Tfw reading Republic for the first time

You should certainly find the audiobook, much easier to listen to, at least for me personally

Listen to it as intended, but you can miss arguments when you listen to it.

yeah letting everyone free to choose and dictates cultural trends is working so well!!!
>boomer are hedonistic fucks that spoiled the world for everyone because 'muh american dream doesn't work for 7 bln people because finite resources
>Xer are just nice good corporate slaves
>youth's goals are becoming a youtuber or whoring himself on social media for the sweet ads money
>this youtu.be/ftwsjXj5CBw is what the kids consume

btw the Renaissance was only possible because rich powerful men wanted to boast with other rich powerful men

>Guardians are basically brainwashed tools of the state
They are required to learn how to think. To Plato that form of government is human race's end game. There is no need for brainwashing since a smart and educated guardian is going to realize that the status quo is the best possible outcome.

>People are told a great lie to keep them docile and not question their order in society
Because people don't want to hear "hey that guy is smarter than you so he's just a better leader". They think they know everything and the less they know the more they think they know.

There are glaring problems with the great lie, starting with "you can fool most people half the time" If the Clintons seem quite difficult to remove from power something is up, but I learnt in school we live in a democracy.

I think Maoist china is the best example of this, the moment he died his brainwashed masses insulted him, take even Kim Un, people naturally want freedom, even if freedom is death, better than telling them a lie, why not just tell them to get lost.

Do like Singapore, laws for citizens, everyone else be damned.

Anyway, no point arguing about it too much, I just don't think Plato was serious about the luxurious city as an actual workable model.

>using another person's commercialized intellectual property to articulate an opinion on political theory

How does it feel to be a brainless thrall?

>Females and males in military + gender neutrality
I keep seeing this being brought up in Republic threads but as I recall, the examples of female participation in the military is a lot more nuanced in Plato's decsription of the ideal state, compared to the modern state-sponsored feminism that is pushed on the armed forces. For instance, in the Critias, the translation I read (the one published by Hacket) made it clear that the Ur-Athenian army that perished together with Atlantis was composed of men, and in the Republic itself women are quite often reffered to as inferior to men and are said to perform the role of guardians as "best as they could".This leads one to belive that Plato perhaps did not imagine men and women standing next to one another in the phalanx, but rather women would fill a more complementary role within the greater purpose of the armed forces, maybe like Spartan or Scythian women (bringing to mind women in the Laws) or ,if you are a fan of Popper, like the female members Schutzstaffel.

Can we discuss how fallacious Socrates' "refutation" of Polemarchos was in Book 1? It was literally:
>P: Justice is injuring the evil and wicked.
>S: But does an injured horse have less value as a horse?
>P: Sure, but I don't see-
>S: Or does an injured dog have less value as a dog?
>P: I guess so.
>S: Therefore, since justice is a human virtue, an injured man cannot be more just! (This, of course, is ridiculous. He is completely ignoring that human virtue is primarily mental, whereas a horse or a dog has purely physical virtue. If an injured man is rendered more just due to an injury, then his virtue as a human has indeed increased.)
>P: Sure.
>S: Well, one can't be made less musical by music, or cold by hotness, so justice isn't your definition!
>P: *probably too drunk to retort* That makes sense!
It was one of the most baffling pieces of dialogue I've ever read. Honestly, Socrates is usually pretty good at refutations, but he really flopped with that one.

Soc pretty much straight up argues for anyone who can do the job should be allowed to do so if they're fit enough.

I still need to read this. All I've read so far is Cratylus and Euthyprho

The book was entertaining but anybody who takes it seriously intellectually immediately becomes like those pseuds that Socrates hates.

Also the women = locks and men = keys, bad locks, good keys argument is exactly how Socrates would reason things out.

Is the opinion invalid though? Attack that part rather than the method of delivery.

>beeing this much of a pseud

Here let me help you

>P: Justice is abusing the evil and wicked.
>S: But does abusing an horse make it better or worse?
>P: Sure, but I don't see-
>S: Or does abusing a dog make it better or worse?
>P: I guess so.
>S: Therefore, since justice is a human virtue, abusing a wicked man cannot better it! (This, of course, is completely correct. He is correctly recognizing that you can't improve someone by harming him)
>P: Sure.
>S: Well, one can't be made less musical by music, or cold by hotness, so justice isn't your definition since a just man can't worse the other!
>P: *thinking about things under a different light* That makes sense!

Except a man can become better from being harmed. That's the exact reason we have prisons, so people can be properly punished in order to reform. Abuse was not stated anywhere in the text, and injure was used very loosely. Additionally, justice through injury is very apparent in circumstances like war or self-defense. The reason why injuring a man is different from injuring a horse is that a horse is only viable physically, and a horse's value is decreased if it is too injured to perform physical tasks well. Meanwhile, a man receiving injury will be forced into acting in a more just way in order to avoid punishment. I agree that abuse is not justice, yet injury and abuse are two very different things.

And how many prisoners actually reform?

The "argument" is a typical strawman. The entire post comes off as if some subbrainlet composed it

More than would reform if they were left to commit crimes without state intervention

So are you suggesting that Plato's/Socrates' argument for censorship of all arts does not seem to be some kind of moral and religious outrage? That depicting violence, sexual acts and general behaviour not deemed "correct" or "right" will lead to the corruption of the youth such that they will not be able to become functional members of society? He reminds me of Mary Whitehouse or the busybodies they have in the US, not too dissimilar to the character posted in that initial image.

I think going to prison might change your mind

He literally comes out with shit about how we should not show the gods doing wrong or morally ambiguous acts lest it corrupt the minds of the youth. I understand he is talking generally however he did have belief in the divine.

I really hope you are not unironically suggesting prison is less likely to cause inmate reformation than freely committing crimes would

Unless you mean US prison, in which case I agree with you because the focus there is on keeping inmates imprisoned in shit conditions so corporate America can make more money, so reformation is hampered by that

Stop with the Greeks

>tfw you will never live in socrates' city

>but you can live in Plato's cave

Religion reforms criminals, not institutionalized abuse.

Don't be like this.

You think I'm making shit up? You really think putting a man in a cage will make him socially well adjusted?

>Religion reforms criminals
Stop

And what does religion do?

>what does religion do?
Provides structure, discipline, and a higher power to submit to and work towards becoming while also freeing one from judgement by other flawed people.

What does your state worship do?

>state worship
You don't need religion to achieve any of those. Morality and ethics exists independently of their being a God and it has been shown that time and time again the secular households are fully capable of holding morals and empathy as well as structure, discipline, willingness to submit and work towards while also being free from the judgement of others. Religion is for the lazy.

Friendly reminder the greeks weren't white

>Religion reforms criminals
Yes it does, but only if the criminal embraces a doctrine wholly. Your typical American "Christian" is in actuality more of a social Christian and isn't really pious; this lackadaisical approach to religion won't allow for a spiritual overhaul.

Religion is just putting him in a cage of his own mind, where the bars are the ideals he has been told to believe and the lock is the book he takes his truth from. Don't steal this plz

Making people believe in an external source to get their values from is not effective in the long term because they can just say "hey, this heaven thing doesn't make sense and there's no evidence for it, but I do want to kill people, and God doesn't seem to respond to me when I ask for guidance but the little voices telling me I should eat the feet of those schoolgirls is always loud". But if they have an internal system of values and realise people have more worth to then alive and shouldn't be killed, and you can always immigrate to some stateless country if you want to kill people, that's harder to abandon.

>freeing one from judgement by other flawed people
Except you get judged by the people who follow your own religion and each have their own specific interpretations of the vague and outdated teachings. And because those teachings are so vague and non-specific you can rationalise most of your crimes and reconcile them with the buybull. Give me any 3 crimes and i can probably justify them from a stance of Christianity

>state worship
Not a thing

They are honorary whites, user.

>Religion is just putting him in a cage of his own mind, where the bars are the ideals he has been told to believe and the lock is the book he takes his truth from. Don't steal this plz
Top Kek. Don't steal this plz! KEKEKEKEKEKEK. Who would dare steal some edgy crap like that, it's cringe worthy.

I was joking with the "don't steal this plz" but desu it's not edgy at all, it's quite literally what religion is

>Making people believe in an external source to get their values from is not effective in the long term
And this doesn't apply to governments and their constitutions? Why exactly?

>state worship [is] not a thing
LOL, then why are you doing it right now?

You weren't joking, and it is fucking edgy.

Because the values they use to decide their actions are based on their own decisions. For example, if they're reintroduced by promoting their engagement with and derivation of happiness from society, they stay reintroduced because of the feelings they get, not because of what some (((person))) in the sky tells them they should do.

What am I doing that is state worship? I simply see the state as a useful tool to reform people

I was joking, and I would really like to know why you thinks it's edgy. I was joking because it was a run of the mill metaphor, not because it was edgy or inaccurate

god forbid somebody change for the better, what an atrocity

How is it edgy? It's literally not. Relgion, and deriving morality and values from religion, is just accepting falsities as truths because it's easier.

"Philosophy has an affinity with despotism, due to its predilection for Platonic-fascist top-down solutions that always screw up viciously."
- Nick Land

Yeah, nah. The whole point is, modern philosophy has sort of done away with morality and ethics as objective truths for one to live for. That's why Western society has become so nihilististic and materialistic - because the idea of a man dedicating his life to doing good, and ignoring his lower impulses, has died with religion. Why be good, if you can get more pleasure by being bad? The only things people fear today, that keeps them straight, is the fear of prison, or of others judging them. However, if you're smart, you can get away with being an asshole, or a straight up evil person, and suffer no consequenses. The state doesn't see every move you make, your friends don't know the inner workings of your mind, your intentions and secret actions, and so, you have no reason to work on becoming an actually good person - you just have to not get caught. Religion is the only logical reason for a person to truly strive towards goodness. You people always claim that "I can be good without religion", but the whole point is, you have no actual foundations on which you can base this goodness, and it's all about how you feel. Someone else can feel otherwise, and you can have no arguments against them.

>The whole point is, modern philosophy has sort of done away with morality and ethics as objective truths for one to live for.
That's because philosophy has been hijacked and corrupted by for-profit institutions
>That's why Western society has become so nihilististic and materialistic - because the idea of a man dedicating his life to doing good, and ignoring his lower impulses, has died with religion.
It never belonged to religion in the first place. Laws of morality exist independently of the existence of a God.
>Why be good, if you can get more pleasure by being bad?
Lots of reasons, but I have a feeling this is just leading to your projections...
>The only things people fear today, that keeps them straight, is the fear of prison, or of others judging them.
Actually there are a lot of reasons to keep someone moral, ethical, and on the straight and narrow. Like understanding what is profitable both in the short term and long term and having empathy for others.
>However, if you're smart, you can get away with being an asshole, or a straight up evil person, and suffer no consequenses.
Only if you believe in the extraordinary man theory, and again it'd be so uncommon that it's not something for you to concern yourself with. Again, there are consequences for everything though.
>The state doesn't see every move you make, your friends don't know the inner workings of your mind, your intentions and secret actions, and so, you have no reason to work on becoming an actually good person - you just have to not get caught.
user, please stop projecting. This is absolutely false.
>Religion is the only logical reason for a person to truly strive towards goodness. You people always claim that "I can be good without religion", but the whole point is, you have no actual foundations on which you can base this goodness, and it's all about how you feel. Someone else can feel otherwise, and you can have no arguments against them.
Again, morality is independent from god or religion. Morality is not the same as god's commands. Is something pious because it is loved by God, or is it loved by God because it is pious?

Wtf I love philosophy now

You can get more pleasure by being "good". For example, for sexual pleasure, if you find one woman you want (or a few) and treat her (or them) right you can get a lot of pleasure in the long term. If you compare this to rape, you have the productivity of the person you rape dropping due to psychological damage, the possibility of psychological damage kn your part, and the simple fact it's harder to rape lots of people then to fuck lots of people consensually, especially as you keep doing it because women will try to defend themselves more

>That's because philosophy has been hijacked and corrupted by for-profit institutions
No, it's because without the authority that earlier lied with God and religion, morality lost a firm basis. That's why the "death of God" led to a rejection of objective moral values - there is no longer any objective reason to hold to one set of values over another. It's all a question of what an individual prefers, and as such, you literally have no way of saying "X is Wrong", only that "I/We/Society think that X is wrong".
>It never belonged to religion in the first place. Laws of morality exist independently of the existence of a God.
It literally only belongs with religion. Any non-religious system is based on this life being our only life. As such, being selfish is not only justifiable, but the only thing that makes sense. With a religious worldview, it's the opposite.
>Lots of reasons, but I have a feeling this is just leading to your projections...
Cool.
>Actually there are a lot of reasons to keep someone moral, ethical, and on the straight and narrow. Like understanding what is profitable both in the short term and long term and having empathy for others.
You're literally proving my point. Your reason for being good is profit in this life (what if you get more profit by being bad?) and feelings (why care about others, when we're all gonna die soon anyway?) while religion gives reasons beyond this life, with no way to hide misdeeds.
>Only if you believe in the extraordinary man theory, and again it'd be so uncommon that it's not something for you to concern yourself with. Again, there are consequences for everything though.
Just proving my point again. Your system of morals is based on "The police might catch me", and my point is "What if I can evade the police?"
>user, please stop projecting. This is absolutely false.
How so?
>Morality is not the same as god's commands.
Without God as an ultimate authority, though, there is no objective morality, nor any reasons to adhere even to subjective moral values, if one can get more profit in this life.
You're just proving my point, dude. "Don't rape, because you might get more pleasure from consensual sex" is not a good defense of non-religious morality. What if I'm a sadist? What if the police chief is my friend, and I can get away with it?

No matter what, the productivity of the women you rape will suffer, but in cin
If you're a sadist, you can find women who are masochistic and enjoy consensual sex so keep trying
Your attempts at refutations are superficial and poorly thought out tbqh

>someone hasn't studied the divine command theory
Here's a hint, it's wrong and so are you.

>reading comprehension
I get the impression you might be very young, and I'm not down to try and explain basic shit to kids.
>makes no argument
Every attempt at refuting it is halftarded, and any alternative (ie. non-religious attempts at forming an objective basis for morals) is even more retarded.

>I don't have to defend my arguments because you may or may not have this trait I'm projecting onto you
K good post

Ok, then.
>No matter what, the productivity of the women you rape will suffer, but in cin
Why should I care about the productivity of my victims, if hurting them makes me happy?
>If you're a sadist, you can find women who are masochistic and enjoy consensual sex so keep trying
What kind of an argument is this? You realise the discussion is about whether it is possible to have a holistic, all-encompassing, authoritative moral system without religion, right? And in this example of rape, you haven't, and cannot, show a reason not to rape, and you're instead saying it's better to have consensual sex. My whole point is, you have no moral basis for that claim. Who says? Why listen to you, if I want to hurt others? Without God as a moral authority, you're left with a moral system based on "I feel, I think, blah blah blah", where good and bad people all die and nothing has any worth. With God, people have a logically consistent reason to avoid doing bad, no matter what they might get from it, because God's judgement is waiting.
>Your attempts at refutations are superficial and poorly thought out tbqh
You either don't understand the discussion at hand, or you're a troll.

Because their productivity serves to improve your own life you absolute pleb

The point is I showed you an alternative solution which, when you take the above in to account, is a better solution

>x is a better solution
>literally illiterate

he's a real dummy anonymous-san

I showed you a reason not to rape. Whenever someone says they want to do something, you have to try a provide a more optimal solution to make a system which truly works in their best interest. It's not a moral system because that's spooked as fuck, but the results generally coincide except for extreme cases

Samefag

In what possible way would their productivity improve my life, if what I want is NOT a sex partner, but someone to hurt, because I like hurting people? You are aware there are sadists and psychos in the world, right?

How do you define what is a "better solution"? What if I disagree with your solution, and have one that works better for me? Why should I, or anyone, care what you think is good?

I've explained my argument multiple times.
In a religious worldview:
>God knows everything you do
>God wants you to do good, and doesn't want you to do bad
>After death, God will judge you, and reward and punish according to your deeds in life
>Don't want to be punished by fire for eternity - don't do bad things
In a non religious worldview:
>This life is all you get
>Enjoy it while you can, cause there's nothing after it
>If you do bad, the justice system/society might punish you
>If you can steal/hurt/rape/kill, whilst avoiding such punishment, you win
>Why bother doing good, or not doing bad, if you can have an easier, more pleasurable, better life breaking rules in secret?
>LITERALLY NO REASON

If you have to ask how peoples productivity, i. E them inventing things and buying things and keeping the economy going, benefits you, you're just not even really paying attention desu
There are also people who like being hurt. They'll even consent to it. It's amazing!
The solution which works towards your self interests more is better. A scenario in which a person gets a decrease in productivity + your pleasure is a worse solution than that in which a person gets an increase in productivity (because they like being hurt) + your pleasure

Please, offer such a better solution. Don't just say "people m-might have a better solution that is bad"

But what God wants is often divergent from what any sane person would call good. To genocide an entire race He though was too far gone even though he could obviously fix them because he's omnipotent; to sadistically emotionally torture you by forcing you to sacrifice your son; to intentionally create imperfect humans to satisfy his sense of vanity and then make the question of his existence unclear yet threaten healthy skepticism in a finite life with infinite punishment. God's obviously not into giving orders you'd expect from an omnibenevolent deity, so your second point should just be "God wants you to do what he says you should do, and doesn't want you to to what he doesn't say you should do". And then you're just down to "What if I disagree with your solution, and have..." And the whole lack of evidence for your God, and the conflicting claims of God's from different religions, make departing from the concept of God very appealing
And, why should I believe in your God? Id much prefer a God who rewards you for "bad" deeds so you get to do whatever you want.

Because there are negative effects to those crimes, that's why people don't like them. Killing people completely removes people so that's a huge productivity hit. If you want to kill people, you can go to somewhere without a state and go mad, you can try killing a tyrant and come back a hero, etc. I have shown show you how there can be better solutions, your "literally no reason" is demonstrably false