| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Plato: a fascist?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Plato: a fascist?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Plato: a fascist?
    Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 00:34
Was Plato a fascist, or only a traitor that admired more Sparta that his own Athens?

After reading the "Republic" for the tenth time I still don't know why that Plato's dialog keep so much prestige when the ideas contained on it are very totalitarian. Plato talking about the state over the individual, social class differences and hierarchies, abolishing marriage and eugenics is not much different from some totalitarian regimes of the past.
As far as I know, Plato was the target of lot of critics and jokes in the ancient times, particularly for his "Republic". I read the works of Lucan of Samosata and the author makes a cruel padory of Plato making his dear dream come true in an allien place LOL. So, I wonder why this work is considered so important for modern though in politics.

 I may be wrong, so I would like to hear yours oppinions on the topic.



Edited by pinguin - 22 Aug 2011 at 00:36
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 02:20
To call Plato a fascist and his dialogues , specially the Republic, but treasonous talk, is to trivialize the necessary distinctions within the rational demanded by an unavoidable divide: the subjective juxtaposed to the objective. In a way it is as much a misinterpretation of Republic to call it totalitarian as to label Machiavelli's The Prince a manual for the tyrannical. Now as difficult as it may be to consider Penguin a sophist, it is well nigh laughable to imagine him an advocate of self-interest as the dynamic behind politics and that such should always receive a loose rein. If anything, the Republic is classic advocacy of morality in politics and the excoriation of exercising political power in the interest of the rulers over the ruled. Nor is Plato an odd-man out here given the fact that this critique was already presaged by Thucydides in his dissection of the Peloponnesian War--hence the juxtaposition of Athens with Sparta.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 02:34
Sometimes I wonder if Plato should have drunk the cicuta instead of his smarter master, Socrates.

Now, there is nothing subjective in saying that "The Republic" proposes a fascist model of society, where militaries and politicians are the elite, and artisans must work for them as slaves. Besides, in the writing of Plato he shows the state would select who copulates with whom, in an eugenics program that probably inspired Hitler's reproduction institutions.

What I wonder is how a self-called humanist and democratic society admires so much this the monstruosity of a model of society that Plato proposes in his Best-Seller.








Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 02:35
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

To call Plato a fascist and his dialogues , specially the Republic, but treasonous talk, is to trivialize the necessary distinctions within the rational demanded by an unavoidable divide: the subjective juxtaposed to the objective. In a way it is as much a misinterpretation of Republic to call it totalitarian as to label Machiavelli's The Prince a manual for the tyrannical. Now as difficult as it may be to consider Penguin a sophist, it is well nigh laughable to imagine him an advocate of self-interest as the dynamic behind politics and that such should always receive a loose rein. If anything, the Republic is classic advocacy of morality in politics and the excoriation of exercising political power in the interest of the rulers over the ruled. Nor is Plato an odd-man out here given the fact that this critique was already presaged by Thucydides in his dissection of the Peloponnesian War--hence the juxtaposition of Athens with Sparta.
To call Plato a fascist is an incorrect use of 'fascist' but he is an advocate of morality in politics, as the Fascists and Nazis were. Therein is the basis of the critique.
Enforcing one's own definition of 'morality' (or, in Plato's case, 'justice') on everyone else is the essence of totalitarianism. And Plato has always been the most powerful rationaliser and justifier of it, though not, as you say, an odd man out particularly.
 
Machiavelli on the other hand is not interested in morality (at least not in The Prince) which makes him much less dangerous.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 02:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What I wonder is how a self-called humanist and democratic society admires so much this the monstruosity of a model of society that Plato proposes in his Best-Seller.
Nodody spins like Plato.
 
Popper's Open Society and its Enemies - Vol. 1 The Spell of Plato will give you a clue.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 02:56
Come now, Gcle, my mention of morality is hardly in terms of current coinage and to disguise the totalitarian--which as with the sophists responds to an amoral universe--is to subvert the necessary understanding of politics as an exercise in justice and equity. To adopt the contemporary into Plato's milieu is to misinterpret that past. For example to equate "marriage control" with eugenics is to subvert the political reality of Plato's day, where that institution was employed to perpetuate the power elite. Not that this particular manifestation of social control did not continue at such service despite Plato's revelation in this respect.  
 
Now before everyone goes bananas and begins to identify me as an unrepetentant Platonist (or any other type of eutopic kook), need I remind everyone that what constitutes a "just" society remains the Machiavellian Moment in contemporary politics. What I object to is the misinterpretation of the fundamental argument in the Republic, which does underscore that justice is the fundamental building block of what constitutes the moral with respect to political interaction.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 03:46
The reality at Plato's day was the existence of an inhuman Spartan society, where eugenics was practised by throwing to the garbagge the "inferior" children. That was a society that practised methodically genocide against its slaves, when those breed too much.
Plato admired Sparta, the enemy of Athens, and Sparta was the model of many totalitarian peoples, from the Roman armies to the S.S. of Himmler.
Oh yes, Plato talk about "justice" and that's cute. But never forget that all totalitarian real states always resorted to quite beautiful speaches about values, solidarity, peoples power and other B.S., so there is no justification in Plato for jumping from an abstract search for justice to the design of a tyrany.

So, please, don't try to deploy a smoke curtain. Otherwise, we will go bananas.


Edited by pinguin - 22 Aug 2011 at 03:50
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 03:59
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

To call Plato a fascist and his dialogues , specially the Republic, but treasonous talk, is to trivialize the necessary distinctions within the rational demanded by an unavoidable divide: the subjective juxtaposed to the objective. In a way it is as much a misinterpretation of Republic to call it totalitarian as to label Machiavelli's The Prince a manual for the tyrannical. Now as difficult as it may be to consider Penguin a sophist, it is well nigh laughable to imagine him an advocate of self-interest as the dynamic behind politics and that such should always receive a loose rein. If anything, the Republic is classic advocacy of morality in politics and the excoriation of exercising political power in the interest of the rulers over the ruled. Nor is Plato an odd-man out here given the fact that this critique was already presaged by Thucydides in his dissection of the Peloponnesian War--hence the juxtaposition of Athens with Sparta.


You received a "Thanks" for this. Clap


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 04:26
You'd better refrigerate your fruits quickly Penguin the rot is approaching! To call the Spartan's inhuman is a contemporary value judgment that is essentially meaningless and quite irrelevant to the principal argument in the Republic: Is it better to always be just rather than unjust. In this context, one can not avoid the crux of the dialogues contained therein which are grand expositions in ethics and contain the assertion that the virtue of justice demands its personal practice. That the substrata concerns knowledge as the essential principle in legitimizing rule is also an element that can not be ignored. Plato--or as set forth in the work "Socrates"--is only advocating totalitarianism if you accept the fuzzy-wuzzines of Popper and his inversions (as found in The Open Society and its Enemies). It is far from obvious that the rulers of Kallipolis have as firm objectives characteristics that would equate with the objectionable aims typical of the totalitarian. And in this respect, such a rendering is a blatant disregard of good historical methodology and calls for the imposition of contemporary exigencies on a very different past.  Always keep in mind that the background is put forth with respect to virtue and the exercise of deference with respect to knowledge.
 
Essentially to dismiss Kallipolis as a totalitarian Nirvana is to evade the implications behind its formulation, here is a dissection of the problem and the major reason for rejecting your original assertion:
 
It is one thing to identify totalitarian features of Kallipolis and another thing to say why they are wrong. Three very different objections suggest themselves. First, we might reject the idea of an objectively knowable human good, and thus reject the idea that political power should be in the hands of those who know the human good. Here we should distinguish between Plato's picture of the human good and the very idea of an objective human good, for even if we want to dissent from Plato's view, we might still accept the very idea. At least, it does not seem implausible to suppose that some general psychological capacities are objectively good for their possessors (while others are objectively bad), and at that point, we can ask whether political power should be used to foster the good capacities and to restrain or prevent the bad ones. Given that state-sponsored education cannot but address the psychological capacities of the pupils, only very austere political systems could be supported by a thorough-going skepticism about the human good.

Second, we might accept the idea of an objectively knowable human good, but be wary of concentrating extensive political power in the hands of a few knowers. We might reject Plato's apparent optimism about the trustworthiness of philosopher-rulers and insist on greater checks upon political power, to minimize the risks of abuse. If this is our objection, then we might wonder what checks are optimal.

Finally, we might reject Plato's scheme on the grounds that political self-determination and free expression are themselves more valuable than Plato recognizes. This sort of response is perhaps the most interesting, but it is by no means easy. For it is difficult to assess the intrinsic value of self-determination and free expression, apart from skepticism about the knowledge or power of those limiting self-determining or free expression. Moreover, it is difficult to balance these values against the concerns that motivate Plato. Where does the power over massive cultural forces lie when it is not under political control? And to what extent can we live well when our culture is not shaped by people thoughtfully dedicated to living a good human life? These are not questions that can be easily shrugged off, even if we cannot embrace Kallipolis as their answer.

Eric Brown, "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 22 Aug 2011 at 04:32
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 04:42

While Plato's manipulation of the concept of justice (Plato does not want the State to be 'just', he wants it to be the way he likes and have people call that 'justice') is a major factor in justifying opposition to him, there are also the other fundamental political spins he puts on his political message: one that there is an ideal state towards which people should strive and the other that that ideal existed only in the past and therefore one should seek to return to the past.  

Both of those have contaminated political thinking not just throughout history but in cntemprary times as well. Machiavelli however is innocent on both charges.
 
I also don't think totalitarians are amoral or preach amorality, though they would probably include some amoral individuals. Savanarola was hardly amoral, any more than the preachers of devotion to the nation or people. Even Stalin preached morality.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:07
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

You'd better refrigerate your fruits quickly Penguin the rot is approaching! To call the Spartan's inhuman is a contemporary value judgment that is essentially meaningless and quite irrelevant to the principal argument in the Republic: Is it better to always be just rather than unjust. In this context, one can not avoid the crux of the dialogues contained therein which are grand expositions in ethics and contain the assertion that the virtue of justice demands its personal practice. That the substrata concerns knowledge as the essential principle in legitimizing rule is also an element that can not be ignored. Plato--or as set forth in the work "Socrates"--is only advocating totalitarianism if you accept the fuzzy-wuzzines of Popper and his inversions (as found in The Open Society and its Enemies). It is far from obvious that the rulers of Kallipolis have as firm objectives characteristics that would equate with the objectionable aims typical of the totalitarian. And in this respect, such a rendering is a blatant disregard of good historical methodology and calls for the imposition of contemporary exigencies on a very different past.  Always keep in mind that the background is put forth with respect to virtue and the exercise of deference with respect to knowledge.
 
Essentially to dismiss Kallipolis as a totalitarian Nirvana is to evade the implications behind its formulation, here is a dissection of the problem and the major reason for rejecting your original assertion:
 
It is one thing to identify totalitarian features of Kallipolis and another thing to say why they are wrong. Three very different objections suggest themselves. First, we might reject the idea of an objectively knowable human good, and thus reject the idea that political power should be in the hands of those who know the human good. Here we should distinguish between Plato's picture of the human good and the very idea of an objective human good, for even if we want to dissent from Plato's view, we might still accept the very idea. At least, it does not seem implausible to suppose that some general psychological capacities are objectively good for their possessors (while others are objectively bad), and at that point, we can ask whether political power should be used to foster the good capacities and to restrain or prevent the bad ones. Given that state-sponsored education cannot but address the psychological capacities of the pupils, only very austere political systems could be supported by a thorough-going skepticism about the human good.

Second, we might accept the idea of an objectively knowable human good, but be wary of concentrating extensive political power in the hands of a few knowers. We might reject Plato's apparent optimism about the trustworthiness of philosopher-rulers and insist on greater checks upon political power, to minimize the risks of abuse. If this is our objection, then we might wonder what checks are optimal.

Finally, we might reject Plato's scheme on the grounds that political self-determination and free expression are themselves more valuable than Plato recognizes. This sort of response is perhaps the most interesting, but it is by no means easy. For it is difficult to assess the intrinsic value of self-determination and free expression, apart from skepticism about the knowledge or power of those limiting self-determining or free expression. Moreover, it is difficult to balance these values against the concerns that motivate Plato. Where does the power over massive cultural forces lie when it is not under political control? And to what extent can we live well when our culture is not shaped by people thoughtfully dedicated to living a good human life? These are not questions that can be easily shrugged off, even if we cannot embrace Kallipolis as their answer.

Eric Brown, "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Well, I start by rejecting the concept of an objectively knowable 'good', so I certainly reject that someone who claims to know it should rule. Note: 'preferred' does not equate to 'good', and has the advantage of emphasising the subjective nature of human desires.
It's then hardly worth rejecting the other two arguments, but I do. So I believe does the whole English liberal tradition. 
 
Typically Plato/Socrates starts by asking is justice good, to which the answer is virtually always 'yes'offering a definition he likes that appears popular, like 'everybody is treated the same'  and asks if that is 'justice'. The person of course says 'yes, sounds right', But then he goes on to say 'then justice demands that everyone keep to their own place'. which is of course a non-sequitur, but one that too many people the fall for.
 
There's a weasel word or two in there also:
Quote
For it is difficult to assess the intrinsic value of self-determination and free expression, apart from skepticism about the knowledge or power of those limiting self-determining or free expression.
 
True of course - but it's just as difficult if not more so to asses the intrinsic value of frozen social strata, or government by philosophers. The writer seems to have picked up tricks from Plato.
Quote
 
The writer in the last misses the entire point. It is enforced communism that is totalitarian and marks Plato's city. And it is the enforcement that is bad in itself, not the communism.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:13
Plato hardly coined his own definition of justice but employed the term within the parameters of his contemporary culture: the proper and harmonious relationship between contrarian elements (or elements in conflict) be it in a group or the self. For a Greek the philosophical implication of justice recognized it as the common working, in place at time, toward proper objectives. The establishing of the harmonious defined justice. Even your run-of-the mill Sociologist consider codes of justice as among the principal factors necessary for a description of an organized society. The problems behind misinterpreting Plato arise from the imposition of our take on justice as fairness. You can not blame Plato for that!
 
Now if we want to "muddy the waters" we can inject other cultural definitions of justice--i.e. Justice as a Divine Requirement; Justice as Social Contract; and that good old stand by behind the "Hang 'em High" p.o.v., Distributive Justice--but we can not assert that the term justice in the Republic is the personal creation of Plato.


Edited by drgonzaga - 22 Aug 2011 at 05:14
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:20
PS: To gcle--communality does not traslate into communism. Nor does the exercise of deference represent rigid enforcement (why do I have a feeling that shortly Ortega y Gasset will enter the discussion and we will once again have to confront Mass Man?).
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:32
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

PS: To gcle--communality does not traslate into communism.
Agreed. But the Stanford article I was quoting uses the word 'communism'. Mea non culpa.
 
The important point of my note however was that it is the enforced nature of Plato's state that is the problem, rather than any particular aspect of it, assuming it mantains the consent of te people invlved.
Quote
Nor does the exercise of deference represent rigid enforcement (why do I have a feeling that shortly Ortega y Gasset will enter the discussion and we will once again have to confront Mass Man?).
Kallipolis has enforcers in the persons of the auxiliaries. Without enfocement there is nothing to induce people to live the moral life. As I recall Plato quite strongly writes off the gods, if any, as enforcers of morality.
 
I may have to dig up de Madariaga again then. Smile
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:37
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Plato hardly coined his own definition of justice but employed the term within the parameters of his contemporary culture: the proper and harmonious relationship between contrarian elements (or elements in conflict) be it in a group or the self. For a Greek the philosophical implication of justice recognized it as the common working, in place at time, toward proper objectives. The establishing of the harmonious defined justice. Even your run-of-the mill Sociologist consider codes of justice as among the principal factors necessary for a description of an organized society. The problems behind misinterpreting Plato arise from the imposition of our take on justice as fairness. You can not blame Plato for that!
It's not just 'our' take on justice as fairness. Aristotle also considers it: ""whatever is unfair is lawless, but not everything lawless is unfair".
Quote  
Now if we want to "muddy the waters" we can inject other cultural definitions of justice--i.e. Justice as a Divine Requirement; Justice as Social Contract; and that good old stand by behind the "Hang 'em High" p.o.v., Distributive Justice--but we can not assert that the term justice in the Republic is the personal creation of Plato.
I wouldn't assert that he invented it. It's enough that he adopted it. Moreover I'm less concerned with how his contemporaries acted/reacted, but the way in which it has been misused in the centuries since.
 
What you say aboout different versions of justice demonstrates that there is no guarantee that 'justice is good' without closely examning the defntion of justice in use.


Edited by gcle2003 - 22 Aug 2011 at 05:44
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 05:56
And how different is the existence of the Auxiliaries from that of the London Metropolitan Police?  It would be utopic to insist that any system would eliminate aberrant behavior but such a charge can not be levied against Plato...human nature and idealizations do have a nasty habit for contradiction. Now as for the misreading of Plato, how could I not but concur since this entire thread arose from just such an example. Do people read Augustine's City of God and contrary to that author's own intentions begin demanding reality conform to its postulates?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 12:00
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

You'd better refrigerate your fruits quickly Penguin the rot is approaching! To call the Spartan's inhuman is a contemporary value judgment that is essentially meaningless and quite irrelevant to the principal argument in the Republic:


Then, if contemporary can't judge Plato, why don't you go to the classic literature to see how he was ridiculized by people of the old civilization? Lucian, for instance, in his True History, said that Plato was the only phylosopher excluded from the Elysian Field on the Island of the Blessed, because Plato lived in his own Republic, with his own rules, and alone LOL

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 12:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What I wonder is how a self-called humanist and democratic society admires so much this the monstruosity of a model of society that Plato proposes in his Best-Seller.
Nodody spins like Plato.
 
Popper's Open Society and its Enemies - Vol. 1 The Spell of Plato will give you a clue.


Excellent reference.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 14:16
Ah, my memory has been tweaked by the mention of the less than stellar Lucian and the effort in the early 20th century to resurrect him as a satirical writer: John  Jay Chapman. Lucian, Plato and Greek Morals. Boston: Houghton Mifflin [The Riverside Press], 1931. However, the notion that this sarcastic rhetorician could comment on Greek philosophy and be accepted as a reflection of Greek thought and society in the 4th century BC is a tad far fetched. Some 500 years separate his world from that of Classical Athens. Now as to the Verae Historiae [True Tales] what can one say about this little jewel other than some consider it the first venture into Science Fiction in the "Western Tradition" and whose central thematic is to equate philosophy with the weaving of lies. Of course, it is rather strange to find his name on the Penguin's beak given his constant paen on behalf of scientific knowledge since Lucian freely asserted that the writing of fiction is far better and more truth serving--even superior--to scientific cognition.
 
But hey, I am just eager beyond words for the Penguin to explain the moral incisiveness of Nephelococcygia with respect to the totalitarian...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 22:04
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

And how different is the existence of the Auxiliaries from that of the London Metropolitan Police?
The Met enforces laws laid dow with the consent and at the instigation of representatives of the people. The Auxiliaries enforce laws made up by one man, Plato himself, unelected, unrepresentative and not even a citizen. Moreover the Met is broadly open to anyone as a career, whereas Plato's Auxiliaries are a hereditary caste.
Quote
 
It would be utopic to insist that any system would eliminate aberrant behavior but such a charge can not be levied against Plato...human nature and idealizations do have a nasty habit for contradiction. Now as for the misreading of Plato, how could I not but concur since this entire thread arose from just such an example. Do people read Augustine's City of God and contrary to that author's own intentions begin demanding reality conform to its postulates?
 
No they don't of course. But then people nowadays, even those who have heard of St Augustine, don't generally hold him in such a high regard as they do Plato, which was what generated the original question.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 23:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Ah, my memory has been tweaked by the mention of the less than stellar Lucian and the effort in the early 20th century to resurrect him as a satirical writer: John  Jay Chapman. Lucian, Plato and Greek Morals. Boston: Houghton Mifflin [The Riverside Press], 1931. However, the notion that this sarcastic rhetorician could comment on Greek philosophy and be accepted as a reflection of Greek thought and society in the 4th century BC is a tad far fetched. Some 500 years separate his world from that of Classical Athens. Now as to the Verae Historiae [True Tales] what can one say about this little jewel other than some consider it the first venture into Science Fiction in the "Western Tradition" and whose central thematic is to equate philosophy with the weaving of lies. Of course, it is rather strange to find his name on the Penguin's beak given his constant paen on behalf of scientific knowledge since Lucian freely asserted that the writing of fiction is far better and more truth serving--even superior--to scientific cognition.
 
But hey, I am just eager beyond words for the Penguin to explain the moral incisiveness of Nephelococcygia with respect to the totalitarian...


Lucian is a superstar in Science Fiction, Future Studies and similar topics, and a lot more respected than Plato for "space-oriented" engineering peoples LOL

Just to show you that Plato was a clown in the eyes of some people of the Ancient Greek-Roman World, and that it is not a modern critic that he was a lunatic, if the tought his tyranic government would be a model of perfection.


Edited by pinguin - 22 Aug 2011 at 23:28
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 01:20
Penguin are we in for another digression here?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2012 at 10:45
IF Stone wrote a good polemic on this subject accusing Socrates and Plato being kind of proto-fascists and arguing that democratic Athens was right to punish Socrates.
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2012 at 12:33
Proto? I accused Plato of being the inspiration of all fascists, and Sparta to be the model in what all the superior-race baloney is based on.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2012 at 13:44
With your permission, pinguin, I'd like to move this to the Philosophy and Theology Subforum. There are threads there where this question has been dealt with indirectly, and this thread would compliment them. It's a very interesting question, especially since it spawns further questions, and I thank you for asking it. Smile If you have any objections, please let me know over PM.

-Akolouthos, Council Chairman


Edited by Akolouthos - 30 Jul 2012 at 13:51
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.