepdogs. Why can't the same be with humans?) the anology is always tricky. Dogs to teach each
other to sheppards.A difference has to be made and acknolwedged
the second argument or really more of an observation
difference between male and female is no more significant between the bald and non-bald
why doesn't the argument end there? If you read bloom's notes on this part, you will notice stops here
in reading the argument. The argument is insufficient. Plato couldn't have been serious with respect to
the equality of the sexes as bloom sees it.
The analogy between bald and non bald is not so much a description between male and female
although it goes to the description because for sure the description is sure with respect to their
physicality. Males obviously look different from female. It acknolwedges the physical difference. It
also suggests a normative point which means a value judgement put into it; a hierachy of judgements.
(e.g.best hot dogs are from vancouver)
the normative element is simply that the differnce between male and female ought to be like that:
irrelevant and it doesn't matter. We don't that the guy who fixes our car has hair or not we just want him
to fix our car.
If there difference ought to be like bald and not bald. What reason can we hold on? Perhaps the third
the reason is found in 454c
we don't care if our doctor is male or female we just care that they are competent
they have the same nature, they are insoled with medicine. They are different human beings once they
pcik up this art. With respect to that part of their soul, they are identical. To joe it strikes him as
obvious. He doesn't care if his cardiologist is male or female.
If we think it through a couple of steps. The notion that techne or art is critical to understanding
normative issues in human life. What's so interesting about techne and art?
Perhaps from everyday expereince, techne is inserpable from learning and teaching.
Iff you want to become a carfdiologist you go to cardiology school and etc
techne or the arts are everyday evidence that knowledge is an important element of the world.
If you want to be a doctor you need to learn medicine. Techne is inseparable from knowledge.
Let's go deeper
recall: chicken sexing. You don't have to learn every art by going to a school. There is no chicken sexing school. But still there is something communicated
next issue that we should think about is if we think about knowing or not knowing th emodel of the
soul at 588b where the soul is portrayed as a human being, a lion and a many headed beast. What
socrates is arguing that in book five.
Reason (logos) is the ground of our common humanity
remember that logos is not just reason but also speech
if we want to check with a computer is intelligent it has artificial intelligence
logos is speech. Common humanity is an index the chief index of our common humanity is logos which
means speech and speech is not language it is what is common language (same things conveyed in
it is the common understanding to what it means to be human in the pre-modern world
genesis creation account
we know that we introduce a character in genesis: God
God first created light by speaking it into existence
what we first know about God is logos
at one point in the first chapter of genesis man is created
man is made in the image of God
the word image is a bit misleading because image sort of means like
the analogy is between God and man
adam named the animals
implicitly in the bible that man's specific difference is logos. By logos we are like God but not Gods
ourselves. This is a common understanding of what it means to be human in the pre-modern world.
To have speech and reason is what makes us like God
it takes almost a page for glaucon to push socrates to explain what it takes for the perfect city (city in
speech) to come into being
he's reluctant to propose it, but when he does it. “the evils of this world will never cease if kings are
philosophers and philosophers are kings.”
it's presented as an outragous proposal. It is unheard of. This useless people sit around talking about the
stars. They should be the rulers???
professional deformation – having the particular ticks of a profession. One common things of each
profession is that they think they are the best.
The republic is both descriptive and normative it points out the facts of this world. This ought to be true
and this out to be the case. The startling first example of a normative/descriptive statement is the first
of the two noble lies which argues that in a perfect city citizenship should be natural.
There is a feature of this world that if thought through leads to philosopher kings
the first emperor of the chinese dynatisy is named woo and many other woos came after
there are different pharohs
prime ministers, elders, fuher, first general secretary of the community party. Cheif ayatollah (ayatollah khamani is the current one in Iran)
what do all these names share in common? They are all rulers.
If we have a car or a house we have a title( piece of paper) which is warrant that guarantees that we
what is the title to rule in each one of these cases?
Presumptive title, a claim is made to them. What does the village elder have? Why is she the elder?
Sagacity, knowledge, wisdom.
What is that gave stalin the right to say that what he says goes?
What is the ayatollah's claim? Divine right. How does that exercise itself.
Maybe they don't necessarily have sagacity knowledge and wisdom but there is always a claim to have
Q: how can ruling be aliken to philosophy?
A: ruling is a lot like chicken sexing you just know it. Statesmanship according to plato and socrates is
not a teachable art. It is not putative (maybe so or maybe not)
is it the case that every form of ruler has practical wisdom/prudence
what does the teaching of philosopher king imply? Let's think that every putative ruler claims to have
perfect knowledge of ruling.
The preceding is prescriptive
the following is descriptive
what plato does in a lot the republic is to think through what is set in the republic.
What does this entail or imply?