I just wanted to direct people toward “The Republic” website – you can check out all things “Republic,” info on the project, behind the scenes photos, cast bios and more.

Was driving back from the high north country late last night with my dad and we got to talking like two guys up way past their bedtime do.  Various viewpoints were expressed, politely, tiredly. In general outlook we are largely on the same team; we just differ (sometimes vastly) on how to put it into practice.

The details are not of much importance.  Fundamentally, my father is eminently willing to engage in the mucky day-to-day praxis of putting political ideas into actual practice.  I am far more fastidious, very reluctant to get my hands dirty, at least not without a full supply of Lava soap on hand.  And is there any Lava soap yet invented that can get the greasy stain of politics off your hands?  I doubt it.

But  rather than re-invent the wheel, I will let Plato speak for me (though in place of philosophy I might insert writing, or literature, or combine the three):

Then there remains, Adeimantus, only a very small group who consort with philosophy in a way that’s worthy of her . . . Now, the members of this small group have tasted how sweet and how blessed a possession philosophy is, and at the same time they’ve also seen the madness of the majority and realized, in a word, that hardly anyone acts sanely in public affairs and that there is no ally with whom they might go to the aid of justice and survive, that instead they’d perish before they could profit either their city or their friends and be useless to themselves and others, just like a man who has fallen among wild animals and is neither willing to join them in doing injustice nor sufficiently strong to oppose the general savagery alone. Taking all this into account, they lead a quiet life and do their own work. Thus, like someone who takes refuge under a little wall from a storm of dust or hail driven by the wind, the philosopher–seeing others filled with lawlessness–is satisfied if he can somehow lead his present life free from injustice and impious acts and depart from it with good hope, blameless and content.

–Republic (496a-497a)

Quote from Plato spotted, serendipitously, this morning at Maverick Philosopher.

Robert Service’s new biography of Trotsky is reviewed in today’s Wall Street Journal. Having read Service’s excellent biography of Lenin a few years ago, this seems like a book worth reading. Joshua Rubenstein’s thoughtful review touches on some thoughts about socialism and socialists.

Socialism had three major failings. The first is what economists study most closely. It is the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism, because of the rejection of prices and money as a medium of exchange. Whether you support socialist ideals or not, it is literally impossible to achieve. Do away with prices and currency, and they will emerge in a different form. They are part of human society.

The second aspect of socialism intrigues philosophers: socialism genuinely sought to change human nature itself. People as they currently are are in no shape to realize Marx’s vision of communist society. So part of the communist program was to actively mold and change people so that vision could one day become a reality.

Before Marx came along, Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia were also written about societies with a fundamentally changed human nature. More, knowing his ideal to be impossible, coined the word “utopia,” which literally means “no place.” His book is a pleasant dream (for a collectivist at least), but More knew it was one that could ever come true. We are they way we are. And we’re stuck that way, for better or worse.

This leads us to the third aspect of socialism, which most concerns Trotsky. This is, for me, the most remarkable part, and the most chilling. It is the sheer violence that accompanied Marxism-Leninism everywhere it was tried. And I mean everywhere. Every single country to adopt communism had a checkered human rights record. No exceptions. Not one had anything resembling freedom of speech or press, or due process, or property rights.

Most historians now estimate that communist governments killed around 100,000,000 people. Mostly their own citizens. At no other point in human history have governments been so murderous of their own people. No other ideology has had consequences so bloody as Marxism and its variants.

One reason for the violence is that it allowed the governments to maintain power; resistance is less likely when the prevailing climate is of fear. Another is that human nature is stubborn. If it is to be changed, force is required. But, of course, the basic tenets of humanity are immutable. We are who we are.

Communist leaders, including Trotsky, were simply chilling. Many of them come off as sadists. They seemed to actually enjoy bloodshed. Revel in it. Yet Trotsky still has his admirers today. They need to answer for why they look up to someone who would even have thoughts like the following, let alone give voice to such brutish impulses in public speeches:

“The strength of the French Revolution,” he shouted to a group of revolutionary sailors, “was in the machine that made the enemies of the people shorter by a head. This is a fine device. We must have it in every city.” And have it they did. Once in power, Trotsky advocated show trials and the execution of political prisoners; he suppressed other socialist parties and independent trade unions; he pushed for the censorship of art that did not support the revolution; and he created the institutions of repression that were later turned against him and his followers.

Under dim lights at The Republic, local metal outfit Cease prepped a small group of punters for an evening of noise and distortion. Ironically, their penchant for going partially undressed was not out of place in the venue which doubles as a male strip joint. But any hint of campness in the decor was effectively blasted away by the three-piece on drums, electric guitar and bass. Cease channel a certain looseness on stage with their chunky chords, relentless drums and don’t-give-a-fuck type demeanour, but despite this manage to play with the tightness of slowly grinding teeth. They’re too loud and abrasive not to leave you feeling slightly uncomfortable, and yet it’s hard to take your eyes off them. The crowd appeared taken by the performance, sitting on the floor at the front of the stage. When the set ended someone near me remarked, “It’s really quiet right now!” – Stating the obvious, but it was something you couldn’t help but notice as well.

Collingwood exports Pets With Pets took the stage after an impossibly long soundcheck, frontman Z Animaux wearing some sort of shawl or small rug draped over his head and shoulders. In a haze of stage smoke, he pranced on tip-toes whilst playing a miniature electric-guitar during the opening song. Indeed, from the outset it was clear that Pets With Pets were striving to create a sense of the ethereal and experimental. Playing without a set list, there were periods of improvised electro-rock propelled onwards by the drummer’s steady 4/4 beat. Banshee type squealing and indecipherable lyrics could have led this reviewer to write the duo off as post-modern douchebags, but thankfully there was some substance beneath their art-school veneer. Namely the strong keyboard melodies and loaded distortion which created an eerie allure reminiscent of Joy Division. This was contrasted by the urgency in Animaux’s voice – he sings like it’s some foreign instrument he’s just picked up for the first time. All of this had the audience seeming equal parts intrigued and uninterested. After playing for an hour, the duo closed with the popular The Girl Up And Down which inspired some dancing up front. But altogether the set left you feeling like a voyeur, peering in on something exciting but distant, which is a shame given the cozy venue. Pets With Pets proved they’re worthy of the buzz, but would do well to lose the on-stage posturing and work harder at engaging their audience.

This review appeared in Drum Media Perth on May 21, 2009 for Pets With Pets show at The Republic in Perth on May 15, 2009. Written by Jessica Matthews.

It took two attempts to get Melbourne band Pets With Pets to provide an interview not cut and pasted from Wikipedia. Finally, they share their interest in Whoopi Goldberg, faeces and Chicken Treat with Alicia Bridges.

As a young, relatively unknown Australian band, Pets With Pets are confident in their ability to use the computer’s cut and paste tool to promote their shows. Snubbing the opportunity to plug his band, or at least explain some of its eccentricities, Pets With Pets frontman ‘Zayd’ is more eager to show he is skilled in the art of pasting random information from Wikipedia. The biographical history of Greg Kinnear, Christopher Walken and Russell Crowe all made it into Zayd’s initial interview responses, with barely an original paragraph throughout.

Having agreed to speak with us only via email, it took two attempts to get even a smidgen of cohesiveness out of the frontman. And when we say cohesiveness… Well, for example, he says the method of sedative administration is the only difference between their home shows and those interstate: “We have to pack our own tranquilizers as opposed to being spoon fed them.”

The Melbourne experimental (evidently by sound and interviewee techniques) two-piece, completed by drummer Jono, arrives in Perth this weekend for shows at The Republic and Hyde Park Hotel, their first in WA. This week also marks the release of the Neu! tribute album Brand Neu! which features Pets With Pets alongside Oasis and Kasabian.

The album pays homage to music influenced by the German krautrockers formed by the remaining members of electro pioneers Kraftwerk. Zayd said coverage in the NME led to the contract with Feraltone, formerly the Ren Renner-founded Gronland Records. “We had been in contact over the last year or so and then this opportunity arose and [Feraltone] wanted an unknown band amongst Sonic Youth and Primal Scream,” he says. “Why not? We’re doing a release with said record label which is now Feraltone… which should be out in late July.”

European coverage has also given the band an international following and their gigs are attracting tourists who heard of the band outside Australia. “We meet lots of European tourists who come to our shows who have heard of us before they get to Australia which is kind of nice,” he said. “I guess we’re yet to find [out the extent of our international following]. I hope Whoopi Goldberg becomes a fan more than anything though… guess we’ll need more press in America.”

Zayd describes his music as ‘post-agriculture”, a term he seems reluctant to explain without the help of Wikipedia.

Amidst all this, the influence of Joy Division can be clearly heard on the track We Only Found This Place, along with similarities to Japanese experimentalists. Zayd said Pets With Pets was most heavily influenced by the ‘post-agriculture brewing in Collingwood’, although he said Jono’s (musical) development was perhaps more advanced as a child. “Whilst I was learning how to make toast in grade two from the dearly departed Mrs Sax (it almost sounds like sex), Jono was seeing The Dirty Three at the Punters Club,” he said.

One of the more cohesive references Zayd made was to his interest in WA’s fast-food stalwarts. “I haven’t been to Perth since I was ten,” he said. “Do you still have Chicken Treat? That’s the first thing I’m going to find when I get off the plane. Maybe I’ll ask for it on our rider! And the Little Creatures brewery.”

Amid all the attitude there could be something to see in Pets With Pets. “(The show) is more like a gypsy middle European theme teen sex fruit comedy party. There is lots of sparkles and rolling around on the floor. And yelps for Egypt, as you can see we are heavily influenced by our surroundings here in Melbourne.”

This feature article appeared in Drum Media for Pets With Pets tour of Perth on May 14, 2009.

Artwork by Caroline McCurdy.

The Young and the Restless:  Melody Thomas Scott

Melody Thomas Scott has found herself a  new gig!  She will start in a new online production, The Republic:

Melody plays Martha Alden, a working mother who evolves into a core-of-steel activist fighting against new laws imposed on her family. Singer plays her devoted husband Frank, a civil engineer who, blindsided by the new laws and losses, learns to adapt and thrive in this brave new world.

Good luck to MTS and the best of wishes for a successful run of this drama!

As The World Turns:  Cady McClain

If you had any doubt that Cady McClain was fabulous, before, this should clear things up!  She goes down in my book as one of my favorite celebs, EVER!  Read the full interview posted at Soap Central

It’s not that I don’t support daytime. Sometimes I just get frustrated when there are opportunities and people just don’t want to hear it. People don’t want to hear the truth. And the person who speaks what I see as my truth, certainly, often takes a hit for it.

Why is it that people like Ms. McClain  are never in charge of daytime? Seemingly, the only people  hired in executive roles are those who throw on the cheerleading outfits, the blinders, and who keep cheering on one crapload of bad storytelling after another. I have to wonder if people who are as critical as McClain and others could have turned this genre around while there was still time.  Fans have been speaking truth to daytime for a LONG time… and no one listens.  The ratings fall… and no one listens.  The actors speak out… and no one listens.  I’m gonna’ miss daytime when it goes!

Why am I so wary of Platonism, as expressed in this post?

I am not actually wary of Platonism specifically.  Plato is a very skilled writer.  He writes with style.  In many of the dialogues, if you read with an attentive mind, then Socrates moves beyond asking questions of, say, Euthyphro, to asking questions of me.  What do you, mjjhoskin, think of holiness?  What is the basis for holiness?  What is the basis for this belief of yours? Foundational questions, all of them.  Questions that strike at the root of things.

Plato also has some interesting ideas.  There’s the ever-popular Cave in The Republic, for example.  Timaeus gives us a cosmology not entirely incompatible with reality.  Crito gives us the endlessly-speculated myth of Atlantis.

Plato also teaches transmigration of souls.  He teaches that this world is not the real world.  We have an idea of justice here, an idea of what a table is, an idea of what eros is, but these ideas are not the real things in themselves but shadows of the truth.  The true reality, according to Plato, is in the world of forms, where our souls dwell between transmigrations.  Platonism also teaches a dualism between body and spirit, between physical and metaphysical.  The spirit and the metaphysical are good, the body and the physical are bad.  This stems from the theory of forms.

This last paragraph is there to help show why traditional Christianity, “classic” Christianity, ought to be wary of Platonism.  Many Christians of the Patristic era liked Platonism too much and created bits of speculative theology that were not in line with Scripture, tradition, or the reasoned account of salvation.

Souls are immortal, according to Platonism — this means that they have a pre-existence in the spiritual realm before becoming incarnate in our bodies.  Such is the case in Origenism as well.  In fact, from what I’ve seen of Origen and his anathematised beliefs, a great many of them stem from an outworking of Platonist ideas.

One of the most pernicious and persistent Platonic ideas within Christianity is the dualism between body and spirit, between the physical and metaphysical.  I think this is in Origen, but it is definitely in the Gnostics and sometimes in the ascetics (but their pagan model was more frequently Stoicism).

The body is not bad.

This is part of true Christian doctrine.  In Genesis we are taught that when God created us, He said that His creation was “Very good.”  God Himself took on flesh in the Incarnation.  He became a man.  At the end of time, we shall all be resurrected in a new heaven and a new earth, and we shall have bodies.

The Platonist idea as it manifests itself in Christianty says that our bodies are “fleshly,” and anything that has to do with the body is to be rejected save those things that keep us alive.  Modern Christians who have maintained this dichotomy between flesh and spirit sometimes argue things such as, “Dancing is bad because it is all about your body.”  Ascetics, on the other hand, argue that you should ignore your body and discipline it.  What really matters, however, is mystical experience and seeking God through contemplation.  Neglect the body, therefore.  Some Gnostics, on the other hand, would argue that since flesh doesn’t matter, do as you please!

Classic Christianity argues that flesh does matter, so treat your body with respect, live morally, and enjoy yourself.  Dance.  Eat.  Drink.  Discipline the body, yes, but do so to discipline your whole self, do so to keep it healthy, not to ruin it.

The most pernicious Platonist idea to persist to today is this idea that we are all going to go to heaven when we die, we shall be disembodied and this will be great and this is what we were made for and this world will be destroyed by fire.

FAIL!

Patristic writers (I forget at the moment where I saw this, but it was one of them) lament death because when we die, our bodies and souls are separated, and this is not what we were created for.  We were created to have bodies, to walk on earth, to breathe air.  This is what the hope of Resurrection is.  We will have bodies, but they will be incorruptible.  The souls and bodies of the dead will be re-knit together for Judgement Day, and the saved will spend eternity living with those bodies and enjoying the world.

Thus, while there is much in Platonism to commend it, there is also much to be cautious of.  The same is true of Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism.  Let us not forget that our first commitment is to Christ who was revealed in the Scriptures and has shown Himself through His people throughout history.  All pagan ideas, good or ill, are secondary.

I begin a great many things that I never finish.  Of these many things, I never intended to finish most of them.  Nonetheless, I begin projects and plans and schemes that deeply occupy a moment of my attention and I promise myself that they will continued to hold my attention.  Countless times now, the idea or scheme or plan or project not only loses my attention but I lose the thought altogether.  Understanding my own fleeting interest in fleeting interests, I promise myself that I will do something that is both interesting and good for the soul — I am beginning a book club.  I intend not for it to be a group-gathering project or the opportunity for afternoons of lengthy discussion but rather a chance for my mind and soul to be replenished by what I feel is valuable literature (much of which I have, regrettably, avoided all of these years).  However, if the book club blossoms into something more, I will not protest.

I will begin in the beginning.  A list.  In no order but what comes to mind.

1. Brothers Karamazov, F. Dostoevsky
2. For Whom the Bell Tolls, E. Hemingway
3. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
4. Moby Dick, H. Melville
5. Brave New World, A. Huxley
6. Walden, H.D. Thoreau
7. The Master & Margarita*, M. Bulgakov
8. The Prince, N. Machiavelli
9. Confederacy of Dunces**, J. Toole
10. Slaughterhouse-Five, K. Vonnegut
11. The Republic, Plato
12. Ulysses, J. Joyce
13. Don Quixote, Cervantes
14. The Stranger**, A. Camus
15. Paradise Lost, J. Milton
16. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*, R. Pirsig
17. A Farewell to Arms, E. Hemingway
18. The Divine Comedy, D. Alighieri

As I have said, I have somehow avoided these works (except for those marked with an asterisk which I intend to finish* or re-read**).  I have been making a list of works that I wanted to get around to reading and those 18 should (I have lost it) cover it plus the re-reading and finishing of a few books.  I intend to start immediately.  I will first be re-reading Confederacy of Dunces because I just bought a good-looking hardcover copy.

Alright, time for a brief introduction to one of the most influential thinkers of Western Political Thought.

Bear with me, I am by no means an expert and all of what I have to say comes from individual learning as opposed to being taught in a formal setting. Teachers and philosophers out there, please offer your insight!

That said, Plato comes to us from Ancient Athens, around the years 427 to 347 B.C. He was a devout student of Socrates, who, unfortunately, never wrote anything down. Thus, Plato’s lessons and the wisdom handed down from Socrates are written in the form of a dialogue, imitating the dialogues that Socrates used to help individuals arrive at Truth. I’m sure you all have heard of the Socratic method, which is how Plato wrote the dialogues. In essence, the ‘wise’ figure (most often Socrates) would pose a question, such as, What is Justice? By asking repeated questions with regards to whatever answer the student gave, Socrates would eventually lead the student to the foundations for why they gave the definition as such. If, at that point, this foundation didn’t make sense, surely something was wrong and Socrates would have the student try again to arrive at Truth through his answers to questions. It was meant to be a learning process, and not a display to embarass whomever was caught in the contradictions of their definitions. If and when we hopefully get to Wittgenstein and his influences on Bertrand Russell, we’ll look more into the ideas behind a reality based in having concrete and accurate definitions such as those Socrates aimed to elicit.

Plato, like Socrates and later his student Aristotle, represent the beginnings of thinkers attempting to make sense of the world through the use of Reason. Reason’s a very abstract concept difficult to define, but in relation to Athens at the time, it’s basically a reliance on logic, particularly math, and analysis through the senses to cast off irrational notions about the world such as the polytheistic beliefs about the world that were prevalent at the time. This reliance on Reason, among other things, eventually leads to the Trial of Socrates where he is accused of rejecting the accepted deities, ‘corrupting the youth’ (I know…) and winning arguments essentially. (At its root, Athenian officials did not like being made to look like fools and assualted Socrates’ way of life basically, tragic.) Socrates lost the case, and was made to commit suicide by consuming poison hemlock. He could have run away to safety, but that’s a subject for another time.

Back to Plato.

Plato’s metaphysics (basic views about the nature of the world around them in terms of physicalness) are aptly described by a narrative Socrates describes commonly referred to as the Allegory of the Cave. For Plato, society at large is composed of individuals who, for basically their whole lives, live in a sort of shroud. A dark cave in this instance where light cannot reach. They are chained to a wall, and cannot move their hands or legs or turn their heads for that matter. All their lives they face a wall and watch as shadows formed from people carrying objects this wall move across (there’s a large fire in the back of the cave casting the shadows).  Because they know nothing else, the individuals can only assume the shadows they see form the basis for reality. A select few, throug the strength of their intellect, are able to break free of their bonds, escape from the cave, and reach the outside world where the brightness of the sun is at first blinding until they can reach an enlightened state and now truly understand the world and reality, since they have been exposed to the real objects and not just their shadows. For Plato, Reason is supreme.

This theory of the essence of objects being something far beyond the tangible ones we are exposed to everyday corresponds to Plato’s Theory of Forms, which I won’t get into right now.

Plato’s division between the enlightened and the not-enlightened is paralleled by divisions that Plato sees within man. Appetite, spirit, and reason. Appetite forms our needs like food. Spirit is our physical vitality, so how we move and defend our well being essentially. And reason is of course the human mind that guides actions. Plato goes on also (Socrates that is) into discussing the human soul as an immortal quality, but that’s something I can tackle later. Socrates argues the immortal quality of the soul requires that we take care in life to be good and just, because while our bodies may get sick and die, our soul never will, so it’s our priority not to corrupt it.

This tripartite sould continues on to create a tripartite society. There are those who supply the reason aspect, namely scholars and philosophers. The spirit is composed of the guardians and the army essentially. The appetite corresponds to the producers like farmers and merchants who supply society, and later the ’state’. (Not the U.S. state…) If you can’t already tell, Plato really likes the ‘Reason’ class of society. These divisions sort of form the basis for the ideal society. For Plato, the ideal society is one that secures and promotes justice. In its most basic, simplistic form, this equates to giving each his own due. (Polemarchues, in the Republic, offers this definition and Socrates shoots it down, but Plato argues the same thing sort of in just a different way, so be careful when you say ‘each his own due’) This means that everyone should fulfill the roles for which they are best suited. The rulers must be those strong in Reason, these are the ‘Philosopher-Kings.’ The army must be people who are strong in spirit, and everyone else basically the ‘providers’. The Philosopher-Kings are the ruling elite, but they are reluctant to rule and rule through wisdom and virtue alone. So while it seems Aristocratic, they’re not in it for power, one question we’ll pose on Wednesday.

When society fulfill’s this basic structure, and acts justly, then we have acheived the just society and everyone should be happy. Right? We’ll see what you all think on Wednesday.

So that’s a basic overview, a lot more coming up on some other ideas of his, followed by Aristotle, his student. I leave you with this quote from The Republic (Plato’s most well known work outlining the ideal society and the basic question, What is Justice?)

Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,… nor, I think, will the human race. (Republic 473c-d)

MP

I really have made a good-faith effort to exercise my brain by reading Plato’s Republic this week. I’ve picked it up, carried it around, even gotten through the first half of Book VII. But it is sloooooow going. I don’t know if it’s the drowse-inducing weather, the demands of kids and dog and household, the stress of coping with an out-of-town spouse, or just that it requires so much concentration for me and I need the perfect storm of energy, desire, and free time to make it happen.

True story: I fell asleep while reading The Republic and dreamed of Socrates. I don’t remember anything about our encounter, but I imagine he was irritating me. Professor Roochnik describes Socrates as “a very annoying person,” which I found a bit shocking at first glance. On second glance, this was a guy who would ask you questions and never be satisfied with your answer. He’d just keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it until you were ready to kick him. Or in the Athenian government’s case, to throw him in jail and give him a nice glass of hemlock.

What I’m doing instead is enjoying Diana Gabaldon’s latest novel in her Outlander series, An Echo in the Bone. I find Gabaldon’s writing hard to describe because she doesn’t really fit any category. Her fiction is both literary and genre, and the genres covered are romance, action/adventure, historical fiction, and sci-fi (both in the discussion of actual science and in the device of time travel). Her novels are long, contain lots of asides in Gaelic, and still manage to be riveting.

The protagonist, Claire Fraser, is a surgeon from the 1970’s who is living in 1777 America with her 18th-century Scottish husband, Jamie, and they are participating in the Revolutionary War while trying to escape back to Scotland. The detail, the scope, and the breadth of the research are delightful to read.

Especially while drinking Scotch. Specifically, a lovely 12-year-old single malt from the Islay region called Caol Ila.

Allow me to explain. See, as some people pair beautiful wines with their food, I like to pair drinks with what I’m reading.

Okay, that’s a lie.

The truth is that I’m susceptible to advertising. Much as watching a KFC commercial makes me want chicken (the Colonel puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ye crave it fortnightly!), reading Claire Fraser’s descriptions of delicious Scotch and its effects after a long day of [performing surgery/dealing with rebellious colonists/doing other fancy things I can’t do] makes me want Scotch.

I started reading her series about 18 months ago, and on the second time through I started experimenting with Scotches. Quickly I discovered that the only ones I like all come from the Islay region, an area where the peat undertone is dominant. It’s like having a campfire in my mouth.

I’m going to go pour a glass and dig back into An Echo in the Bone. Hope you’re having a lovely Friday night too.

Plato, The Republic, Bk I, 332 and following

I know I am moving slowly through the Republic, but who is in a hurry?

One of the things that stick out again to me regarding Socratic teaching is the amount of specific content that he rallies to his points. In trying to establish what justice looks like, he goes to a myriad of specific and clear “real life” details to get his pupil to see his point. He is in no hurry to rattle off a platitude and expect that to stick. Line by line he works the questions through a number of aspects in life: medicine, cooking, seafaring, etc.

He is leading the student from that which they can readily agree upon to that which they are discussing. If A, B, and C are agreed between us, then that leads us to D. It seems to be a very powerful form of inductive reasoning. Gathering what I know from specific instances, I can derive the general principle. What I particularly love here is that by leading Polemarchus through this discussion, he draws in the net around him by helping him see the weaknesses in Simonide’s position before he really seeks to establish any alternative. The net draws closer in 334b when he gets Pole. to admit that while Socrates has accurately stated his position, it is not what Pole. meant.

This is where, in dealing with ideas, we wish to get our students. Just for instance, take “kindness.” Most of our students will have a view of this term informed by a rather limited amount of experience and input. Our job is to question the inadequate views they might have of kindness, such as it only being for our friends, or only for those who reciprocate it, or that it is limited to gift-giving, or the like and get them to admit the “smallness” of their thoughts so we can then enlarge them.

This takes time (which we are always short of) and leisure to think about these things before leading other minds into thought about them. God bless us all with an abundance of both.

Plato’s Republic: Group Assignments:

For this assignment, you will each be assigned (at random) to read a section of The Republic. You must read, annotated and bring questions to your group on Thursday.

You will have the entire class period to work together to create a handout of your findings and interpretations.

You are working TOGETHER and everyone must do his/her part. If someone is unprepared, you are bringing down the team! Please let me know of any problems!

Things to keep in mind: What is the main point and what is the advice? What idea of justice and equality are presented in your piece? What is the overall idea about Utopia and how to reach it?

Please check THIS WEBSITE  if your link does not work. If you need hard copies, see me so I can print them for you.

*if you don’t see your name on this list, let me know ASAP!!!