Republic Book 5,6 and 7.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Mark Lippincott

Lecture 5: Republic Books V, VI, VII Outline of the Lecture 1. Review of Last Lecture: The tripartite division of the soul and the city-soul analogy. Does it work? 2. Book V: The community of women and children; the abolition of the family 3. Book VI: Socrates and the interlocutors turn away from the city towards philosophy (talking about justice in the soul) a) The necessity of the rule of the philosopher-kings b) The theory of the Forms (or Ideas) c) Why do philosophers make the best rulers? What concerns are expressed by Glaucon here? 4. The metaphor of the ship and the allegory of the cave both are designed the necessity of philosopher-kings. But might the lesson be the impossibility of the rule of philosophy? Review of Book IV • Whether the city soul analogy works, and why not? The City-Soul Parallel The City: AHamonious Hierarchy Reason/Wisdom Spiritedness/Courage Appetitivness/Desire The Soul: Messy and Complex Reason/Wisdom  Spiritedness/Courage Appetivness/Desire An Eros of knowledge   Reason/ Wisdom o Reason and Spiritedness are allies in the attempt to control desire o Wisdom as a form of desire- an Eros for knowledge, and Eros for the truth. So, insofar as spiritedness opposes. Desire, it opposes reason too. The lesson? That the soul can’t be nearly compartmentalized in the same way as the city.Also, the spiritedness against oneself – shame, self- directed anger – is another impediment to curiosity tot eh desire to know ex. The Leontius story • Justice in the city is precisely the harmony of all three classes. The most needful thing is the willingness of each citizen to mind his or her own business and do the job to which they are naturally suited • If you’re having doubts about the just city; you’re not alone. Socrates also has his doubts when you take a look at the philosophers and the philosophy itself Book V • No beginning to the republic • Polemarchus and Adeimantus arrest Socrates • Woman and children are a kind of snare for men that ultimately must be abolished. This is seen in the noble lie. It is an attempt to make the city as much like a family as possible. It obscures the fact our mothers give birth to us not the earth, and that we do have families. • Socrates notices that our most powerful attachments are to our families • Half the human race cannot be ignored; we need to think about how the city will perpetuate itself The Community of Women and Children (451c-471c) • Women should have the same life open to them as men • Women should receive the same education as men • Women, in general, ought to be treated equally Socrates’opinions on woman strike the interlocutors are deeply radical. Why is Plato trying to show us here?Are the interlocutors’hesitations rational or irrational? Are they merely the expression of custom and prejudice? What does Socrates overlook? • The interlocutors are slaves to convention. Shame and habit can make certain things, like equality of sexes, is impossible for them to accept. Socrates is forcing the interlocutors to face their prejudices. For Socrates, equality of sexes is possible because it is natural. Its proved to be natural that the difference between men and women is no different than bald men, and men with hair.All that matters is aptitude. Your nature is your nature. If you’re fit for guardianship, sex is irrelevant. Nothing else matters except for aptitude. Soles in order to truly know themselves have to strip away conventions that cover their nature. Socrates is showing that convention, habits are impediments to understanding our nature. They obscure those women also have an aptitude for being guardians. • Socrates seems to suggest that habit, or social convention, are irrational prejudices that obscure nature (the natural). Their may be some rational not prejudicial reason not to let men and woman share locker rooms. Its not just convention that prohibits naked men and women, nakedness is forbidden because men need to be able to control their sexual appetites. There are rational reasons for certain Athenian practices. Socrates is completely forgetting that the body has control, and thinks citizens are all the soul. Our bodies ask things of us and ignore that woman and men are different. Woman must bare children, which will have an affect on them engaging in war activities. To be effective, Socrates believes, communism must apply not only to property; it must also apply to women and children: the abolition of private property is thus accompanied by the abolition of the nuclear family. Why? Because like property, the family is the domain of the private: it validates, and exacerbates the sense of mine and thine, and thus dilutes one’s love for, and commitment to, the city.Attraction and love are threats to community the body is what stands in the way of devotion of the common good; it is the source of the desire and the need for privacy. • Marriage is seen as something for temporary sexual relations, nothing personal. Love and desire are regarded as threats towards the city. The body is a threat to the well being of the city. • The model for the life of the guardians is the life of a dog. The guardian’s master is the city and in order to have the best guardian class, you must breed for one. The children produced from these practices are regarded as the property of the city. Every child will be raised in a sense of an orphanage. Parents are denied knowing their children, children are denied knowing their parents. Sex is treated as wholly public activity that serves no purpose except serving the class of the guardians. Socrates elaborates a regime that no citizen has a family and no one can act in reason of their family. • In this city, every citizen is both a family member and a possible sexual partner. We have to overcome the horror of incest. Socrates wants us to think of the city as one big family. He demands that we engage in sexual relations with anyone we can produce the best possible off spring. Rulers are in charge of determining who has sex with you. Eros only exists in the sense that it extends the good of the city. • Socrates exposes himself in Book V as temporarily insane. Their isn’t a limit that he is willing to leave alone. • How much credit do we want to give Socrates? Does he know his proposals to be preposterous? We give him the benefit of the doubt. He must know they are preposterous. He expects to provoke laughter and rage of his interlocutors. He knows himself to be morally suspected. He provokes us to make it clear that the regime he describes will not simply be just. Justice exists more in speech than in deed.After all of this effort, the supposedly just regime is deemed to be unlovable. It’s an imitation of justice. The just city may not acquire all of our attention, and perhaps it be sought elsewhere. The Rule of the Philosopher- Kings “Until philosophers rule as kings in cities or those who are now called kinds and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy coincide, while the many nature who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities sill have no rest form evils.” (473c-e) • Glacuon’s response is in 474a • Plato is the one who made philosophy mainstream. Before him philosophy is a danger to the city. He is the one who makes it acceptable to the cities. If Socrates proposals strike us as not shocking, Plato cannot take our reaction for granted. Socrates was executed precisely for practicing philosophy in the city and calling
More Less

Related notes for POL200Y5

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.