This contains:
Plato Overall
ToK Authority Abstract
Back to the main Circumlectio
Quarter 2 Service Reflection
Emily Hoar
Ort: “The Republic” Book 2
This book of “The Republic” was about none other than justice. It begins with Glaucon countering Socrates’ seemingly proven point that justice is better than injustice. Glaucon seems to make a good, solid point that an unjust man will be treated better than the just man. Part of his argument was being just to be just, or being just to seem just. It appears that the unjust man who is able to seem just will get by better than the just man who doesn’t seem just, but is just… in this he seems unjust and is punished by the gods and society. Adeimantos also speaks, and he wishes Socrates to clarify what justice is and what injustice is… nothing to do with wages, or opinions, or proving that one is better than the other. He simply wants to know “[what] makes one a good thing, the other bad.” Socrates sets off to discover what exactly justice and injustice are. He finds it easier to see bigger things, so he takes something bigger than a man – a city – and sets out to determine its justice and injustice. Through this he hopes to find a man’s justice.
In this reading, it is said that God does not create anything evil, and thus is not the cause of all things. Who is the cause for evil things then? Who will take responsibility for the evils of the world? Does it make sense to censor all “music” like Socrates suggests? Who would have the authority to do that? Is it true that people should only be expected to do one thing well? How would you feel if you were expected and allowed only to fully utilize one talent? What would you choose and why? Is it your responsibility to choose for the benefit of the many, or can you choose for your own benefits? God is infallible, but would he lie? If so, whom would he lie to and why? Would anyone change or alter himself or herself for the worse? How and why?
Republic Book 2 and 1 Corinthians 12
Both of the readings relate themselves to the "modern conciousness of society" by demonstrating that today's society needs to be prepared to sacrifice for the good of others - if something needs to get done and you are the only qualified one to undertake it, even if you do not particularly want to, it is generally your responsiblity to make a small sacrifice. Also, each person is an integral part of society. Though they may seem different, or even appear to not be necessary, every person has a niche in society, and without them, we might not be able to function smoothly as a whole. The themes of the readings can be supported by the arguments that society could not function without different jobs. And because it is not feasible that one person could do all of the jobs, so therefore different people need to carry out different activites. This shows clearly that each person needs to carry out their position and/or job, and though they are just one characteristic, they are a functioning part of society, and we cannot be without them. The arguments that can be taken against these ideas are that a person has a right to choose what their job is, and that they can be selfish and do whatever they please, as long as it pleases them. For example, if all of the cab drivers decided that they did not want to work one day, they could go ahead and do it, because they have free will, and can do what they please. Each person should have the right to carry out their passions, even if it is not what they are good at. My position lies some where in the middle, though it leans a bit towards the views of the readings. I feel this way because it is true that each person needs to hold their place in society, and without certain types of people, this world would not run so smoothly. This can be demonstrated by the problems that occur when strikes take place: referees, bus drivers, umpires, pilots, etc.... The world sometimes seems to stop when parts of it do. But, on the other hand, a person should have some freedom of choice in what they want to do with their lives. If and when someone is not at least partially content with their job, they most likely will not carry it out to their full potential, thus damaging the city, or body more than before.
Republic book 4 and Galatians
The Republic reading deals with happiness within the city, and Plato proclaims, through Scorates, that the guardians will be happy guarding because they are fufulling their job. Laws are discussed, and limited laws are necessary, but more than that will pose problems. This leads to the definition of justice for the city - doing one's job. Galatians talks about law as well, and the leaders who make the laws. The issue of law fits into the modern conciousness of society fairly obviously, in my opinion. Laws are an integral part of society, as they regulate the actions of the people, and should help maintain a sense of calm and protection. The themes of the reading can be supported by saying that some laws are necessary to control conduct, but too many laws cause chaos, as too much freedom is restricted. The law is there, not a "God" or as the over-riding reason behind all, it is simply an effort to have some sense of normalcy laid out. On the contrary, law can be seen as bad, and obtrusive to an individual's freedom. If there is free will, why does it stop at some points? Laws can be claimed to be nonsensical, and they, on the other extreme, can be over used. Too many laws is a problem, because they will completely decimate individuality. In my opinion, there is a fine line bwtween too many laws, and too few. Some laws are silly, and people are rewriting said laws to serve their own purposes. Loopholes are constantly searched for, and that is not the point of laws at all. They are meant to be more of a written down code of conduct that should just extend from the same ideas as any sane person. Laws should not be deemed unreasonable by a large majority, because that which serves few damages more, which tampers with the smooth running of the city, as mentioned in the Republic. A law should be made for the benefit of many, and should be relatively easy to obey.
Republic Book 6 and Romans 12-15
These two readings are visible in the conciousness of modern society, in demonstrating that people need to be ruled by the ruler, and that the reason he is the ruler, is because he is a good leader. Also mentioned is the need for a ruler to be a philosopher, but it would be easier to have the kings become philosophers, rather than new philosophers take over. In Romans, Paul reemphasizes the need to cooperate as one body while retaining one's specialty. We are to love the good and use it to conquer evil. One of the most important comparison points in the readings is when Paul tells the Romans that opposing authority is opposing God's appointees, and thus resisting God. It is also necessary to pay one's dues to society and the authority, for it is due to them. This is also an important concept, in that people should not avoid authority, nor should they avoid supporting it. People should obey authority and support it. it is also necessary not to judge others who may be "weaker" than ourselves - nor to get in the way of another. Arguments that could support these themes are that taxes are necessary, and that even if a ruler is corrupt, because he is the leader, he should rule. Arguments that could be made against the themes are that some authorities were not put into power by God's will - maybe they were part of a violent coup, or another arugument against the themes could be that the world of things seen is so much larger than the world of things thought, because often things are thought of only after they have been seen, or experienced visually or physically. In my opinion, those who are good, just rulers should rule, if they are fairly appointed, that taxes are necessary only to the extent that they are contributing to the wellbeing of the payers and their causes, and that the world of things thought is much larger than that of things seen, because it is possible for people to think of and about things that have never been seen, how otherwise would inventors invent? They had to come up with a new idea, or atleast something which improved upon a different item... neither of which was seen by the inventor until he made it.
Republic Book 7 and New Testament 4: 1 Peter 2:11-4:11 & 1 John 4:7-5:12
The main focal point of Plato's Book 7 is the analogy of the cave. The themes of the Bible reading changes throughout, but for the purpose of this analysis I will focus on the section "Testimony concerning the Son of God." The readings weave themselves into the consciousness of society by catering to the ideal of fiction as reality. This is seen in the so-called "reality" shows on tv. These shows are not very real, mostly because the majority of the scenes are rehearsed or at the least set up. Even in ones that are not "set up," the contestants are chosen so they will clash enough to have interesting situations to atract viewers. The reading in 1 John 5:6-12 is visible in society more clearly in the church, because it is easier to see Christ and God within a religious establishment, as society seems generally scared of confrontation with religion. But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and during the fighting of the Taliban, especially during the Christmas season, the media has not been so squeamish about mentioning God and Jesus. The arguments supporting the central themes of the readings could be that people need to open their eyes and see the real world, because otherwise they will never be able to understand their own little Idaho, and consequently themselves. In the cave analogy, the chained prisoners can be seen as the crowds, while the escaped man, Socrates in Plato's mind, can be symbolizing Jesus. Believing the testimony of the prisoners is not as trustworthy as believeing the testimony of the enlightened one, no matter how alien his ideas may seem. Arguments against the theme could be that a person should be allowed to believe whatever he wants to, and even if this thought or opinion is incorrect or warped, it's their own life, and they should be able to live it as they please. I agree more with the arguments supporting the central themes of the readings because I feel as if it is the responsibility of a good person to help others see the errs in their ways. If someone is "wrong," it is the person in the right's responsibility to at least show the other person the opportunity for a different path, away from the "wrong."
Republic Book 10 and New Testament 5 - 1 Corinthians 12-14
Both Republic Book 10 and NT 5 are relevant to society. 1 Corinthians 12-14 discusses spiritual gifts, the concept of one body with many parts, love, prophecy and tongues, and finally, it speaks to the beliefs of the people at the time, that of the necessity for women to be subordinate. These are all woven into today's society in that people need to understand that they are all part of the same society, but have been given different specialties, which need to work together as seamlessly as possible to prevent the shutting down of the society - in the same manner that the body would shut down if the heart decided it was not as important as the brain and thus was going to stp working. Love is spoken of as something that makes everything what it is. "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Love is that which transcends all - "it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." The patience and kindness that are ascribed to love are qualities that are needed in society. Without patience and kindness, society would crumble as people became increasingly angered at those who did not serve them right away. The section on tongues seems almost irrelevant today, as the concept is warped, and it is not often that one speaks to us the words of God, unless it is through reading the Bible, for example. But the section still relates to us in that it tells us that prophesy is for believers and tongues for the nonbelievers - only those who give us God's words so they can be understood directly are worth listening to. In Republic Book 10, Plato says that the idea of a bed is one degree away from truth, the carpenter's bed is two degrees away from truth, and the painting or poem of a bed is three degrees away from truth. Because the painting is so far from the truth, "such things are the ruin of the hearers' minds, unless they posess the antidote, knowledge of what such things really are." Since the seers of the painting might not understand the concept of the bed, that which God created, it would not be good for them to see only such imitative art. In this, Plato proposes that the Republic would ban all imitative art. For the imitator would have no knowledge or right opinion of that which he imitated, he would not know it good or bad and thus be providing for those who know nothing. Plato also discusses the Myth of Er, in which Er becomes privy to see the afterlife, and was to divulge the information to the world once he returned. He saw souls being told whether to go to the left (hell) or the right (heaven) for which they would spend 1000 years either being punished ten-fold for all their bad deeds or recieving gratification ten-fold for all their good deeds. After the 1000 years was over, they emerged from the bowels of the earth and chose lots for new lives, proceeded past the river of oblivion (so they'd forget the afterlife) and then on to their new lives. Er was prevented from drinking from the river of oblivion, so he remembered what he'd seen and thus the story remained. Republic Book 10 is relevant to society today by encouraging people to both familiarize themselves with the truth as much as possible and also to live good lives so they will not be stuck with being punished in the afterlife.
Arguments supporting the central themes of the readings are many - For NT 5, it is obvious that in society we need people of all sorts to function smoothly. The farmers in Idaho are just as important in their own ways as the stockbrokers on Wall Street. For Plato, the Myth of Er can be supported through the religious beliefs in most every tradition of some sort of afterlife, or cycle of new lives. But arguments could be made against the central points of the readings such as saying that love is not necessary for things to be as they are - someone could carry out their duties halfheartedly, never enjoying it and certainly without love, and still get their jobs done. And also, what proof do we have of an afterlife? Have you ever spoked to someone who has been to heaven? In my opinion, every person has a purpose in life, and though some many seem less important than others, it is hard to see how drastically one small thing can affect lives. I believe there must be some sort of hereafter, and that we should strive to do good in life so we may enjoy eternity. And finally, love is somehting that makes everyday tasks more fulfilling - it is so much easier to get things done, and to do them well, if we love what we are doing.
