|
Post by permutojoe on Apr 30, 2017 0:58:39 GMT
According to Plato in The Republic, if you have a chance to steal and get away with it, not only should you do so but there is something wrong with you if you don't. Does this reflect more on him as an individual or the Greek culture at that time? Does anyone agree with this? I myself do not but I'm coming to the point where I'm starting to think the human condition is all about getting over on others and dominating them in any way possible. Maybe it's just in our DNA and to think we're something better/different is folly.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 30, 2017 15:41:34 GMT
It depends on who you steal from. If you are stealing from the capitalist class then fire away.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 2, 2017 2:25:08 GMT
According to Plato in The Republic, if you have a chance to steal and get away with it, not only should you do so but there is something wrong with you if you don't. Does this reflect more on him as an individual or the Greek culture at that time? Does anyone agree with this? I myself do not but I'm coming to the point where I'm starting to think the human condition is all about getting over on others and dominating them in any way possible. Maybe it's just in our DNA and to think we're something better/different is folly. "Why wreck Bluestar?" "Because it's wreckable!" Think about it like shortselling stocks, or internet trolling. In the end, everyone has wised up and no one leaves their doors unlocked anymore.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 2, 2017 2:35:37 GMT
Was Plato a communist or a libertarian?
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 2, 2017 2:41:39 GMT
According to Plato in The Republic, if you have a chance to steal and get away with it, not only should you do so but there is something wrong with you if you don't. Does this reflect more on him as an individual or the Greek culture at that time? Does anyone agree with this? I myself do not but I'm coming to the point where I'm starting to think the human condition is all about getting over on others and dominating them in any way possible. Maybe it's just in our DNA and to think we're something better/different is folly. "Why wreck Bluestar?" "Because it's wreckable!" Think about it like shortselling stocks, or internet trolling. In the end, everyone has wised up and no one leaves their doors unlocked anymore. Yes but we both know no one steals from someone in order to teach them a valuable lesson. They steal to get ahead.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 2, 2017 2:52:05 GMT
Was Plato a communist or a libertarian? Communist.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 2, 2017 2:58:35 GMT
"Why wreck Bluestar?" "Because it's wreckable!" Think about it like shortselling stocks, or internet trolling. In the end, everyone has wised up and no one leaves their doors unlocked anymore. Yes but we both know no one steals from someone in order to teach them a valuable lesson. They steal to get ahead. No. It has nothing to do with why someone steals. It's about the end result of a savvy populace. Societies that consume a lot of alcohol don't have any illusion that it's good for their health.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 22:02:19 GMT
Here's an idea: don't abide by what the ancient philosophers said. Their theories are outdated and impractical, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 5, 2017 12:33:47 GMT
Yes but we both know no one steals from someone in order to teach them a valuable lesson. They steal to get ahead. No. It has nothing to do with why someone steals. It's about the end result of a savvy populace. Societies that consume a lot of alcohol don't have any illusion that it's good for their health. Fair enough. It's an interesting point but Plato is talking more about morality here, not unintended beneficial consequences of immoral behavior.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on May 18, 2017 9:52:28 GMT
According to Plato in The Republic, if you have a chance to steal and get away with it, not only should you do so but there is something wrong with you if you don't. Does this reflect more on him as an individual or the Greek culture at that time? Does anyone agree with this? I myself do not but I'm coming to the point where I'm starting to think the human condition is all about getting over on others and dominating them in any way possible. Maybe it's just in our DNA and to think we're something better/different is folly. Does Plato say that? In the Republic, Glaucon, playing devil's advocate, asks if someone had the means to get away with every vice using a magical ring, would he not be wise to engage in those vices as he likes (he then gets the benefits of the vices but escapes the punishment and condemnation they usually entail). Socrates eventually disagrees, saying to behave in such a way would be to enslave yourself to your appetites rather than to rationality - your mind will be unbalanced and you will then be less happy.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 18, 2017 11:15:54 GMT
According to Plato in The Republic, if you have a chance to steal and get away with it, not only should you do so but there is something wrong with you if you don't. Does this reflect more on him as an individual or the Greek culture at that time? Does anyone agree with this? I myself do not but I'm coming to the point where I'm starting to think the human condition is all about getting over on others and dominating them in any way possible. Maybe it's just in our DNA and to think we're something better/different is folly. Does Plato say that? In the Republic, Glaucon, playing devil's advocate, asks if someone had the means to get away with every vice using a magical ring, would he not be wise to engage in those vices as he likes (he then gets the benefits of the vices but escapes the punishment and condemnation they usually entail). Socrates eventually disagrees, saying to behave in such a way would be to enslave yourself to your appetites rather than to rationality - your mind will be unbalanced and you will then be less happy.
You're right. My summary above is a little misleading. The premise is put out there by Glaucon in the dialogue. Socrates does attempt to refute it but he also concedes that Glaucon's argument is a strong one and difficult to counter.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on May 18, 2017 11:56:51 GMT
True. And to be honest I don't think Socrates succeeds in refuting it. I mean I take his point that to live completely according to whim without any regard to others would probably be mentally damaging (even if you could get away with it) but there might be certain instances where it is beneficial to be unjust with minimal effect on your mental health. Plato being an idealist though thought the greatest good was to conceive of and partake of the ideal, therefore any imperfection in the four virtues of the ideal person was to be avoided. If you reject this idealist view, his arguments are weakened.
I take a more Humean stance on this in that I think morality relies more on passion than reason. We condemn Glaucon's position not because it is irrational (as Socrates argues) but because it is distasteful. And that I think is fine. Of course since passion is subjective, others may see no problem with Glaucon's stance, and with those people all you can really do is agree to disagree, on an intellectual level at least.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 12:29:00 GMT
I think that honesty is a bad thing if you're going to be (especially regularly) negatively judgmental towards someone close to you, where your comment can have no practical effect. For example, if you think one of your best friends is ugly. It's better to be dishonest and not tell them that you think they are ugly. If they're having a problem attracting a mate, say, it would be better to help them appear as attractive as they can, and to accentuate (and or build) their other assets, but there's no need to periodically tell them that you feel they're ugly. That's not going to help anything and it would rather create more problems (if only self-esteem problems for your friend). Honesty isn't a trump card positive value in itself. The benefits and consequences of honesty versus dishonesty need to be considered in each situation.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 20, 2017 11:53:42 GMT
True. And to be honest I don't think Socrates succeeds in refuting it. I mean I take his point that to live completely according to whim without any regard to others would probably be mentally damaging (even if you could get away with it) but there might be certain instances where it is beneficial to be unjust with minimal effect on your mental health. Plato being an idealist though thought the greatest good was to conceive of and partake of the ideal, therefore any imperfection in the four virtues of the ideal person was to be avoided. If you reject this idealist view, his arguments are weakened. I take a more Humean stance on this in that I think morality relies more on passion than reason. We condemn Glaucon's position not because it is irrational (as Socrates argues) but because it is distasteful. And that I think is fine. Of course since passion is subjective, others may see no problem with Glaucon's stance, and with those people all you can really do is agree to disagree, on an intellectual level at least. I think Socrates nails it. His response seems weak because it's not based in objective reasoning, but there is no objective reasoning that will ever solve the problems and questions of morality. It comes down to the fact that "do not kill" and "do not steal" are programmed into our DNA. There is no deductive logic that will ever get you there. So coming back around to the point I was getting at in the OP, we are programmed to compete, get ahead, and dominate each other, but we also have safety protocols written in to keep us from going around killing each other willy-nilly. Problem is it seems like most societies were perhaps designed by sociopaths who came with their safety protocols disabled.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Aug 2, 2017 10:36:35 GMT
Was Plato a communist or a libertarian? What? Neither of ideologies existed back then. He was in many respects very much an elitist in the worst sense of the word, who looked down on those who didn't have any blue blood (another simplification). And he was staunchly against anyone who stood in the way against... Not science, that didn't exist back then either, but philosophy as he meant it (a way of trying to understand and describe the world). You can call it proto-science if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Aug 2, 2017 10:51:27 GMT
Here's an idea: don't abide by what the ancient philosophers said. Their theories are outdated and impractical, anyway. Oh I don't know about that. Pythagoras theories are used even today, and Aristotle made the foundation for scientific studies by cataloging and made the first branches of science (a simplification, of course. Science as we know it didn't exist until the 1880'ies). He also invented logic.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2017 11:24:16 GMT
I think that honesty is a bad thing if you're going to be (especially regularly) negatively judgmental towards someone close to you, where your comment can have no practical effect. For example, if you think one of your best friends is ugly. It's better to be dishonest and not tell them that you think they are ugly. If they're having a problem attracting a mate, say, it would be better to help them appear as attractive as they can, and to accentuate (and or build) their other assets, but there's no need to periodically tell them that you feel they're ugly. That's not going to help anything and it would rather create more problems (if only self-esteem problems for your friend). Honesty isn't a trump card positive value in itself. The benefits and consequences of honesty versus dishonesty need to be considered in each situation. If you are only thinking about something, what has that got to with honesty regarding your own subjective opinion? However, if your best friend asked you directly if you think they are ugly, then how would you be serving yourself by lying to them if you do feel they are ugly? If they don't like the response about what you really feel, well why did they ask? Or you could be more roundabout and tactful in answering with something like, well, you are not the most attractive looking person around but I've seen worse. Or, what I think of your looks is irrelevant regarding my friendship with you. If the friendship was solid and genuine and bound in trust, they would best appreciate and honor your honesty and virtue if asked. At any rate, being honest with a subjective opinion about something, may operate on a different level when you steal something that is not really yours for the taking. All that is telling us, is that we feel entitled to take something that wasn't given to us, or were meant to have if it wasn't exchanged in monetary barter or other form of exchange. That is just the way the world operates. If you feel worthy of whatever it is you want, yet don't or can't have, stealing is ultimately not going to give us the satisfaction and enjoyment that it would be if otherwise acquired by legitimate means. There is always going to be a consequence for this, even if it is just conscience stricken. That is how the universe operates. Act authentically and the rest will follow. Just saw this now. People aren't ideals. You'll have better relationships if you care about other people, their feelings, etc., despite the fact that they aren't ideals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 15:12:25 GMT
Here's an idea: don't abide by what the ancient philosophers said. Their theories are outdated and impractical, anyway. Oh I don't know about that. Pythagoras theories are used even today, and Aristotle made the foundation for scientific studies by cataloging and made the first branches of science (a simplification, of course. Science as we know it didn't exist until the 1880'ies). He also invented logic. Well, I do know about that, and they are indeed very outdated. Also, no one invented logic. There were rational people before these guys.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 2, 2017 15:27:59 GMT
Oh I don't know about that. Pythagoras theories are used even today, and Aristotle made the foundation for scientific studies by cataloging and made the first branches of science (a simplification, of course. Science as we know it didn't exist until the 1880'ies). He also invented logic. Well, I do know about that, and they are indeed very outdated. Also, no one invented logic. There were rational people before these guys. He came up with setting out arguments in the syllogistic form which was a big step in being able to assess the validity of arguments. But you're right in saying he didn't invent rationality.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 7, 2017 0:25:11 GMT
I doubt Plato was a communist in the modern sense. He certainly would not have understood the concept of taking populations from one country and throwing them into another which is what modern communism seems to advocate.
Here he also seems to voicing the vegetarian simplicity position which Percy Shelley repeated in the 19th century. It also suggests not only the conflict created by tribalism but technological complexity which I think goes hand in had these days:
Plato Republic book 2
Socrates: Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them.
Glaucon: Certainly.
S: And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?
G: Much greater.
S: And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?
G: Quite true.
S: Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?
G: That, Socrates, will be inevitable.
S: And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?
G: Most certainly.
|
|