Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm curious, has anyone ever read Plato's Republic? It's a very convincing book, and so far, it's been the best arguement against my beliefs I've ever heard. His ideas shake our theories down to the very concept of Democracy with his ideas of ethics.

This is the first piece of writing that has ever produced doubt within me about my beliefs. If anyone has read it before, do you have any counterarguements to it? If not, I'll explain it and act as Devil's Advocate during the dialogue in favor of Plato/Socrates' concepts.

So far I find them to be incredibly sound, so before I change my beliefs, I wish to test them against the very people who hold the belief themselves. I have made a wager with myself; If you all fail to uphold the arguement, then I shall change my beliefs in favor of the seemingly truths that Plato has offered. If you succeed, then I'll keep your arguements for my own internal dialogue, and fight for Anarchism from this very young age into the rest of my life (In case you have not known, I'm 16 years old).

So, are you all up to the task?

Well for our arguement, the system any government (or lack thereof) takes is always dependent on one thing: how just the rulers (or the people) are.

Thus, to begin Plato's dialogue, the first question is about what is justice. How would you define a just man? Well for this, it may be simpler to look at the city, as it reassembles a human mind on a larger scale, as one may see a billboard from much farther away, with even greater clarity that small writing up close. Does this sound alright?

(keep in mind, I'll ask questions very often. At those points it would be a very good idea to either agree with me or dissagree, depending on the statement.)

Hmm, you say that he proposes philosophers are held above all of mankind. How do you arrive at this idea?

Also, how do you propose a Democracy is any better? Politicians are already well corrupted, and one key problem is at hand: The only people who become politicians are those who desire power. In Plato's model, the leader is required to not want the position, as paradoxical as it seems. Even during his own time, there existed what were called Sophists, people who study how to deceive others for political gain. Additionally, It was a Democracy that served Socrates his Hemlock cocktail.

Exactly how much of his philosophy have you read/heard? His theories are useless unless you provide their foundation as well.

Justice is only defined by the situation in which it must be dealt.
Consequences for actions should be determined by what happened leading to the situation, why it happened, and then a humane action should take place once decided.
Killing someone for killing someone is not necessarily justice.
Why did the man kill?
Was he sane?
Was it an accident?
Was he defending himself?


No man, is a just man, to think any one person can be just is ridiculous , because most people have biases, or other things making them more inclined to a certain decision.
I choose not to agree or disagree, what you have provided me with is not really enough information to form an agreement or disagreement on.


KK.
I'm gonna be in Florida starting this Saturday, and I won't be online often for the ten days I'm gone, so, just a heads up for yah.

Then why are there realist philosophers? No, going back to what I said above, Socrates simply sees philosophers as those who pursue the true, the wise, the moderate and the beautiful. You could even consider yourself to do this, and if true be a philosopher. You could be a philosopher and not even work in the issues we're pursueing, it's just where you pursue the true, the wise, the moderative and the beautiful.

That is one flaw I find with his Regime, and I'm even thinking about introducing some Democratic aspects to correct it. But nonetheless, how do you know the next politician will be better, or even come? We elected Bush twice, and even now there's still a strong push for McCain. Regardless of how we select our leaders, if they don't pursue the virtues above then they will always result badly. To this day, we see bad presidents in a good light. For example, Kennedy first put us in Vietnam, yet we consider him a hero. Reagan is often thought of as a godsend, yet he only improved the lot of his own class.

Also, I'm afraid you're horribly, horribly wrong. Socrates did not ask for his death, the Sophists (politicians) declared him to be corrupting the nations youth and put him to trial. To the very end, he would only accept or complete acquittal. The part you're referring to is the end, where both the accused and the accuser choose a punishment and the jury decided on it. The accuser chose death, and Socrates in defiance chose to be given free meals and a wage for the good work he does. In the end he chose not to let his friends help him escape because he believed in an afterlife, not because he was suicidal. Nonetheless, the existance of an afterlife is not the current issue, and we need to keep the discussion on track.

And no, I mean his philosophy. I hate to tell you, but unless you question principles as I establish them and build them up, trying to refute his theory all at once will never work, or else I will (as humorous as it sounds) simply step back and establish the part before it, further emphasizing how ignorant of the concepts you are. In the end, this way it will only appear as if I am informing you, not debating on even grounds.