The Republic is one of Plato’s longer works ( more than 450 pages in length ) . It is written in duologue signifier ( as are most of Plato’s books ) . & A ; it addresses major issues in about all of the subdivisions of doctrine. The cardinal subject in the book seems to be the nature of justness. a subject in political doctrine. but Plato besides has his characters explore issues in? philosophical cosmology. ? philosophical divinity. ? philosophical anthropology. ? moralss. ? aesthetics. and? epistemology.
The parts of the Republic that are contained in our text ( pp. 107-123 ) focal point on Plato’s thought ( ideal? ) of the Philosopher Ruler. Harmonizing to Plato. ? the best possible political system ( province ) ? will be ruled ( governed ) ? by Philosopher! ( Is he pull the leg ofing? ) Our reading choice contains the undermentioned themes/sections: ? ? Introduction on the unifying of doctrine & A ; political relations ( 107 ) Why “true philosophers” would do the best swayers ( 108-12 ) • What is “true philosophy” ? ( 108-11 ) • Love of wisdom ( 108 ) • Knowledge of true world ( 108-9 ) • The differentiations between cognition. ignorance and sentiment ( 109-11 ) • How is a “true philosopher” different from a “lover of opinion” ?
( 111-12 ) • Who is best suited to govern the province – lovers of sentiment or “true philosophers” ? ( 112 ) ? ? Political leading and cognition of the Good ( 112-13 ) The acclivity of the head to knowledge of the Good ( 113-123 ) • The analogy between the Good and the Sun ( 113-15 ) • The image of the divided line ( 115-18 ) • The fable of the cave ( 118-123 ) The choice in the text begins at a point in the Republic after Socrates. Glaucon. & A ; other characters have been discoursing the nature of justness and the Markss of a merely political system for some clip.
So we are coming into the center of the conversation where Glaucon is pressing Socrates to province whether it is possible for a truly merely political system to come into being. Before replying Glaucon’s inquiry. Socrates admirations whether it is worthwhile to What does he state concept a theoretical theoretical account of a good political system even if such a system could about this? Do you hold? Why non really exist. or why non? Back to Glaucon’s original inquiry: Can a truly merely ( or at least about merely ) political system be? What would do it possible? ( It is the separation of doctrine & A ; political power. ) And this leads to.
. . . unless political power & A ; doctrine are brought together & A ; those who now pursue either the one or the other entirely are prevented from making so -neither our political jobs nor our human problems in general can be ended. . . . ” ( Text. pp. 108-111 ) True Philosophy & A ; True Philosophers What are the features of a individual who is of course suited to pattern doctrine?
Harmonizing to Socrates ( Plato ) . a true philosopher? loves the whole of wisdom and is satisfied with nil less ; ? recognizes the difference between peculiar things and the kernels ( or signifiers ) of which peculiar things are similitudes ( e. g. . beautiful things vs. Beauty itself ) ; and? knows the differences between cognition. ignorance. and sentiment.
Plato argues that person who truly loves something must love that thing as a whole and non merely some facets of it. On that footing. he concludes that a true philosopher ( lover of wisdom ) must want wisdom as a whole and non be content with holding merely some wisdom. Make you hold with this? Make wine-lovers truly love all vinos? A true philosopher recognizes the difference between peculiar things and the kernels ( or signifiers ) of which peculiar things are similitudes ( e. g. . beautiful things vs. Beauty itself ) .
One of Plato’s major metaphysical theories is known as the “Theory of Forms. ” Harmonizing to that theory. ultimate world is a kingdom of signifiers ( kernels ) non accessible to the senses but merely to the head ( intellect ) . He calls that degree of world the “intelligible realm” ( because it is accessible merely to the mind ) . The perceptible universe ( i. e. . the universe we perceive through our senses ) is a contemplation or transcript of that higher apprehensible universe. ( The Greek word for “form” or “essence” is eidos. ) Do you believe it is possible for one thing to be truly more beautiful than another thing?
Well. how is that possible if Absolute Beauty does non be? How can “A” be more beautiful than “B” ? Doesn’t “A” have to be closer to Absolute Beauty than “B” is? But how can “A” be closer to ( or “B” be farther off from ) Absolute Beauty if Absolute Beauty does non be? A true philosopher knows the differences between? Knowledge. ? ignorance. & A ; ? sentiment. Plato’s position of cognition. ignorance. and sentiment ( Text. pp. 109-111 ) State of Mind Knowledge Opinion Ignorance Object What is ( Bing. World ) What is & A ; is non ( Becoming ) What is non ( Nothingness. Unreality ) Access Intellect Perception? ( Do you hold with this setup/theory? )
Is Plato right about cognition. ignorance. and sentiment? Here’s a different view… . What about cognition? The three basic inquiries in epistemology? ? What is knowledge? How does it differ from sentiment? How do we get cognition? What are its beginnings? Rationalism vs. Empiricism. ( What about Intuitionism and Revelationism? ) ? What are the extent and bounds of cognition? What can be known. and what can non be known? A ( reasonably ) standard definition of cognition ( and sentiment ) ? Knowledge is “justified ( i. e. . verified ) true belief. “
• To cognize is to believe. • The belief must. in fact. be true. • The belief must be “justified” ( i. e. . verified. proved ) by some criterion and by and large recognized agencies. ? Opinion is belief that may be true or may be false but that has non been or can non be “justified” ( i. e. . verified. proved ) by any criterion and by and large recognized agencies. Of class. some sentiments that are rationally defendable in the weak sense are “justified” in a limited manner. And what about ignorance? Isn’t ignorance fundamentally an absence of cognition? Of class. sentiment is besides an absence of cognition. So possibly ignorance is a certain or particular sort of sentiment that is in some sense groundless ( in a manner based on nil. as Plato says ) .
? There seem to be assorted types of ignorance. including stupid ignorance. as when person asserts dogmatically that a false proposition is true or that a true proposition is false. There is besides intelligent ignorance. as when person does non cognize X and acknowledges squarely that he does non cognize it. etc. More idea is needed on this matter… . ? However. Plato’s position of ignorance as holding non-being ( nothingness ) as its object does non look right ( or at least non wholly right ) .
? ? ? Lovers of wisdom ( philosophers ) — they recognize the being of absolute. nonnatural kernels such as Beauty & A ; Justice in themselves. and they seek cognition of such absolutes. ? Lovers of sentiment -they recognize merely peculiar perceptible things & A ; make non believe in the being of absolute kernels such as Beauty itself. So what is the nature of the Absolute Good? ( Text. p. 112-113 ) In nearing the job of specifying the nature of the Absolute Good. Socrates ( Plato ) sets forth three really celebrated illustrations of his overall position on cognition & A ; world.
These are I The Good & A ; the Sun The Good is to the head as the Sun is to the oculus. i. e. . merely as the sun’s visible radiation enables the oculus to see in the perceptible kingdom. so the Good illuminates the head and enables it to “see” in the apprehensible kingdom. ( See text. pp. 113-115 ) 2 The divided line ( Text. pp. 115-118 ) States of Consciousness Philosophical Wisdom E Objects of Consciousness The Good & A ; Other Forms Knowledge D Intelligible Realm Scientific Knowledge Informed Opinion Delusion C B Mathematical & A ; Scientific Objects Opinion Perceptible Objects Images Perceptible Realm A ( Text. pp. 118-123 ) Can you associate the images on the undermentioned slide to Plato’s word picture of the cave universe on pp.
118-121 in the text? Now that the captive has “seen the visible radiation. ” ? What might go on to him if he were to travel back down into the cave-world? ( pp. 119-121 ) ? How does he experience when he looks back down into the cave-world? ( pp. 119 ) ? How does the fable of the cave illustrate Plato’s overall position of cognition and world? ( p. 121 ) More inquiries: ? What’s the philosophical difference between coming into the darkness from the visible radiation & A ; coming into the visible radiation from the darkness? ( p. 121 ) ? What. harmonizing to Plato. does the fable of the cave state us about what the procedure of instruction should be?
( pp. 121-122 ) there are the large inquiries: Why should we desire philosophers to govern? How are we traveling to acquire them to govern? Since we are inquiring them to come back down into the cave-world. won’t we be making them injury by doing their lives worse instead than better? ( Text. pp. 122-123 ) What do you believe of the undermentioned statements by Plato ( Socrates ) ? “The best swayers of the province are those who know the Good. who don’t look to political relations for their felicity. & A ; who live a higher life than the political life. ” “Political power should be held by those who do non desire it. ” The End ( for now ) .