Dear Plato,
I have a problem with you and your Republic. People have claimed you to be the father of western political individualism, but I am taking you to battle, man. First of all...your concept of the 'good' and how we should all forget about everything else we are doing and strive for the knowledge of this 'good'. How did you decide that there was a greater 'good', Plato? If some philosophic type happens to 'discover' this 'good', how would they know that they have discovered it. I know, you will tell me the cave analogy, where the blind guy leaves the fire to go into the light to see the brilliance of the sun, and then as his eyes adjust he learns the truth. Seems like a nice simplification to me. Hate to tell you this, but it is a little bit more complicated than that. If we are imperfect, fallible beings as you like to believe, then how can we ever achieve knowledge of this perfect form of good you claim is out there? It is simply not possible unless I take a leap of faith and just put all my trust in your idea of the 'good'. However, you don't want us to do that, do you? Because your not religious. It would almost be easier if you were, because then your 'good' could be seen as God. But you don't believe in God, do you? So, we can't use that, now can we?
Another problem I have with you Plato, is your focus on individualism, I know, you say that we can project that onto the definition of a 'good' city, but doesn't one need a community in order to achieve further knowledge? It is not just a matter of thinking really hard about things. You would just torture yourself. And why do you get to define what the greater good is, and that we should strive for it? who gave you that right? Last time I checked, you were human.
You know what else? I am tired of deconstructing. That is all you seem to focus on. If we can never really achieve this 'good' you speak of (how would we know that we have achieved it anyways? our senses, and our brain is fallible, so doesn't that preclude the fact that we are just going to continue to search forever in the dark?), then what is the point of looking for it anyways? sure, we can strive to acquire knowledge and better ourselves, but when can we get on with it and actually start reconstructing? Last time I checked, no one seemed to have conclusive answers as to what this 'good' actually was.
I'm not done yet. You have this 'hierarchy' of good political systems that we are supposed to strive for, but last time I looked, an aristocracy, where the 'knowledgeable' rule over the uneducated masses just collapsed into a tyranny, and very quickly. I know, you have your defenses to this, namely that those who were ruling weren't actually philosophers. But how do you tell who is a philosopher? With the exception of my prof, I can't think of a single person. On that line, how do you overthrow your oligarchy? I know that this oligarchic structure we have isnt perfect, but I have no idea how to convince a big, rich business person to suddenly develop morals, I can't convince myself to be perfectly moralistic, nevermind a stranger. Let's be realistic here Plato.
(I can't wait for this class to be over)
Another problem I have with you Plato, is your focus on individualism, I know, you say that we can project that onto the definition of a 'good' city, but doesn't one need a community in order to achieve further knowledge? It is not just a matter of thinking really hard about things. You would just torture yourself. And why do you get to define what the greater good is, and that we should strive for it? who gave you that right? Last time I checked, you were human.
You know what else? I am tired of deconstructing. That is all you seem to focus on. If we can never really achieve this 'good' you speak of (how would we know that we have achieved it anyways? our senses, and our brain is fallible, so doesn't that preclude the fact that we are just going to continue to search forever in the dark?), then what is the point of looking for it anyways? sure, we can strive to acquire knowledge and better ourselves, but when can we get on with it and actually start reconstructing? Last time I checked, no one seemed to have conclusive answers as to what this 'good' actually was.
I'm not done yet. You have this 'hierarchy' of good political systems that we are supposed to strive for, but last time I looked, an aristocracy, where the 'knowledgeable' rule over the uneducated masses just collapsed into a tyranny, and very quickly. I know, you have your defenses to this, namely that those who were ruling weren't actually philosophers. But how do you tell who is a philosopher? With the exception of my prof, I can't think of a single person. On that line, how do you overthrow your oligarchy? I know that this oligarchic structure we have isnt perfect, but I have no idea how to convince a big, rich business person to suddenly develop morals, I can't convince myself to be perfectly moralistic, nevermind a stranger. Let's be realistic here Plato.
(I can't wait for this class to be over)
posted by Sylvia | 5:14 PM
3 Comments:
Oh, that pesky Plato. Please make sense.
i think that when i die i would like for college students to write me letters telling me how overrated my philosophies are. at least i'd know i'd made a difference.
the eastern orthodox arch-bishop of canada came to speak in one of my classes. the first thing he did was write the following statement up on the board: "morality is the biggest heresy of the church today." and as far as what 'the good' is, i'm pretty sure it's the mountains as i drive hom from school over the port man everyday. they take up 3/4 of the horizon, and they're covered in snow. i think the good is the cup of tea i just drank. it's laughing at the fact that i almost burnt my house down the other day. the good is when you come home to visit. the good is african children singing. i think the good is a lot bigger and a lot smaller than we could ever grasp. a lot simpler and a lot more complex.
i especially liked what you had to say about community. that is where life takes place. without, we probably wouldn't want to live anyways. why else do people form cities? and even plato learns by talking to people and answering other people's questions. you could be on to something here. maybe plato just needed a friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home