Aristotle and Slavery

A point that I find oddly familiar in the Politics was how Aristotle described slavery. He defined it as something that is natural. Some people are naturally slaves and some are naturally masters. But, it is only just if the relationship is beneficial to both parties. It seems to me that he is arguing that it is just at least in part because the slave benefits from slavery.

I found it interesting that this same kind of rhetoric was used to justify slavery in the South only 150 years ago. Slave owners often argued that slavery was actually beneficial to black people as well. They claimed that the slaves were incapable of taking care of themselves so the masters taking care of them was actually a service.

While I don't think that the system of slavery of the south is too comparable to the one that Aristotle is dealing with, its interesting how the same justifications are used. Some are naturally masters (whites) and that the slavery is benevolent.

The Apology

The Apology and the death of Socrates has strong similarities to the Passion of Christ. Socrates and Jesus are both teachers who are persecuted unjustly for their beliefs. Both are also pursuing and helping others pursue the Good, or in Jesus' case God. I found another interesting comparison today with Mariella's presentation in that Socrates and Plato might have been running a small cult sort of like Jesus. But, I think the most important similarity is that of self sacrifice. Jesus' self sacrifice is dying for the world's sins, so that they too might go to heaven. Socrates' death is also an act of self sacrifice but you do not see it until the Crito. In that story, Socrates refuses to escape Athens and wants to meet his death. He tells his friend Crito that him enabling Athens to do something absolutely wrong also gives them the power to do something absolutely good. I think the Apology is another instance of where Platonic philosophy intersects with Christian Theology.

Chapter 10

My thoughts after reading chapter ten was whether or not we should follow Plato's advice on artists and their work. In the last chapter, Plato certainly softened his stance on art. He originally said things like art and poetry should be banned outright because it can degrade society. Now he claims that art can be allowed but we must ensure that it is sending the right message. The example he uses is Homer. We can allow his work to be disseminated but first we must alter the message so it is not projecting the wrong ideas. For instance, Homer's glorification of war. 

So would it be beneficial in our own society to alter or change art to protect people. While I can think of a few positive reasons to do so, I think that Plato may not be giving people enough intellectual credit. If we were to go and censor an extremely inflammatory work like Mein Kampf, maybe remove all of the parts blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, this alteration would do more harm then good. The problem is that if people read the watered down version they would be unable to grasp how dangerous and hateful (and poorly written) the book is. Plato seems to believe that most people are easily influenced and that just reading a book like Mein Kampf or the Illiad will massively change how they think. I am willing to believe that people are smarter than that. I think that when people read this books they are influenced but in the opposite manner. They are able to read this and understand "wow this guy is insane I get why everyone hates Hitler now" and not turn into some kind of fanatic like Plato fears.

Government and the Soul

I thought our class last Tuesday was one of our most interesting. When it came to the discussion about whether or not the Republic is supposed to be a map for the city or the soul, we had so many different viewpoints being presented. Originally, I thought that Plato was only using as soul a metaphor. But upon some further reflection I've changed my mind and I think it is probably both. I decided this because I realized that it is almost impossible to separate you own personal emotion or even rationalizations from politics. No matter what you do, one will influence the other. I think that Plato probably recognized this too and that is why he chooses to use the city to describe the soul. Though, it would be much easier if Plato just told us what was going on and we didn't have to guess.

The Good and God

I think that there are some fairly obvious similarities between Plato's Good and the Christian God. The most obvious being that for people to live good lives and be happy, their actions must be in pursuit of the Good, or God. In some cases in the republic it almost feels like the two could be synonyms for each other. But, I think their is a huge contrast that between the two that separate them and that is accessibility. Truly knowing and pursuing the Good is extremely difficult. It requires you to have not only a comprehensive understanding of the world around you and how all of these different forms tie into the Good. This serves as a massive barrier to many as even understanding a single form, like we can see in the Republic with justice, is simply too much for many people. This is where the christian concept of God distances itself from the Plato's Good. The christian God does not require understanding, indeed it even mandates a lack of it. The concept of God is built around faith, the idea of believing something without any empirical evidence. To pursue God does not you do not have to understand his nature, you just need to follow some set rules. Maybe this ease of access is why God caught on and the Good didnt. You can hardly expect people to pursue the Good when it is so difficult to grasp some of the most basic concepts of it.

Plato, Communist Before it was Cool

One of the strangest parts of book 5 is that it espouses some ideas that could be taken right out of the communist manifesto. Unsurprisingly, these ideas are also the most controversial. The two ideas that stuck out to me as ringing of communism was his plan to replace traditional families and common ownership of items.

The idea of common ownership is almost the exact idea of redistribution that Marx talks about hundreds of years later. Communist also want to replace traditional families like Plato. So, is Plato a communist? Probably not. While they both are advocating for similar ideas and trying to create a Utopian society, I think that Plato is never thinking about the advancement of the working class like communism is. Plato is working towards the betterment of everyone, not just one class. Also the idea of an absolute monarch like the philosopher king is hardly something Marx would get excited about. 

Regardless, I would be very interested to know if Marx would have been familiar with the Republic. I don't know how well versed he was in ancient philosophy but I would not be surprised to find that he was influenced by Plato. 

Book 4

In book 4, Plato finally offers what he would consider societal justice. He says that justice is everyone doing the job most suited to them, and having a well ordered soul. I think that this definition makes much more sense when one thinks of it in the context of the city being an analogy for a person's soul.

Like how the Guardians need to be the leaders of the city and the lower class workers need to be the laborers, the different parts of your soul need to be fulfilling their optimal duties for you to be just. For example, allowing your appetites to govern all of your decisions would lead to an unjust soul just like allowing the masses to lead the city would lead to chaos in the city.

I don't particularly like Plato's definition of justice because I feel as if it rules out the possibility for the uneducated people to be just. To make the truly good decisions, according to Plato, you need to have knowledge, something that a lot of people in our world may not have access to. But, I think people that don't have knowledge can still sometimes intuitively know what is just and what is not. I think it would be better to say that a more knowledgeable person will be just more often, but it is not as if the unlearned man will always be unjust.