[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[emjay]

We were assigned Crito and The Republic in philosophy 101. Loved Crito and the crisp lucidity of Plato's thinking. At the time, I didn't really like The Republic because of all the mean things he said about democracy.

In the 40 odd years since then, I've thought he might have been right. Today I think a benevolent dictatorship/monarchy might be the perfect form of government. The rub seems to be that benevolent dictators have been pretty thin on the ground within my lifetime...

I've read that some of the ancient pharaohs were pretty good. Akhenaten tried to introduce a form of monotheism to Egypt . However, he was apparently a bit of a cunt about it, as religious fanatics tend to be.

The only benevolent dictator I've read about was Ashoka The Great because . He became a devout Buddhist and did all kinds of peachy things---of course that was after his wars and casual killings of individuals.


"Ashoka (/əˈʃoʊkə/; Brāhmi: 𑀅𑀲𑁄𑀓, Asoka,[5] IAST: Aśoka), also known as Ashoka the Great, Piodasses in ancient Greece, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty son of Chadragupta Maurya, who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from c. 268 to 232 BCE.[6][7], Ashoka promoted the spread of Buddhism across ancient Asia.[4] Considered by many to be one of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka expanded Chandragupta's empire to reign over a realm stretching from present-day Afghanistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east. It covered the entire Indian subcontinent except for parts of present-day Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. The empire's capital was Pataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Patna), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain. Ashoka after the war of kaliningrad get upset with the bloodshed and vowed to never fight again. He embraced Buddhism and patronised Buddhism in his rule and reign."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Interesting. I haven't read enough of Republic yet (but hope to over the next few days) to see exactly what you're talking about, but I'd guess if he favours that kind of government vs democracy he's arguing something like 'it's better to be ruled by one wise man than many fools' or something like that? If so I can understand that at least in the case of a court of law, where some cases at least - like the recent Epic vs Apple (which I followed a lawyer following it, in depth, on YouTube) - I was very glad when both sides chose a bench trial over a jury trial... because in that sort of very complicated case it looked like it would be much better decided by one person who knows the relevant laws inside out rather than on the whims and succeptibility to persuasion by rhetoric of a jury.

Anyway, as to the Buddhism aspect, I think that's interesting too because as far as I can see, there are quite a lot of parallels between Buddhism and the thoughts of Socrates in Phaedo (ie the reincarnation ideas about the soul) as well as there being quite a lot of similarity between Plato's ideas of Virtue and the similar ideas in Buddhism (eg Right Thought, Right Action etc)... so based on what you've said about this Buddhist ruler, I'm wondering if there was perhaps some Platonic influence there in the development of Buddhism.

---

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll definitely add them to my 'syllabus' as I said ... but I'm hoping in the long run to read them all... so as soon as I get to the end of this playlist, try and find another, because it is good (to me) to have a discussion of sorts at the end of the reading to cement and clarify the ideas.

It was only only one suggestion. Symposium. The book is a collection of speeches on love given by different members at a party. The best speeches are those of Aristophanes and Socrates. But all of them are good, especially if you want to see how Plato thoroughly explores different takes on the thesis. I read Jowett translations mostly when I started to read Plato. They are fine. But NOT for the Symposium. I can't stress enough how superior the Avo Sharon translation is. If you can't find a Sharon translation cheap, I'll scan my copy in for you. But I can't imagine a used copy is more than 5 bucks. (Probably less.)

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. 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.

It just feels familiar at this point to what we've been covering in this thread, but I haven't really analysed anything yet to see where those similarities lie - that sounds like a fun project for later.

For me, I can't really choose between them at this point; the dialogue form of Plato is definitely very engaging to put it mildly, but Aristotle is very clear and concise in his writing style too, so I appreciate both of them really, in different ways.

Aristotle certainly did the work of "proto-science" before the scientific method was discovered by humankind. He was much more valuable to the ancients for that reason. His ideas are more clear, as well. Plato is trying to get to the bottom of things we still don't fully understand today (politics, the human mind, etc.). Aristotle had things to say on those too, but I consider him less profound.

The thing about Aristotle being a proto-scientist is that he set himself up to become outdated. We still have virtue ethics and things, though. TBH, I have never completed Nicomachean Ethics or any of Aristotle's works. So maybe I'm selling him short.

As for a thread, you'd be surprised how many folks have mentioned Plato round these parts. I may start one just to see what happens. But, as you continue to read Plato, it's nice to be able to bring out cool (or confusing) passages for discussion/exegesis.

Yep, I see what you're saying about Aristotle's proto-science... and I personally love how methodical it is... vs the sort of stuff that Plato's talking about.

I haven't read any of the Nicomachean dialogues per se, but if you just want a summary/analysis of them, as I said, I'd highly recommend Adam Rosenfeld's YouTube videos on the subject. His passion for them is very clear in his lectures.

Cool, look forward to seeing that thread then. Anyway, I should be asleep now (it's 4am) so I'll say night night for now