NationStates Jolt Archive

Have any of you read Plato's Republic? If so, what do you think about it. I am reading it for my Philosophy class in High School. What I found in my class that was interesting is that one of the other students thought that Plato was a facist because of all of the censoring of poems, songs and other things like that. In my opinion, some of Plato's (well, Socrates') ideas were kind of socialist. The idea that everyone works and gets the same out of it (no money in the Republic) realy reminded me of socialism. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?

You shouldn't really think of the Republic as his personal blue-print for a government.

Plato sucked. How dare he not fit neatly into our modern political labelling system?

Him and the rest of the world, anyway

You shouldn't really think of the Republic as his personal blue-print for a government.

I am just saying some of his ideas reminded me of socialism. I am not saying the Republic was socialist.

What I found in my class that was interesting is that one of the other students thought that Plato was a facist because of all of the censoring of poems, songs and other things like that. In my opinion, some of Plato's (well, Socrates') ideas were kind of socialist.

You will often find that fascist ideologies use some socialist concepts. For example, Hitler embarked on huge public works like the improvement of the road system, etc. Mussolini I've heard (though this may be a myth) created a very good public transport system. Hitler's aim of ending the rampant unemployment can be considered socialist.

Regarding Plato, it is best described as a meritocracy (a type of dicatorship), with its supposedly infallible and benevolent Philosopher-Kings ruling. Certainly it was autocratic, and in that respect resembles a fascist state. In reality I think it would be a poor system, lacking in the system of checks and balances which exist in a modern liberal democracy. Personally I'd rather select an Athenian democracy any day (which, correct me if I am wrong but is what he was trying to refute to begin with).

The idea that everyone works and gets the same out of it (no money in the Republic) realy reminded me of socialism. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?

Except... that isn't socialist.

You could say that Plato was a statist, and I think that is a fair, and by extention similar to socialism because it is also a statist organization of the economy.

You will often find that fascist ideologies use some socialist concepts. For example, Hitler embarked on huge public works like the improvement of the road system, etc. Mussolini I've heard (though this may be a myth) created a very good public transport system. Hitler's aim of ending the rampant unemployment can be considered socialist.

Regarding Plato, it is best described as a meritocracy, with its supposedly infallible and benevolent Philosopher-Kings ruling. Certainly it was autocratic, and in that respect resembles a fascist state. In reality I think it would be a poor system, lacking in the system of checks and balances which exist in a modern liberal democracy. Personally I'd rather select an Athenian democracy any day (which, correct me if I am wrong but is what he was trying to refute to begin with).

He would argue that the parts of the soul in each person would be their checks and balances (the parts of the soul were, if I remember correctly, were wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice) and that the fact that the workers would be the group to check the gaurdiuns and the rulers.

What Socrates was originaly trying to find was the definision of justice and decided to "found" the polis because it would be easier to figure out the definition of a just city, which would make finding the definition of a just man is.

It is all ultimately, I think, based on Plato's view of objective morality. In Gorgias he criticises Callicles’ view that people should always do what is in their best interests, that they gain when they do this, subscribing instead to some higher moral code (that they should do what is “right”, that the person acting in his own interests does not really gain).

Personally I didn't find his arguments very convincing, I found Callicles’ far more grounded (though he doesn’t really develop these much). Plato's use of the soul and other similarly vague and imprecise concepts as well as sometimes seemingly arbitrary categorisations (like that oratory is a "spurious" art and legislating a "genuine" art) allow him to get away with some fairly serious logical flaws. That said, he is very interesting.

What Socrates was originaly trying to find was the definision of justice and decided to "found" the polis because it would be easier to figure out the definition of a just city, which would make finding the definition of a just man is.


To state the obvious... the enterprise falls down because in order to describe his just city he has to claim that it is governed by just men, and so the demonstration is circular at best.

Personally I find The Republic more interesting as a work of metaphysics than as a work of ethics. Of course, Plato's metaphysics are deeply flawed, but at least they make for an interesting ride.

Socrates > Aristotle > Plato

Have any of you read Plato's Republic? If so, what do you think about it. I am reading it for my Philosophy class in High School. What I found in my class that was interesting is that one of the other students thought that Plato was a facist because of all of the censoring of poems, songs and other things like that. In my opinion, some of Plato's (well, Socrates') ideas were kind of socialist. The idea that everyone works and gets the same out of it (no money in the Republic) realy reminded me of socialism. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?

First of all the ideas presented in the Republic are not those of Socrates, they are Plato's. Plato uses Socrates to lend legitimacy to his arguments.

Plato's idea of the perfect state is built around his idea of the tripartite soul that is Reason with the assistance of Will harnessing the Passions. Reason (the Philosopher Kings) with the assistance of Will (Warriors/Civil servants) will restrain and harness the Passions (ordinary people). Plato's hatred of artists and actors comes from his and Socrates belief that shadows are the lowest form of knowledge, mere copies of that which is real. Also in Plato's day his main opposition came from the Sophists, the philosophical group which claimed that there was no truth and all that mattered was making the best argument (an early form of relativism, or taken to its most extreme, nihilism). Plato believed in inherence, and thus truth, so was dramatically at odds with them. Plato would have been afraid of anything which could be used to stir public passions and thus aid the Sophists.

Plato believed all knowledge to be inherent, that when we enter this world from the next we already know what everything is because we know its form, we only need to remember it. However only a select few can remember the higher level forms (such as good, evil, justice, est.), and it is only those few who are fit to make judgments; thus the saying "to know the good is to do the good". History has proven it to be nothing but bankrupt utopianism.

Socrates > Aristotle > Plato

Plato > Pimps > Money

Have any of you read Plato's Republic? If so, what do you think about it. I am reading it for my Philosophy class in High School. What I found in my class that was interesting is that one of the other students thought that Plato was a facist because of all of the censoring of poems, songs and other things like that. In my opinion, some of Plato's (well, Socrates') ideas were kind of socialist. The idea that everyone works and gets the same out of it (no money in the Republic) realy reminded me of socialism. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?

Aww, why don't we have a philosophy class in my high school?:( I'm forced to do all my learning on such matters by myself, and living in Canada, which is a craphole of a country because of Liberals, gives me limited ressources.

Anyways, to the point. The ideas are somewhat socialist, depending on your view. I view the Republic as a group dictatorship, but that doesn't necessarily mean socialist. Once again, depense on how you look at it. Tomato tamato.

Aww, why don't we have a philosophy class in my high school?:( I'm forced to do all my learning on such matters by myself, and living in Canada, which is a craphole of a country because of Liberals, gives me limited ressources.

Anyways, to the point. The ideas are somewhat socialist, depending on your view. I view the Republic as a group dictatorship, but that doesn't necessarily mean socialist. Once again, depense on how you look at it. Tomato tamato.

I could have expected you to show up, turning a meaningless topic into your personal rant on Liberals, at least my post was pointless.

You know me, always spreading my seperatist/conservative atitude whenever I have the chance. Tho I did throw in an actual argument here.

Plato > Pimps > Money

I think NOT! Nothing is better than a pimp!

That reminds me of this book I read, Behind Hitler's Lines, I forgot who wrote it. It's a true story about this guy in the 101st airborn, and when he was captured by Germany in WWII. In one of the gulags he was held at, everybody started making up shit when they were processed by the Nazi's and asked about their former occupations. The guy the author talked to and got most of the story from, told them he was a butcher. (so maybe he could work in the kitchen and get extra food). But, like, half the pow's said they were pimps! It was a big running joke. Other guys had their former occupations as "cowboy" or "assassin" and crazy shit. It's a great book if you like military history, especially first hand accounts.

Have any of you read Plato's Republic? If so, what do you think about it. I am reading it for my Philosophy class in High School. What I found in my class that was interesting is that one of the other students thought that Plato was a facist because of all of the censoring of poems, songs and other things like that. In my opinion, some of Plato's (well, Socrates') ideas were kind of socialist. The idea that everyone works and gets the same out of it (no money in the Republic) realy reminded me of socialism. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?

Karl Popper, one of history's greatest philosophers, wrote a whole series called The Open Society and its Enemies. In it, he attacks much of the Republic and Plato's other works as antithetical to an open, democratic society. See this wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies)

Ira Stone takes a similiar view in The Trial of Socrates (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385260326/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance), making the case that Socrates teachings were contrary to Athenian democracy.