Read first section of the republic

>read first section of the republic
>literally already at least 10 sections where it would be dismissed wholesale if it didn't have the thick fog of pretension (caused by others) and cultural worship around it

I expected a joke but not something this dumb.

Of course I expect a lot of BS literary critiques that attempt to justify every aspect of it.

Examples?

You haven't gotten to the meat and potatoes yet, user. Besides, you are not accurately comprehending it yet because it's only your first reading. Consider this, The Republic is open to endless speculation. Plato doesn't like to give bullet proof arguments, he likes to leave a little wiggle room to encourage discussion. Don't look at Socrates as the definite authority. Plato wants you to examine each argument and idea presented. And don't read The Republic for plot, user.

This is the correct way to read Plato. It's a fun exercise to go through the various arguments and see if there are any weaknesses or false equivalencies, coming to your own conclusions through careful reasoning. The whole point of the book is to make you think for yourself.

Plato, with his made up character Socrates, tells the greeks they should be subjects to his fascist regime.
The Republic is fascism. Plato is a fascist. The fuck.

Is The Republic fascist though? Remember at first he described a very simple city, and it's only when the need for luxury goods was demanded did Socrates describe an authoritarian city. So in effect, The Republic could be viewed as a warning to the reader of the dangers of excess desires.

Why offer a critique when you haven't even finished the work? Especially when you say you're at the beginning...

See these anonsOpen your mind, user. The Republic is good shit.

The whole point of all of Plato is to make you say fuck no, and then make your own arguments as to why Socrates is wrong. Because if you can read, you are expected to be able to argue and refute. And the themes that Plato deals with, are worth arguing and thinking about.

It is so obvious with all the "Yes, Socrates, ooooh, I never thought of that Socrates" that you are not supposed to just passively nod and become a dogmatic follower. Which is exactly why he is not a fascist.

The whole point of all of Plato is to make you say fuck no, and then make your own arguments as to why Socrates is wrong.
That's one possible way to judge it. However, it's important to note that not all of Socrates' ideas are bad, in fact some of them are quite good. If you truly open your mind to Plato you'll end up making you question your belief system. Plato doesn't want you to read in a reactionary manner where you say "Fuck no, that's a horrible idea!" he wants you to ponder the many points of view carefully and understand why Socrates thought it was a good idea, and then to make a judgment from there. Take Socrates' view on democracy for example, our first inclination is to be disgusted, however is he really wrong? Does democracy bring out the worst in people? Are people slaves to their freedoms? According to Socrates man will be busy satiating his endless desires and society will be doomed to moral turpitude. I don't think he's necessarily wrong here. This conclusion leads to endless questions of how to solve this predicament. Is a philosopher king the correct answer? How do we decide who's worthy of such a role. Is there such thing as universal morals? What's good for one is not necessarily good for another. Plato acknowledges this with his tripartite theory of the soul. The beauty of Plato is that the questions are endless.

Socrates existed, user. Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes all cite him in works as they were his contemporaries.

Yupp

Wow. This is the quality of your average libtard's mental faculties.

>there are people itt who think The Republic is political theory
>when Socrates himself says it is NOT political theory
>and later delivers an oration about how he will NOT attempt to change the political ideals of Athens
Why are you people so goddamn retarded jesus christ

The Republic is severely open to interpretation. It's political theory, it's a metaphor for the soul, it's an examination of human nature, it's a critique of the masses, it could be viewed as Socrates' revenge on Athens. There is no definitively "correct" way to interpret it. That's whats so cool about Plato, he leaves it open to endless scrutiny. What we are doing right now is what Plato wanted-the discussion of ideas.

>There are people in this thread who realize that The Republic is a metaphor for the soul, but DON'T realize that it is still political theory.
>There are people in this thread that assume Socrates is the ultimate authority in Plato's writings.
>There are people in this thread that don't realize that Socrates contradicts himself all the time.
>Muh feelings when Socrates cuts Cephalus (who represents the average Athenian citizen) to the ground, and from his ashes a new city is conceived. Athenian ideals in effect HAVE been subverted.
SeeHe's right...It's all of these things and none of these things. Plato was a magical wizard, not some one dimensional pleb like you seem to think.

My point is that The Republic should not be read as Plato's ideal of what a government SHOULD look like. Could? Maybe, if all the parts could be aligned to his letter. But it is not Plato's own political theory and should not be interpreted as such. He removes the idea from himself and from sincerity by several degrees specifically to combat that interpretation.

>But it is not Plato's own political theory and should not be interpreted as such
You can't simply write them off that easily, user. It would be a great injustice to Plato. The fact is that he wrote these ideas down, so you must admit that it is at least to some degree his viewpoint(Or Socrates') Bear in mind that Glaucon complexes Plato's at first simple city when he questions Socrates about luxuries. So here we are contemplating simplicity vs complex living. This leads the discussion right into human nature, what Plato categorizes as the different types of souls. Types of questions that could be proposed are, is the average man capable of a simple life? Is human nature inherently evil (greedy, impulsive, self-centered..etc) How do we control our impulses and desires? (Propaganda, religion, authoritarian rule, breeding selection). What types of people should be in charge of implementing these things? Again, his city-soul metaphor is meant to understand human nature, as well as to understand how to control it's flaws. So it is indeed a complex political theory which Plato may or may not have endorsed. The point is he wants you to think about all of these things and how they relate to the soul. In the Republic, political theory is used to manage the different types of souls.

This is why it's necessary to have some dialogues under your belt before The Republic

Please explain, user.

I think you can read it first and come back for it later for new ideas anyway

You're just confirming my point that The Republic should not be read as a simplistic model for a real-world government. It's the paragon of a thought experiment, not a prescriptive model.
The people who are so intellectually numb as to read The Republic and respond with horror at Plato's (((fascism))) should be euthanized.

Euthyphro for some basic philosophical issues and set up for Plato's metaphysics. Apology, "the unexamined life is not worh living" and a better understanding of Socrates. Crito is on justice and almost begins social contract theory. Phaedo for the Theory of Forms.

No reason not to begin with these.

but maybe its that those people that respond in horror are doing their output to create their voted voiced point that to create a mumble of democracy to let everyone know, we dont agree with these ideas, because just because you said what you said and it is true about the text, does not mean a person and people cannot read it and believe they have drawn worthy ideas about potential enactments.

You're assigning entirely too much validation to the ignorant shock of uneducated children. If these people sought to act as bulwarks against the implementation of Platonian ideas in fascist systems, would they not be using the text as an argument itself instead of screaming Nazi and Rape at it? Its virtue signaling and nothing else.

Your problem is that you're pretending to be a "reader" for intellecschual cred after seeing some dumb chart on Veeky Forums that made you believe you could add books as accessories to your personality.

>It is so obvious with all the "Yes, Socrates, ooooh, I never thought of that Socrates" that you are not supposed to just passively nod and become a dogmatic follower.
>it is so obvious
>so obvious

if he want this he simply put another argument. and another, and another, without evveryone praise anyone.
socrates is a fucking super hero in all that books. is that simple.

Please learn to speak English before posting on this board

>The Republic is open to endless speculation
So it exists for others to project interpretations on it and warp it, for thousands of years?

I too tried reading it and came to the same conclusion as OP. I will try again and use it as an exercise for speculation and reasoning, as you say. Though it seems Plato actually intended it as a very concrete dictation, others have just warped it in pretense.

see this comment

This thread:
>Philosophy is just a series of propositions to which I can assent or from which I can dissent.
No.

Care to offer your insight on The Republic, user? You snide greentext was lacking any meaningful perspective, clearly you consider yourself an authority on the text, so let's hear it...

well would a person be arguing the political text was absolutely perfectly true? Was Plato attempting at only expressing and writing and detailing 'The Absolutely Perfect Truth of living as a Human with Humans on Earth?' What was Platos goal, create the perfect society? Or a perfect society? Or describe many potential aspects of many potential societies, many kinds of people that may make them up?

is it being said that almost more than anything Plato wanted to enact his ideal state, (I guess a lot of philosophers did this back then, live their philosophy, and we see many people today living out their philosophy, through life choices and standing) is plato a hard facist, hoping this state would rule for ever forward, or that it was the best for them time, or moment, or evolving to a next state, was it the attempt to propel his current state out of and from something lesser toward something he believed truly was theoretically and realityistically superior? Could he have been correct, could it to what degrees have been implemented throughout history? To how much does it not matter since so many states and towns and villages and cities and nations successfully exist and seemingly exceedingly fine for a most part.

huh

You sound like you really get The Republic, user.

>The Republic is fascism. Plato is a fascist.
and?

Plato's not necessarily a fascist, user. Contemplate his ideas. The Republic is more concerned with measuring man then providing a concrete blueprint on a city. That's not to say The Republic isn't concerned with political theory of course.

explain yourself

Not him, but it's obvious that philosophy is more than just

>I agree!!!!
or
>i disagree!!!

The process of thought and the thoughts it can call up in you by association and logical mentation are just as important. Socrates/Plato was trying to coherently lay out an ideal perfect state (which, as many many many people have pointed out, also functions on certain levels as an allegory for the human soul, and may not be completely literal), to think that The Republic is worthless because you don't agree with everything in it is ridiculous. The point is not the agreement or disagreement, but for it to spur you into thoughts you wouldn't think otherwise. If Plato/Socrates-as-portrayed is wrong in certain or even many respects, WHY is he wrong in those respects? What can you say that is better? What are your reasons for saying it is better? These will cause you to think of things like the best political systems, how to deal with different "types" of people in society (more militaristic types, more artistic types, etc.), the function of art and religion and propaganda, etc, that you otherwise may not think of, and thus lead you to examine your life more.

The point of philosophy as we know it is not necessarily to even arrive at exact truths. Most people find it hard to imagine that parts of the mind are like muscles and can be exercised, and if you don't exercise them, they may (true to allegory) remain weak and undeveloped, and philosophy which is not strictly rational as we think of it may be a good exercise for it. If we didn't have this "material" of philosophical arguments which caused debates in us, we would be intellectually weak and flabby.

People also forget that the philosophical mindset is integral to science. Number-crunching and datas and observation can only get you so far. Theories which explain observations are made from philosophical leaps, from intuition. Being able to think of the abstract frameworks which unify disparate data, to think of many and different possible propositions or answers to a question, is very useful for life and for science. In modern utilitarian society where everything has to be clear-cut and have a purpose, the idea of philosophy as an exercise, of Socrates's arguments meant not to teach you absolute truths but a WAY OF ARGUING or thinking by which you can reach absolute truths for yourself, sounds like wishy-washy mysticism when it's not.

OP here. I just read the preliminary chapter. Socrates mentions High Energy as a necessary attribute of a guardian (later recast as leader). Did trump read this book?