The first half of Book III of the Republic poses many questions that simply cannot be ignored. The most powerful among those, at least in my own opinion, is Socrates' misconstruing of the tales of the poets. In his attempt to banish all that would hinder the growth and perfect development of the guardians/warriors, it seems that he has blatantly and purposefully misconstrued what the poets have shown through their narratives. Socrates seems to be picking, choosing, twisting and shaping the words and tales of the poets for his own purposes. By doing this, Socrates sullies the text from which he has derived the center of his reasoning for eliminating these texts from their “justice city” and I feel that tarnishes his credibility within his arguments at least within the arguments pertaining to the role this poetry/prose is to play in the new "justice city."
As I stated Tuesday in class, a perfect example of this occurs in section 390b, "Hunger is the most pitiful way to die and find one's fate[.]" As stated in the explanatory notes, it is not Odysseus, the protagonist, who states those words-it is one who dies from the sin of gluttony; however, this is not the only instance of Socrates' wrongful context of the literature. For example, also from 390b, Odysseus is said to state the finest things deal with gluttony, Socrates fails to mention Odysseus believing among those finest of things is a "whole people in harmony listening to a singer" (Notes Book III, 452). While the second isn’t completely a misrepresentation, it does fail to leave out a critical piece of the information. While I am not completely fresh with either the Iliad or the Odyssey, it is clear that much more could have been confiscated for Socrates' own causes. He leaves out bits and pieces that could, and occasionally do, change the context and strength of his argument.
What I don't understand is, if he is so opposed to the way in which the poets depict the gods and how they “imitate” others to create their narratives, why Socrates even decides to salvage their works in their justice city. It is clear the three men find all that “poets and prose writers say concerning the most important things about human beings is bad” (392b), why even continue argue over their relevance and intended impact upon the city? They’ve already proclaimed that there is no room for the narrative in their society, so why even take what the poets have written and sew them into the fabric of their stagnant society?
I feel that, when going this direction in this creation of the just city, that one doesn’t even need to consider the works of the past if all they do is “contaminate” the minds and possible justices within the children and simply start all over with new writers who will be given the guidelines to writing? Instead of censorship and needless time spent destroying the works that were actually intended to serve as a guide for morals, why not simply start from the beginning as we did with the city itself? This “justice city” started from nothing, so shouldn’t the literature, text, beliefs, and ideas also rise from the interactions within the confines and limitations of the city at least from the beginning and later develop and transmit ideas?
-J. Spradlin
As I stated Tuesday in class, a perfect example of this occurs in section 390b, "Hunger is the most pitiful way to die and find one's fate[.]" As stated in the explanatory notes, it is not Odysseus, the protagonist, who states those words-it is one who dies from the sin of gluttony; however, this is not the only instance of Socrates' wrongful context of the literature. For example, also from 390b, Odysseus is said to state the finest things deal with gluttony, Socrates fails to mention Odysseus believing among those finest of things is a "whole people in harmony listening to a singer" (Notes Book III, 452). While the second isn’t completely a misrepresentation, it does fail to leave out a critical piece of the information. While I am not completely fresh with either the Iliad or the Odyssey, it is clear that much more could have been confiscated for Socrates' own causes. He leaves out bits and pieces that could, and occasionally do, change the context and strength of his argument.
What I don't understand is, if he is so opposed to the way in which the poets depict the gods and how they “imitate” others to create their narratives, why Socrates even decides to salvage their works in their justice city. It is clear the three men find all that “poets and prose writers say concerning the most important things about human beings is bad” (392b), why even continue argue over their relevance and intended impact upon the city? They’ve already proclaimed that there is no room for the narrative in their society, so why even take what the poets have written and sew them into the fabric of their stagnant society?
I feel that, when going this direction in this creation of the just city, that one doesn’t even need to consider the works of the past if all they do is “contaminate” the minds and possible justices within the children and simply start all over with new writers who will be given the guidelines to writing? Instead of censorship and needless time spent destroying the works that were actually intended to serve as a guide for morals, why not simply start from the beginning as we did with the city itself? This “justice city” started from nothing, so shouldn’t the literature, text, beliefs, and ideas also rise from the interactions within the confines and limitations of the city at least from the beginning and later develop and transmit ideas?
-J. Spradlin
i dont' like how socrates is picking, choosing, twisting and shaping the words and tales of the poets for his own purpose and/or desire. Personally, Socrates seems like a very selfish person, with only his desires and wishes important.
ReplyDelete