The Republic by Plato [Book 4]

I had this post pending as I found Book 4 tougher than the previous three books from the point of view of explaining the justice of state and connecting it to the individual but I think I should publish it before I re-read the book. Socrates advocates the barring of innovation that is totally unacceptable to me. If we think that present poems and present gymnastic techniques are the best then we are letting the art die. The thought process of human mind must go on and that's how the new things come up.

The second important point that Socrates advocates is that every individual must do only one work. Well, I think this is also refutable as a carpenter can think of becoming plumber by learning new skills and can serve both fields.

The third point he makes is that the state is courageous by guardians and not by common people. I accept this point to a great extent. If the guardians are coward and shy of entering the war then people will enter the war and most probably, it will end up in ruining the state as the state will always be in the condition of civil war.

The fourth point that I would like to discuss is about the desire and passion and the wisdom attained by containing desires by an individual reflect the wisdom of the state. Socrates says that passion is wild;desire is against reason. Well, If I follow his argument, then I think that to remain just is also a kind of desire and hence it is unreasonable. I am confused about this. I am going to have to read it again  Also, I do not understand why he says that complex desires are found in children women and servants. Women are biologically different and may have different desires. Children have gradually growing minds so their desires may also differ. But when it comes to servants, I do not understand why their desires are complex as most servants are men. Socrates seems to be biased towards the high class men for whom he considers that rational principle guides them tho keep all the emotions combined in one bunch instead of scattering them here and there. Why Socrates rules out the possibility of a woman and a servant being wise? There are questions that might get answered after revising the book. Will keep updating about that.

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Just completed reading A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens that I started reading as a break during the The Republic sessions. Well, I am totally overwhelmed by the narration of the story well connected with the French Revolution. The climax leaves my mind with a question whether any good change is absolutely good? The ending is so tragic that the sacrifice of the people to replace evil almost goes into vain. Maybe this was just an exception and certain imperfection remains with every Revolution but the mob remains the one with brittle sentimental values and improper reasoning criteria. The events of this took place in 1790's but exact repetitions can be seen throughout the history when the mob was the final judge; be it the example of crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth or be it the second world war. Can it be imagined that mob will ever become reasonable? Perhaps not. The reason for saying this lies behind the biology of human nature. People find it amusing when someone unrelated and unloved to them gets punishment especially when the person is either above them in rank or is liked by others. People always need somebody to be held responsible of every bad that happened and contains the ill will stone them to death. The example of Defarge family from the novel signifies the value they wanted to retain by condemning Charles Darnay for being an aristocrat and responsible for the bad things happened in Saint Antoine. Well, one message from the novel is clear and that is no good is absolutely good and not all good people enjoy the fruit of the new good.

The Republic by Plato [Book 3]

The third book of The Republic by Plato talks broadly about the arts in education format for a responsible society. He talks about the removal of certain things in the books that might lead to the corruption of mind or  challenging of the superiority of gods. I think that removal of wrong texts is good but removal of the content that questions the authority is somewhat a political decision. A person should be skeptic in the approach towards theological arguments otherwise there will be no arguments. Another thing that Socrates says is that the weeping a sorrow of the powerful should be removed. Well, I think that its good when we look at it in the case of creating a war machine but generally, these emotions are there. The pupil can be taught how to control such things and how you become weak with the regular practice of such things but the removal is somewhat, again, a political decision.

Most of the later arguments comes out from the discussion on music and gymnastics which are considered to be the highest form to connect through soul. The selection of graceful and rhythmic harmonies is agreeable along-with the selection of a just guardian from the gymnastics. The most controversial part is the right to lie. Everyone but ruler is prohibited to lie i.e., only the ruler can lie and that also in the case of good for citizens. Who is to decide what is right? This question was raised in the first book too. Also, serving the country is the dream of citizens is in reality is a lie is going to be shocking for lots of nationalists. What I have deduced from this chapter [book 3] is that setting the people up in the name of good is what the leaders are best at and I do not condemn them for this as this is the way to handle people. Adolf Hitler discussed the same format in his book Mein Kampf, when he talks about the use of press to influence the mob, but in the reverse gear.

One more thing that I found controversial is the concept of love. According to Socrates, true love is independent of sexual intercourse as he considered this activity as the greatest form of immodesty. Well, he  forgot that we all are born out of this immodesty only. I have heard that another Plato compilation named as Symposium talks about the concept of love in detail. Will read that later; its time for the Book 4 now.

The Republic by Plato [Book 1 & Book 2]

Just completed reading first two books of The Republic by Plato and willing to go through them once again in order to understand them more. The book talks about the nature and origin of justice.

The first book says that repayment of debt is justice which I still do not understand fully. Maybe this is because I am new to Socratic style of conversation. But still, if we look up the dictionary meaning of justice, then oxford says it is fair treatment which I totally agree with. Now, debt has several meanings but the most basic meaning is that you owe something to somebody. Now, if I pay the debt, it is justice and if I don't then its injustice which I accept but what if I chose not to pay and the payee chops off my head by saying that this is the justice that I need, would that be justice? Well, according to Socrates, it is justice because good with friends and bad with enemies is the basis of his arguments. The question in my mind is what is the extent or the degree of badness that can be done in order to justify the punishment given to enemy for injustice done? Also, they talk about the need of just person in money management only which again is unclear to me. If the warrior is not just then he will kill his fellow men too in order to gain the whole credit if the troop is winner so the need justice has to be there.Now, in between of the argument, Thrasymachus interjects and takes the debate to a new level where they are talking about the goodness of evil and badness of justice.

The second book talks about the state and the education which is clear to me. The formation of state and the need of education is explained precisely but the need of extremely censored education is not that I agree with. The poems may or may not contain fictitious characters but the message is what, I think, is important. The symbolism has its own value and the changing of shapes by God is also symbolic in nature. If God is perfect, then the values that it/he/she take must be perfect? I don't think so. God may take another form that is deceitful but can come back to the original for whenever it/he/she wants (The arguments about God's shape changing doesn't mean that I do/don't believe in God.).

Will keep updating the post as I move on reading the book further.