Read the book, there’s a reason it has survived thousands of years and is still read in universities around the globe today. It is one of the most layered pieces of literature available and skimming the surface level will leave you with nothing. It’s not the construction of an ideal city-state, it’s the construction of an ideal mind. I recommend the Jowett or Grube translation, and I also recommend you look into the work of Pierre Grimes. There are interviews of him discussing Republic, as an expert on Classical Greece, eastern and western philosophy, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism, you can get a valuable perspective, and maybe come closer to an understanding of why people care about the book instead of writing it off by calling one of the fathers of western philosophy an idiot. Hope this helps.
@16:00 My impression of Plato's definition of justice is for example; we give the job of goal kicker to the person that proves they can kick goals the best. We don't give the job of goal kicker to the son of the coach or to the one that has bribed the owner the most. It optimizes society.
Perhaps that's an oversimplification. You seem to be equating Plato's justice with 'meritocracy'. In fact, that's far more virtuous than Plato's version so I guess you deserve credit. But justice, as the ultimate goal in Plato's Republic, is constructed through eugenic principles and strict adherence. Today that conception is considered unjust. Rightly so. Equality (of opportunity) and adherence to well thought out legal principles is what is considered justice today. It's a more solid foundation. Although there may be room for it, merit is an afterthought in both Plato's ethic and the modern ethic. And that's the real shitter. Although the foundation of modern society is solid (equality) and the end is prescribed (merit), the most unjust thing about today's world is that we don't live in a meritocracy. See, if you mix equality with A Platonic form of social promotion then justice is served best. You know this is true because, for example, how many douche bag bosses and colleagues who don't know their ass from their elbow (but had the same opportunities) have you worked for/with?? Hint: they didn't get to where they are because they were the best at the job.
Though this book is often considered a throw-away, written by Russell to satisfy the populist urges of his publishers, it's a wonderful introduction to philosophy. Made my high school years more bearable.
Yes. This rocked my bare-bones understanding of 'The Republic' . It will urge me look more into Plato and Greek philosophy... nothing more to say on the matter:-|• thanks
The name of the book is "A" History of Western Philosophy, not "The" History... He addresses that distintion in the introduction. And it was the reason I decided to buy it, long, long time ago. It was the first of many of his great books...
Look I'm not defending Plato here, I'm simply observing that Russell doesnt do a whole lot here to address Plato's fundamental arguments. It basically consists of Russell skimming over every irrelevant detail of the book and condeming it on moral and common sensical grounds. In fact, the book is incredibly systematic and based around major assumptions about human nature. It is these that Russell should address. Why is this important? It would show that Plato has not only influenced Nazis - t
Hell you could even say that every person who has cried "Revolution!" while holding a single book that systematically plans out the good life can be traced back to Plato!
Ah my first comment was cut off at the bottom. Look, relax alright. Plato has been studied for 2000 years by thousands of scholars. Why should Russell's critique be the end all? Have you even read the Republic? Then maybe you'd understand why it's important at least in a historical sense and shouldn't be written off in 10 pages
Interesting point about music... Plato spoke against the Lydian Mode as being an expression of sorrow. This to me seems very contradictory as the Lydian Mode is associated with more or less "dream like" and "futuristic" things/feelings. It has a raised fourth degree (sharp 4) and that gives it its "lift" if you will. Also the Ionian Mode is basically the Major Scale. Plato calls this "relaxed"? the major scale is to me "positive" and uplifting. Maybe I am reading this wrong but I don't think I am. Someone please comment here is anyone reads this and feels I am off base.
I'm not very well versed in the history of harmony but I have enough music theory knowledge and a vague idea of its history to point you in the right direction here, I think. The current major scale hasn't always sounded the way it sounds today. In fact, it was only fairly recently standardised. The Greek equivalent to a major scale at the time probably didn't sound much like the one we use, so the Lydian mode would have sounded different too. I took a quick google and Wikipedia claims "the Lydian scale was equivalent to C D♭ E F G♭ A B C, and C C half sharp E half sharp F F half sharp A half sharp B half sharp C, respectively". That would probably sound out of tune to our ears! But your cultural upbringing plays a part in your emotional reaction to music to a certain extent. I was listening to a Great Courses course called "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music" about a year ago, and it had a sample of Greek music (interpreted from manuscripts from the time, so it's probably not entirely accurate). It's an interesting listen, and probably here on TH-cam somewhere.
The names of the modes changed frequently over the centuries, its pretty much impossible to know what he meant by lydian. My guess is lydian = dorian and ionian = mixolydian
Certainly this critique of Plato is a better introduction to philosophy than reading Plato's original works and get dragged into the misty swamp of dreaming up idea-worlds, constructing utopias and in general trying to understand the world by turning away from it. Most pre-scientific philosophical efforts make me cringe from the massive amounts of fuzzy notions in them that are accepted on whim "to see where it leads us". You can make no headway until you make the facts lead you.
I am reading it as we speak. I must say I was expecting more, it goes to show you how monolithic the ancients were in thinking and how they understood little of power struggles and psychologically. ( as that of the inbreeding and its effects on the offspring)
Now Aristotle would say that justice is simply a system of obligation. It is the felt mutual obligation between the individual to the community, the community to the individual; the individual to the ruler, and the ruler to the individual; and the mutual obligation of the community to the ruler, and the ruler to the community. It's not necessarily about equality, but it is to be specifically determined by the down-to-earth Aristotelian idea of objective ethical evaluation. The operation of prudence and justice, we call wisdom, protected by fortitude, and moderated by temperance. The Christians added charity, faith, and hope, giving an element of compassion to harsh objective calculation. Is this a perfect system of virtue ethics, always leading to correct conclusion? My answer is not necessarily. But, I would submit, it is good enough. It frees the human spirit from a system of commandment as Plato proposed, or the Hebrews lived. For humans reaching to their full potential, it it adequate. And indeed is something which can be mastered in time, as individuals become more skilled in making ethical decisions.
once a mind is brainwashed that mind believes is free same as a wild dog, and his master. however, he is just a slave; the dog will insist that he exist in democracy and freedom same as a wild dog, when he goes stray he find he has a rope on his neck.
I love Plato, but this sounds like some freaky stuff. Something out of Brave New World. I haven't read the Republic, so I can only hope Russell misinterpreted Plato.
If the writings that were to have possible negative influences on youth were to be prohibited, based on analysis of its effect, how come in today's societies we are allowed and fed a constant flow of terrible movies? Where are the illunminated and educated leaders of today?
Plato speak a noble lie and dragged human beings towards degenerate culture of religion. He hated material philosopher s,poets and musicians and laid down the foundation of ontological argument with led humanity toward scholastic philosophy which justified Christianity. Plato philosophy in otherworld systematically made possible Dark ages.
if you stop interpreting it from the spiritually bankrupt view of russel’s it becomes one of the most incredible books you could ever find. I never leave home without a copy. Its a book that speaks in a deep harmony with itself, a world of thought that grows as you grow. Look into Pierre Grimes
I have never read a better book than platos republic. See the KI world now and the internet world. He described virtual reality in his allegory of the cave long before anyone could imagine it would be possible.
ok, I am going to go hard against this pedantic fraud who dares write against Plato, the greatest philosopher who ever lived. I am going to point out the bullshit casuistry arguments he uses. First, the comparison between the USSR: Who would compare Plato/Socrates with Lenin/Stalin? That is comparing philosophy with tyrannical murderers. Only a fool would do that. Second, he says there would be no science or art in Plato's Republic because of the rigidity. That is untrue. The means of achieving justice in Plato's state is through education, restricting only crap/base art, not math or science or logic. He also fails to point out the brilliant economic model that Plato creates: the guardians and the army live in poverty, wherein the productive class is actually made to live in luxury, doing their one job, something never done before, which would work better than free market capitalism or command economy or a mixture. Third, what is most disgraceful is that Russell supports or holds unresolved Thrasymachus point of view that justice is the advantage of the stronger. This is what dictators and evil men believe and was completely debunked, not with quibbles, in book one of the Republic. There is also a great deal of nonsense about football teams, what is work? agreed statements of ethics . . . Russell = FAIL.
"Who would compare Plato/Socrates with Lenin/Stalin?" Karl Popper, haha. To be fair, altho philosophers have not put oppressive ideologies into practice like Lenin and Stalin, they may still imagine and promote oppressive ideologies, and that's still bad.
I do agree with you Daniel. It does seem that Bertrand Russell was always biased against Plato. You point out in your comments here that Russell should have been much more objective and sympathetic towards presenting Plato's Ideal state in The Republic. Russell forgets that The Republic is mainly a book that explained the wise and ethical and just individual through the MODEL of composing a "near-perfect" society that would be wonderfully self sufficient. I think that Russell always envied the brilliance and artful skill of the greatest philosopher of all time: Plato.
Five Palestinian families face eviction in favor of Israeli settlers Sat Jan 12, 2019 02:23PM [Updated: Sat Jan 12, 2019 02:50PM ] HomeMiddle EastPalestine
Read the book, there’s a reason it has survived thousands of years and is still read in universities around the globe today. It is one of the most layered pieces of literature available and skimming the surface level will leave you with nothing. It’s not the construction of an ideal city-state, it’s the construction of an ideal mind. I recommend the Jowett or Grube translation, and I also recommend you look into the work of Pierre Grimes. There are interviews of him discussing Republic, as an expert on Classical Greece, eastern and western philosophy, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism, you can get a valuable perspective, and maybe come closer to an understanding of why people care about the book instead of writing it off by calling one of the fathers of western philosophy an idiot. Hope this helps.
@16:00 My impression of Plato's definition of justice is for example; we give the job of goal kicker to the person that proves they can kick goals the best. We don't give the job of goal kicker to the son of the coach or to the one that has bribed the owner the most. It optimizes society.
Perhaps that's an oversimplification. You seem to be equating Plato's justice with 'meritocracy'. In fact, that's far more virtuous than Plato's version so I guess you deserve credit. But justice, as the ultimate goal in Plato's Republic, is constructed through eugenic principles and strict adherence. Today that conception is considered unjust. Rightly so. Equality (of opportunity) and adherence to well thought out legal principles is what is considered justice today. It's a more solid foundation. Although there may be room for it, merit is an afterthought in both Plato's ethic and the modern ethic. And that's the real shitter. Although the foundation of modern society is solid (equality) and the end is prescribed (merit), the most unjust thing about today's world is that we don't live in a meritocracy. See, if you mix equality with A Platonic form of social promotion then justice is served best. You know this is true because, for example, how many douche bag bosses and colleagues who don't know their ass from their elbow (but had the same opportunities) have you worked for/with?? Hint: they didn't get to where they are because they were the best at the job.
You mean Plato wouldn't have approved
of Diversity Hires...???
Though this book is often considered a throw-away, written by Russell to satisfy the populist urges of his publishers, it's a wonderful introduction to philosophy. Made my high school years more bearable.
Yes. This rocked my bare-bones understanding of 'The Republic' . It will urge me look more into Plato and Greek philosophy... nothing more to say on the matter:-|• thanks
Fantastic presentation.
Great video. Thanks for sharing
The name of the book is "A" History of Western Philosophy, not "The" History...
He addresses that distintion in the introduction. And it was the reason I decided to buy it, long, long time ago. It was the first of many of his great books...
Look I'm not defending Plato here, I'm simply observing that Russell doesnt do a whole lot here to address Plato's fundamental arguments. It basically consists of Russell skimming over every irrelevant detail of the book and condeming it on moral and common sensical grounds. In fact, the book is incredibly systematic and based around major assumptions about human nature. It is these that Russell should address. Why is this important? It would show that Plato has not only influenced Nazis - t
Hell you could even say that every person who has cried "Revolution!" while holding a single book that systematically plans out the good life can be traced back to Plato!
Ah my first comment was cut off at the bottom. Look, relax alright. Plato has been studied for 2000 years by thousands of scholars. Why should Russell's critique be the end all? Have you even read the Republic? Then maybe you'd understand why it's important at least in a historical sense and shouldn't be written off in 10 pages
historical sense LOL
Same showers could become a break in privacy. If your stating that the 'Kibbutz' failed because of the showers situation then i ask you to re-read it.
Sounds like the Spark notes edition of the Republic
Interesting point about music... Plato spoke against the Lydian Mode as being an expression of sorrow. This to me seems very contradictory as the Lydian Mode is associated with more or less "dream like" and "futuristic" things/feelings. It has a raised fourth degree (sharp 4) and that gives it its "lift" if you will. Also the Ionian Mode is basically the Major Scale. Plato calls this "relaxed"? the major scale is to me "positive" and uplifting. Maybe I am reading this wrong but I don't think I am. Someone please comment here is anyone reads this and feels I am off base.
I'm not very well versed in the history of harmony but I have enough music theory knowledge and a vague idea of its history to point you in the right direction here, I think.
The current major scale hasn't always sounded the way it sounds today. In fact, it was only fairly recently standardised. The Greek equivalent to a major scale at the time probably didn't sound much like the one we use, so the Lydian mode would have sounded different too.
I took a quick google and Wikipedia claims "the Lydian scale was equivalent to C D♭ E F G♭ A B C, and C C half sharp E half sharp F F half sharp A half sharp B half sharp C, respectively".
That would probably sound out of tune to our ears! But your cultural upbringing plays a part in your emotional reaction to music to a certain extent.
I was listening to a Great Courses course called "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music" about a year ago, and it had a sample of Greek music (interpreted from manuscripts from the time, so it's probably not entirely accurate). It's an interesting listen, and probably here on TH-cam somewhere.
The names of the modes changed frequently over the centuries, its pretty much impossible to know what he meant by lydian. My guess is lydian = dorian and ionian = mixolydian
Plato's Justice is the alliance of Karma or the Interpretation of MA-HAT. For us it is fair play and social dignity.
Great video!
Sounds like hell.
Certainly this critique of Plato is a better introduction to philosophy than reading Plato's original works and get dragged into the misty swamp of dreaming up idea-worlds, constructing utopias and in general trying to understand the world by turning away from it. Most pre-scientific philosophical efforts make me cringe from the massive amounts of fuzzy notions in them that are accepted on whim "to see where it leads us". You can make no headway until you make the facts lead you.
BaldingEagle51 how would you scientifically and just using facts articulate what justice is, in that case?
I am reading it as we speak. I must say I was expecting more, it goes to show you how monolithic the ancients were in thinking and how they understood little of power struggles and psychologically. ( as that of the inbreeding and its effects on the offspring)
Now Aristotle would say that justice is simply a system of obligation. It is the felt mutual obligation between the individual to the community, the community to the individual; the individual to the ruler, and the ruler to the individual; and the mutual obligation of the community to the ruler, and the ruler to the community. It's not necessarily about equality, but it is to be specifically determined by the down-to-earth Aristotelian idea of objective ethical evaluation. The operation of prudence and justice, we call wisdom, protected by fortitude, and moderated by temperance.
The Christians added charity, faith, and hope, giving an element of compassion to harsh objective calculation. Is this a perfect system of virtue ethics, always leading to correct conclusion? My answer is not necessarily. But, I would submit, it is good enough. It frees the human spirit from a system of commandment as Plato proposed, or the Hebrews lived. For humans reaching to their full potential, it it adequate. And indeed is something which can be mastered in time, as individuals become more skilled in making ethical decisions.
Plato's Republic is a city state. Not an Empire. It's like a club or a corporate culture.
It is China today
It's the USA
13:23
That said it all right there...
Why would people ever get married if they would not here raise their children?
That's a good question.
So that they could lie down and think of Sparta.
02:23 Conjecture and belief is under the Sun and material things like animals and manufactured things (Opinion ?) . Hum ! Pondering that one.
I agree!
once a mind is brainwashed that mind believes is free same as a wild dog, and his master. however, he is just a slave; the dog will insist that he exist in democracy and freedom same as a wild dog, when he goes stray he find he has a rope on his neck.
Do you have a source for this?
Dude it literally says the chapter and gives multiple images of the book.
At least we can recognize that Plato's Republic has nothing to do with Socrates. Or at least I can.
scary
14 July 2019
Nec Plus Ultra
Thanks
Of course it did, but not because of the showers, that was my point. It failed for many reasons.
I love Plato, but this sounds like some freaky stuff. Something out of Brave New World. I haven't read the Republic, so I can only hope Russell misinterpreted Plato.
He didn't
jonathan hunsucker Have a reference on that? I'm really doubtful about that.
Brave New World was what I thought of too.
shilohwillcom
e
He didn't...the Republic is a facist manifesto..
If the writings that were to have possible negative influences on youth were to be prohibited, based on analysis of its effect, how come in today's societies we are allowed and fed a constant flow of terrible movies? Where are the illunminated and educated leaders of today?
Well Russel certainly doesn't seem to be unbiased towards Plato
Russell had a high regard for Logic...!!
He disparaged philosophers who thought
they could dispense with it..!
foolish ignorant comments
Plato speak a noble lie and dragged human beings towards degenerate culture of religion. He hated material philosopher s,poets and musicians and laid down the foundation of ontological argument with led humanity toward scholastic philosophy which justified Christianity. Plato philosophy in otherworld systematically made possible Dark ages.
Politically, Plato was a fascist.
boy this sounds like it would be the worst place in the world.
This isn't great or good literature, I'm just up to a little over 10 minutes.
Honestly, Platos Republic sounds like an insufferably boring read.
You have no idea.
Oh boy, it’s one of the best books ever written objectively.
You are horribly mistaken...but you should determine that for yourself
if you stop interpreting it from the spiritually bankrupt view of russel’s it becomes one of the most incredible books you could ever find. I never leave home without a copy. Its a book that speaks in a deep harmony with itself, a world of thought that grows as you grow. Look into Pierre Grimes
I have never read a better book than platos republic. See the KI world now and the internet world. He described virtual reality in his
allegory of the cave long before anyone could imagine it would be possible.
ok, I am going to go hard against this pedantic fraud who dares write against Plato, the greatest philosopher who ever lived. I am going to point out the bullshit casuistry arguments he uses. First, the comparison between the USSR: Who would compare Plato/Socrates with Lenin/Stalin? That is comparing philosophy with tyrannical murderers. Only a fool would do that. Second, he says there would be no science or art in Plato's Republic because of the rigidity. That is untrue. The means of achieving justice in Plato's state is through education, restricting only crap/base art, not math or science or logic. He also fails to point out the brilliant economic model that Plato creates: the guardians and the army live in poverty, wherein the productive class is actually made to live in luxury, doing their one job, something never done before, which would work better than free market capitalism or command economy or a mixture. Third, what is most disgraceful is that Russell supports or holds unresolved Thrasymachus point of view that justice is the advantage of the stronger. This is what dictators and evil men believe and was completely debunked, not with quibbles, in book one of the Republic. There is also a great deal of nonsense about football teams, what is work? agreed statements of ethics . . . Russell = FAIL.
"Who would compare Plato/Socrates with Lenin/Stalin?" Karl Popper, haha.
To be fair, altho philosophers have not put oppressive ideologies into practice like Lenin and Stalin, they may still imagine and promote oppressive ideologies, and that's still bad.
I do agree with you Daniel. It does seem that Bertrand Russell was always biased against Plato. You point out in your comments here that Russell should have been much more objective and sympathetic towards presenting Plato's Ideal state in The Republic. Russell forgets that The Republic is mainly a book that explained the wise and ethical and just individual through the MODEL of composing a "near-perfect" society that would be wonderfully self sufficient. I think that Russell always envied the brilliance and artful skill of
the greatest philosopher of all time: Plato.
Five Palestinian families face eviction in favor of Israeli settlers
Sat Jan 12, 2019 02:23PM [Updated: Sat Jan 12, 2019 02:50PM ]
HomeMiddle EastPalestine