Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 8, 2012 at 11:51pm

July 9-15: Discuss Republic, Book I

I consider Book I not only to be the opening to a potent philsophical text, but also a rich literary treasure.  Each time I read or teach any of Plato's works, a student directs me to deeper layers in the text.  It is fraught with meaning!  Please share your own thoughts, responses, questions, favorite quotes, and disagreements. All members of CE.com are welcome to join in. Here a just three of many possible questions to get things started:

1. The character Cephalus typifies the ideal Greek citizen.  How does Plato challenge the status quo through his questioning of Cephalus?
2. Thrasymachus is portrayed as the "token Sophist" -- the intellectual who did not believe in any universal truth but believed all "truth" to be custom or habit that benefited someone.  How does Plato make apparent his anti-Sophist agenda?
3. Plato leads us through a series of questions and answers known as Socratic questioning.  As teachers, what can we learn from this example of pedagogy?  (Sub-question [okay, #4!]: Do you think it's appropriate that at the end, the conversants are left in some sort of cognitive conflict?)

Discuss!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Trumbo on July 9, 2012 at 10:44am

I have taught my students to see the basic issue of the Republic--why should one be just?--as an intriguing parallel to the book of Job.  Both address the fact that not everything is a means--we must identify, correctly, the ends for which we exist and orient ourselves faithfully to that end.  Both also contrast to the account of the plague in Thucydides, in which the Athenians show that their piety and virtue were grounded in the benefits they expected to gain from the gods.

Is Thrasymachus the godfather of Machiavelli and modern politics of realism?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Douvier on July 9, 2012 at 12:50pm

Cephalus seems to personify the problem with Athens as Socrates notes in The Apology. He says that he is trying to help Athens to care more for her soul than for her material well-being. Book I helps us see how wealth doesn't make one truly happy (hence the shift in the conversation to the nature of justice and the just man).

I very much appreciate the introduction of Thrasymachus from a literary perspective alone. The vivid description of him leaping into the debate like a leopard is great. The bluster which he brings to the discussion is only matched by Alcibiades in the Symposium. On a philosophical level, I find it interesting that Thrasymachus' "justice is the advantage of the stronger" has antecedents in Hesiod's "Works and Days" (parable of the Hawk/Basilees), and also in Thucydides' account of the Melian Debate (the end of Book V of his History). Even Sophocles' Creon in Antigone illustrates this. Has anyone else seen this theme pop up in the ancient texts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 9, 2012 at 1:13pm

Jacob: Yes, I actually have taught the Melian Dialogue, Antigone, and Book I of the Republic in tandem in my 9th grade ancient humanities classes; the parallel is so intriguing, for students and teacher alike.  It seems to there was a major cultural crisis engulfing the classical Greeks, and many were trying to solve this philosophical problem.

I think all these texts probe us with the following question: Even if we are "law-abiding citizens," are we following a higher law?  Although the analogy is not perfect, I often think to myself, "Even if I am a good person (ahieving some type of works righteousness) and I in tune with the Divine (grace)?" -- All the texts (and my half-perfect metaphor) seem to point us away from superficial goodness.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 9, 2012 at 1:15pm

Great question regarding Thrasymachus.  Let's branch out a bit: What other historical figures or ideologies do you perceive to have connections with sophistry?  Do you observe any "contemporary sophistry" in our culture today??
 
Richard L. Trumbo said:

I have taught my students to see the basic issue of the Republic--why should one be just?--as an intriguing parallel to the book of Job.  Both address the fact that not everything is a means--we must identify, correctly, the ends for which we exist and orient ourselves faithfully to that end.  Both also contrast to the account of the plague in Thucydides, in which the Athenians show that their piety and virtue were grounded in the benefits they expected to gain from the gods.

Is Thrasymachus the godfather of Machiavelli and modern politics of realism?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Trumbo on July 9, 2012 at 1:23pm

The Melian Dialogue, Job (I insist this is a relevant connection) and Thucydides' account of the plague, like the Republic, all raise the question of why one should be just--the motive.  As Calvin, following Augustine's City of God, notes in Book III of the Institutes, even a good action performed from the wrong motive falls short of true goodness.  Both Job and the Republic show, and the MD and plague account illustrate, that if we are doing good things out of love of self rather than love of God, then ultimately they will fail us because rewards do not always attend virtue.  Job perseveres, unlike the Athenians, because he realizes God is to be loved for His own sake ("though YHWH should slay me, yet will I trust in Him").  Satan's claims about Job are actually true of the Athenians--and that is the chink in Cephalus' "good citizenship."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 9, 2012 at 1:48pm

Richard, I totally think the correlation between Job and the Greek works is legitimate!  Would you say it's fair to say that Cephalus, with his limited-though-well-accepted vision of life may be compared to Job's friends, who claim they understand the reasons for his sufferings?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Trumbo on July 9, 2012 at 1:56pm

Yes, Katrina, I agree; don't both serve somewhat as foils in offering "wrong" answers over against the better answers offered later?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 12, 2012 at 12:21am

Yes, I think using the word "foil" hits it on the head . . .. that term was escaping me . . .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 13, 2012 at 8:56am

Would anyone like to return to question below from Richard?

Is Thrasymachus the godfather of Machiavelli and modern politics of realism?

What similarities can we observe?  Differences?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Trumbo on July 13, 2012 at 9:15am

I see Thrasymachus as utterly amoral--his definition of justice as "the advantage of the stronger" is thoroughly cynical, and even reminds me of the famous Bismarck saying, "A treaty is nothing but a scrap of paper."  Machiavelli, Hobbes, and all in that stream consider their politics more "realistic,"  assuming that materialism and power are the only criteria of action in politics--much like the Athenian definition of justice as "whatever the stronger say it is" early in the Melian Dialogue.  Those, like Hobbes and the Athenians at Melos, who deny a transcendent law above human will (anticipating Nietzsche) are left with nothing but power to guide them.  All of these, like Thrasymachos, also claim that the (conventionally, ideally) "just man always has the worst of it."  The criterion, note, is success, much like Machiavelli's de facto dismissal of God or religous ethics as being "above reason."

One key difference I see in Hobbes and Machiavelli, however, is that they hold to some notion of a "public good" or the benefit of the community, whereas Thrasymachos' argument is more narrowly self-centered.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katrina J. Combs on July 16, 2012 at 2:28pm

July 16-22: Books 2-4

Question #1: Near the end of Book I, Socrates proclaims that the interlocutors still don't know what justice is.  Some readers may throw up their hands in frustration, asking, "What?!  What's the point of all this questioning?!"  But what is the literary power of Book 1's conclusion as it connects to Books 2-4?  How does the lack of knowledge of justice springboard into Book 2?

Question #2: What can we learn, positively, from this questioning method as teachers?  Alternately, can you think of any drawbacks or concerns you might have for leaving students in 'elenchus'?

 

Discuss!

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page