It really is a fascinating work though. An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—1. producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc.); basically "the people" as defined by the common man. The difference Plato adds to the common man though, that we wouldn't in today's western society, is that to be the best common man one can be, that is to be the most just, happy and therefore most useful in the best form to a society, the common man needs to accept commonality in the sense that he must not interfere with the other groups quest for justice and roles in society.2. soldiers (auxilaries). They must uphold the rules set forth by the rulers. While the producers or common man must limit themselves to exercising their skills and producing their product, the warrior is charged with upholding the rules rule. The problem Plato has with the distinction, to me, is that the warriors will inevitably come from the common man, and will eventually at some point become more powerful then the rulers.3. Rulers. Of course, Plato's thesis was that the only true good and just ruler is a philosopher king. And frankly, he's right. Look at every single form of government and the fact remains that society would function infinitely better and in a more just way with a singular philisopher king at the head of all. The problem is that this person needs to come from a flawed pool - mankind. It's one of the basic forms of dispute I have with pure philosophy - an inability to match the vision with reality.The most just society has a perfect balance of these three groups. Again, it makes sense. If the producers focus on perfect production, there is no need for the soldiers to become desposit in their enforcement of the rules, and they instead become overseeing protectors, leaving the rulers to rule with justice and peace. Outside forces become a problem, but without internal strife the warrior can defend from outside influence. But that is also the inherent flaw of Plato's vision, something he recognizes by speaking about all the other forms of government. They all have a fatal flaw that eventually destroys them. His would as well, because that perfect balance can't be held forever. But that's how the story goes and what I think Plato was also getting at by talking about the other forms of government and what their end game was - it's a cyclical thing. Tyranny, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy. All occur together, and separate in their turn depending on the state of the society. Of course, then he justifies the philosopher king with his cave analogy which is both brilliant and pessimistic to me. He's right that in the end life is a series of discoveries that change perceptions of previously held beliefs. I think he fails in his ultimate answer there though. Of course, I think that because of my faith, something that has no place in his just society. The pessimism is that he thinks only those great philosophers get to see the ultimate light. Forgetting faith for a moment, that is a final thought that, if ever realized by the producers, would lead to a failure of the society anyway because it basically says that the true joy and pleasure of life is something that the common man cannot ever experience - not even in producing perfectly in the perfect just society. His goal in getting philosophers on the throne leads to the destruction of the throne - because the first people to bite it in the typical human bloody revolution are the ones that claimed to be better then the common man.Still, it is a truly remarkable piece of work that should be required reading by anyone that wants to form an opinion on political thought that goes beyond today's poll/30-second sound byte game.
This was the person I was referring to when I said there was a clear #1 in his category guy left. With no Gutenberg, no European Renaissance. With no Gutenberg, no accelerated spread of Christianity leading Larry to choose Jesus. There is one other very good pick in this category, but Gutenberg has no peer in terms of the importance of his invention.
This was the person I was referring to when I said there was a clear #1 in his category guy left. With no Gutenberg, no European Renaissance. With no Gutenberg, no accelerated spread of Christianity leading Larry to choose Jesus. There is one other very good pick in this category, but Gutenberg has no peer in terms of the importance of his invention.
And if you really don't believe Gutenberg had a major effect on spreading Christianity, I want some of what you're smoking. Come to think of it, I want some of that anyway.
And if you really don't believe Gutenberg had a major effect on spreading Christianity, I want some of what you're smoking. Come to think of it, I want some of that anyway.
