[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[emjay]

Yeah, that analogy seems familiar from the first book or two, where he talks about the captain of a ship not being about sailing per se (ie with the sailing aspect being basically incidental - it being more about ruling men), but I just haven't yet got to the point where such an example is concretely installed in this abstract ideal state of theirs (I know that sounds like an oxymoron ).

In your study of the Republic, have you been working with the idea that the whole thing is largely allegorical? There is a theory that Plato's primary interest is in how one governs oneself, and that the idea of a city-state is used largely because it's easier to talk about than psychology. Waterfield's introduction to his translation has this good passage:

Republic is Plato’s main attempt to define in non-abstract terms how an individual can fulfil himself, can attain happiness or ‘live the good life’, as a Greek would have said. A Greek would have expected such a discussion to be couched in political terms—and that is what we get, though not entirely in the way a Greek would have expected. 

Overt discussion of political and other external issues would be a ‘hard’ aspect of the book; in Republic there are also ‘soft’ aspects to this discussion. It is possible to read the book as a predominantly individualist approach to the issues, with the tra­ditional political terminology of the debate suborned and largely turned over to metaphorical purposes, to describe the inner state of the individual. Metaphor is a familiar method for turning hard aspects into soft aspects; and it is typical of Plato’s sense of humour that he would turn the usual terms of debate on their head in this way.

This is not to say, of course, that the soft aspects of the book (those concerned with the inner state of an individual) are all the book consists of. As Plato projects the inner life of an individual out on to the larger screen of a mythical world where political factors play a part, he does also make some proposals which
are more concerned with outer politics than the inner politics of the individual—which are hard rather than soft. In fact, because he is such a skilful writer, he often writes for both layers simultaneously. But the hard aspects of the book are less than one might expect: the outside world takes on a half-life, but the inner life of the individual is the primary concern of the book. As a metaphor, the politics of Republic is stimulating and coherent; as a manifesto, it is naive and fragmentary. Anyone reading the book with a view to finding a political philosophy to follow or to criticize is going to be disappointed and will be forced to supply a lot of the evidence.

The ambitious project of the book is to demonstrate that morality is beneficial to its possessor—that, in fact, an individual gains in happiness by being moral whether or not any external advantages accrue to him. At the beginning of Chapter 3 Plato says that this is a tough task, since it is difficult to look inside a person’s mind and see what is good or bad there. He therefore proposes to work with a political analogy: perhaps morality will be easier to see if we construct a community, describe its political system, and look for morality in this imaginary community. If the analogy with an individual is exact, we shall then be able to dis­cover the features of the ‘political’ state of affairs in an individual. There is nothing ambiguous about this. In Republic Plato is not primarily interested in politics in the real world: he is constructing
an imaginary community, to serve as a paradigm. The primary purpose for any political exploration that will occur in the book is a ‘soft’ purpose—to help us understand an individual. And Plato constantly reminds us that this is the point of the ‘politics’: time and again he mentions the individual who is supposed to cor­respond to the imaginary state. These reminders can be found at 35ie, 369a, 43zb, 434d, 441c, 445c, 47zc-d, 541b, 543d~544a and throughout Chapters 11 and iz, 605b, and 608a—b.

This and the Symposium are both, in the end, largely challenges and puzzles -- in this way perhaps more like literature than the philosophy we're accustomed to. Waterfield is surely right to say that Plato is a genius writer, and capable of working at different levels and doing any number of things at once.

Socrates is said to have given up his scientific inquires because he thought science is worthless to us if we're still bad people. Likewise, I suspect that Plato's interest in politics is largely based on his desire to help us become good individuals.

Cool, thanks for the additional perspective on it; I'll definitely keep that in mind as I continue to read. As it stands though I'm only on chapter three and only considering that, as with all the others so far, a first pass just to get the gist... I fully expect to reread some of these dialogues many times to get at the deeper and deeper levels, as your quote alludes to and the lectures I've been watching on YouTube also talk about... like layers of an onion, with new insights and connections coming with every reread.

I can certainly understand where that thinking comes from in what I've observed of Plato so far; his fondness for using similes (and this is to this as that is to that, if that is the same thing... eg craftsman acts to the benefit of the craft, so ruler if likened to that, should also be acting for the benefit of the ruled... but whether this is the case in the counter example given of who a shepherd benefits with regard to a flock (ie the flock or himself); I'm curious to see how, or if, Plato resolves that little dilemma in the rest of the dialogue) and metaphors everywhere, including, kind of nested. So if I had done my due diligence, as my YouTube teacher would have suggested, I should have been on the lookout from the get-go for little metaphorical sleights of hand like that from Plato, but as I say it's just my first pass, and I'm not that far into it, so I think I can be excused of that So yeah, I look forward to seeing the big picture and what he has to say about the psyche through this metaphor.

---

I've started on it but to be honest it feels completely different from the others and nowhere near as clear, especially as it's so much couched in the mythology of the day.

What translation?

It's a Kindle ebook, "The Complete Works of Plato", translated by Benjamin Jowlett. I know you've talked about preferred translations, but as I've just said to Belacqua, at the moment I'm only really trying to get the gist of these dialogues... a first pass as it were, and all the other dialogues I've covered so far have been very clear, so I didn't expect getting a different translation to mean much to me at this point... in other words I thought you were maybe talking from a connoisseur's point of view rather than a layman's. I'm sorry about that, I meant no offence. I'll look for the other translation if it's that different.

Maybe I just don't know enough about love, but I'm just finding it really hard to follow and over my head... more like reading Shakespeare, which has never been my forte or interest. Do you like it for the ideas or the language? And is it perhaps an acquired taste/skill to read it (as reading Shakespeare is... you have to be familiar with the language of the day, and in this case also the mythology of the day)... more so than the other dialogues? Another thought is that the other dialogues I've been reading have all been on similar and related themes, since they've been part of the same curriculum, so that could also account for why they comparatively seem far easier to understand.

An important distinction needs to be made among Plato's early, middle, and late works.

The early dialogues are called "aporetic" dialogues. Remember Socrates liked to show people they knew less than they really knew. (Called a state of "aporia.") Meno and Apology-- which you have read-- are early dialogues. Notice in Meno how the issue of whether virtue can be learned is never really settled. The question is explored, but you are left dissatisfied at the end. That's intentional. Plato wants to start the conversation, not finish it. Euthyphro is a good early dialogue too. Maybe required reading for all atheists.

Phaedo, Republic, and Symposium are middle works. In these dialogues, Plato keeps the aporetic vibe going throughout, but he spends more time trying to resolve the issues than in his early works. He doesn't want to just raise the question and send the reader off packing. He wants to argue his particular thinking on the matter. In the Republic, as Belacqua says, he wants to explore the just soul. He uses the analogy of the state to arrange the soul into parts reason/spirit/desire-- rulers/warriors/producers. Arguably, after book 4 he starts commenting on politics proper. Book 4 itself is my favorite book from the Republic.

Yeah... I'm rambling... but I am curious about the Symposium translation you're reading.

Yeah, I'm nowhere near being able to make the sorts of distinctions you're making... thanks for the education... you (and Belacqua) seem to really know your stuff As for Euthyphro, that was the last one I watched before starting to read and watch, so I really should read that and then watch the video again.