This was an exciting read. Even though I end up disagreeing with Socrates, many times, I find him fascinating and thought provoking. I can't imagine what he would have been like if he had had the Gospel to add to his intellect. Book I concerns the meaning of justice and the profitability of one over the other. Book II is about creating a perfect State, a Republic.
Socrates begins his conversation with an old man named Cephales. They are talking about wealth and old age. He tells Socrates that the more the pleasures of the body fade away, the more he appreciates good conversation. I remember Cidi Boorsma telling me that he least favorite part of getting old was that she could not taste as well as she could before, she just didn't get very much pleasure out of eating anymore. When I read this statement attributed to a man I thought about how pleasures of the body fading may be a blessing for a man. If a man felt the drive for physical pleasure with the same intensity all their lives, they would be very frustrated old men, especially when they begin to lose their minds. This is just a side note to the justice conversation, so on to it.
Book I didn't answer any questions about what justice and injustice are. They did manage to tell us many things that they are not, including that justice is giving good to friends and harm to enemies. Justice is, also, not giving good to friends when we are sure they are good and harm to enemies when we are sure they are bad. After coming to these conclusion they are interrupted by Thrasymachus.
This is where Book I gets a little irritating. I did not like Thrasymachus' style of arguing. He acted the way someone looking to justify their own actions. His arguments were not well thought ow because Socrates quickly shot through them. Then when he began to lose the argument he really go childish. He tried to seem like he was only patronizing Socrates, that he didn't actually care whether justice was more profitable than injustice or not. Considering that he came at Socrates with such a force that he said, “I was panic-stricken at his words and could not look at him without trembling.” Even if he was being sarcastic it must have still been pretty forceful. I have experienced someone talking to me this way and could never have believed that they were “just kidding.”
He claims that no matter what justice is, injustice is always more profitable. Socrates listens to his arguments and then refutes them. When Socrates starts to get the better of him, Thrasymachus says, “Let this, Socrates, be your entertainment at Bendida.” As if he had only been out to entertain him. I hate it when people don't have enough integrity to either keep their convictions which can be defended or when they can't are not able to admit that they are wrong. This brings to my mind the argument that I have heard so much lately that truth is different depending on the person. This is so not true! There are absolute truths.
Back to The Republic. Glaucon and his brother, Adeimantus decides to take Thrasymachus' position after he leaves, even thought they do not believe it because they feel like it is a conversation that needs to be had. Glaucon has three topics to discuss: the nature and origin of justice, people who are just only do so because of necessity, and the life of the unjust is better than the life of the just. His arguments are pretty compelling, in fact Socrates compliments them on being able to argue so well and still maintain a contrary belief.
For the rest of Book II, and from what I understand on into Book III, and maybe beyond Socrates invites Glaucon and Adeimantus to discuss the creation of the ideal State. This part scares me a little. I can see why Socrates has been called the found of Communism. He suggests that people should all work together, specializing based on specific skills. Only doing their part, but providing it to all the people, not just himself. He advocates major control of education and censorship of ideas. For a State this is a recipe for disaster because it is against human nature, but for my family it is great. We definitely specialize and rarely cross over. I am a home maker and Matthew is a work for money guy, and the kids' jobs are learning and maturing. I believe in controlling education and censorship until a time when they are mature enough to make these decisions, always following the spirit.
Socrates had some really radical ideas about God and gods. I don't think he believed in multiple gods anymore, but felt that God was the author of all that is good, being good he cannot change becaue if he did he would only be able to make himself worse, and that he cannot lie. In his words he said, “Then God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.” This is pretty close to my testimony of God. Again, if he claim to these conclusions having been taught to worship idols, imagine if he had been taught to worship the Only True God. This is the definition of God that he would have had taught to the future guardians of the state, this is the only definition I teach to my children, lucky for me I have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost so I don't have to be as smart as Socrates to figure this out, the spirit will tell me all I need to know and He is smarter than even Socrates.
No comments:
Post a Comment