God, I fucking hate Plato's Republic
(midwest.social)
PugJesus
History MemesI had to read Plato's cave for a philosophy class and this tracks. My generous suspicion is that the ancient greeks didn't separate the concept of a lecture from that of a play... and so you get absolutely lousy "plays" in which there's a sycophantic and/or zoned out student that plato keeps asking questions of to make sure they're still paying attention.
Explanation: Plato's Republic is a text which was a legitimately major contribution to the development of Western philosophical thought.
It's also fucking insufferable, as it takes the form of a 'dialogue' wherein Socrates (here acting as Plato's mouthpiece, whatever the real Socrates' opinions) has a discussion with the two easiest convinced men in all of Greece. "Yes. That is so. I would have to agree!"
... they're not particularly unassailable arguments presented either.
fuck it man, because of language drift, I hate reading anything before 1950s. this shit all needs upgrading.
Socrates u r so lit no cap fr fr
Mark Twain still rocks
So he just wrote a Socrates self-insert fanfic
Basically, lmao
Me rehearsing arguments in my head, except I still tend to lose them.
sounds like someone is willing to realistically test his ideas so that they can hold water.
I don't know about the book The Republic. But plato wrote about the progression of any representative government following the same formula, and it's always true, just the scale of time that differs. He had innumerable greek city states to observe, and many went through accelerated cycles.
A king would be a dick, and overthrown and representative government instituted. In time that government would become corrupt, and regressed through stages of like oligarchic repression, he has several other -ics that are along those lines, at a point the oligarchy becomes bad enough a strong man or demagogue comes along and rallies the population to lay waste to the oligarchy, making himself king again, in what they call democracy. (The word democracy has since changed in the 19th century it became a positive buzz word.) In time the king becomes worse and the cycle starts again.
The US right now is in increasing stages of oligarchic repression, not the strong man rallying the population, that comes next, after the oligarchy finishes putting the nails in the coffin of the republic.
it's always true
I disagree, but I found some quotes of some folks who do agree!
Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant
-- Benito Mussolini
A fight between several parties of the British people: Nothing of the kind! A fight between two or three big money combines, that and nothing else. … Or when they speak democracy, they don't mean government by the people … they mean financial democracy, in which money counts and nothing but money.
-- Oswald Moseley
I appreciate the quotes, it is not really something to agree or disagree on however it is demonstratably true that all representative governments follow that formula, it is just a matter of how long it takes. Rome followed it, the u k is still in a very long arc, the United States is right on schedule, every Greek city state followed it.
It is human nature, any representative government will see Power Consolidated and abused by an in-group before long, anytime that happens there will be a backlash at some point where their fuckery has to be stopped at whatever cost. Just as left to their own devices any market segment will consolidate into a single provider that will then gouge everyone. It is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow morning.
I appreciate the clarification. The problems you identify with democracy are structural problems of class rule.
I get really itchy when I see references to "human nature." What is human nature? Is there a particular system of analyzing human nature that you are applying? Without some concrete basis, one's analysis is only based on empirical experience, which is not a sin, but without a method there's nothing concrete which I can agree with you on except perhaps my own experience. And based on my own experience I tend to disagree that the problem is essential to individual humans. Rather, I believe what you are referring to as human nature, is structural.
It is not in a starving rat's nature to turn left or right at certain points while navigating a maze, it is the shape of the maze itself that determines how the animal orients their body; a set of predetermined choices, driven by hypothetical outcomes, created by beings capable of producing a maze and placing the rat inside, that determine the range of possibilities the poor animal has available to them. Starvation (or perhaps ambition) deprives the individual animal of their ability to consider other possibilities.
Your analysis includes a temporal dynamic, a passage of time, which I think is the only way accurately analyze social and historic events. However your view of human nature is still static and essential. Since humans create history and society, applying a static view to the most dynamic element of historic progress halts one's ability to consider the actual people who determine the qualities of a social movement. The humans become abstract, the movements in society become abstract, and any hope of seeing clearly the forces that dictate either humanity or society disappear into idealism. Like Plato, one loses the ability to recognize that the "republic" is actually a dictatorship based on slavery. His conclusion that society should be run by a benevolent class of philosophers becomes entirely contradictory, since idealism can not interpret history or events with accuracy, and slavery can not be benevolent.
There are always exceptions when considering human nature, and there are always contradictions when considering society. Since your description of human nature is supported by nothing concrete, it is impossible to agree with you on the basis of shared reality. It is just as much the nature of the powerful to want to hold on to power, as it is the nature of the powerless to be charitable and forgiving.
I do believe there are natural tendencies within our species. We will also be motivated by hunger and survival; our fight or flight response prompts us to act in ways that can be harmful, and social scientists like Kahneman have made their life's work documenting the ways that our default ways of thinking can be irrational, and notably, predictable.
These tendencies are exploited by marketers and sales engineers in order to create the social realities of our whole world, control what we see, what we believe, and how we react to current events. And what we have learned is that often people respond unpredictably. A scheme that scares most people, can embolden. Attempting to confuse people motivates others to see more clearly. Attempting to divide people actually unites many. The only accurate prediction we can make is contradiction.
And as those contradictions compound, the oligarchy's hold on power becomes more and more tenuous. Just consider the immense amount of resources employed to manipulate the masses, multi-trillion dollar industries designed to confuse and obfuscate. If it was as simple as human nature, these industries and institutions would not exist.
One needs to have a theory of change, and a materialist understanding that includes the actual thoughts, feelings, and experiences of human beings, in order to correctly assess history and current events. Without them, analysis is based on abstraction and idealism, and we blind ourselves with ignorance while claiming to understand. Ultimately it isnt possible for you or I to fully understand things as individuals. Understanding is a dynamic and collective historical process, and when we grasp that fact we realize that what we consider individualism and human nature is a historically contingent, structural phenomenon.
