Ping
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
not one of my faves - Cave Parable is about the best writing in the past 2068 years
What about it?
I assume that Plato has Socrates give an answer, one that Plato considered to be correct?
Thanks for posting.
Kind of puts that old adage that “cheaters never prosper” on it’s head, eh? LOL.
So? Where is the great Greek nation today, with such advice?
Yeah, well, we all know what Paraxamander of Melos had to say about Plato....
From which St John’s are you a grad?
btt
It reads much like a certain Italian fellow wrote in The Prince.
And it merely deals with the tangible, not peace of mind or righteousness.
Here’s some worthwhile reading on the general subject.
Book of Job
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&version=9
Book of Psalms
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&version=9
Book of Proverbs
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&version=9
Book of Ecclesiastes
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&version=9
Nietzsche is anticipated by a couple of millennia. The catch is that strength, freedom, and masterliness...uh, masterhood? Domination? Puissance? Whatever...the catch is that these abstractions are not virtues in and of themselves, however noble they sound. Actually that was Nietzsche's problem as well. IMHO.
What is submerged in this glossover is that "justice" as Socrates seems to regard it is in fact restraint, the restraint of an individual with respect to his or her society. Taking less where one could have had more is an act of self-discipline, not weakness. It is a willing contribution to the public good.
Plato (and Kant somewhat later) had a good deal to say concerning whether such an act was virtue a priori or done so in the expectation that others would make a similar sacrifice. But clearly there is a difference of opinion here as to the degree to which society may make demands on one that are morally superior to one's commitment to self.
In fact, it is an open question as to whether the collective even has any demands separate from the demands of self of its constituent individuals. Too much emphasis on the former brings us the primacy of State; too little and we have moral anarchy, where government does not appeal to virtue or even a social contract but is pure coercion.
One sees several political models in this moral dilemma - a good dollop of Marxian cynicism coupled with the naive Marxian aspiration that things ought to be otherwise for some reason. (Touching faith for an athiest, and I am hardly the first to point it out.)
One reason the Constitution of the United States has enjoyed the success that it has is that it attempts to delineate the degree to which individual and State may make demands one upon the other. It should be no surprise that this is an item of such contention between factions who have drastically different notions of those boundaries.
And those notions hinge on one's interpretation of the term "justice," nowhere precisely defined, not even by Socrates. One's interpretation of that key concept does a great deal to describe one's politics, morality, and general personal philosophy. Nice article, and thanks for posting.
That is simply remarkable.
Thanks for posting it.
Article site links back to FRee Republic.
Here is a link below to the Amazon source for that book.
Moderator might be able to fix it.
http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Complete-Works/dp/0872203492