idealsoc
Mon 08/25/08
rest of republic is proabaly plato's ideas
dialogues -- replated to a word .. euristics .. euristical dialogues .. elanktic dialogues -- not really provides ideas but criqueing other ideas
when soc wass doing his thing, philosophy was pretty enw .. beofre that there was retoric .. traveling teachers .. sophists
the sophists were primarily going to the various city states and hiring their servicdes out to the wealth .. teaching them how to succeed in politics
rhetoric -- making good speackes .. aruge and pursuade people
they were like socrates but socreates never took money for it
not just interested in how you suceed but what's the real truth
the sophists accepted political systems, socrates siad "what's really good?
.. threat -- so that's partially why he was tried and executed
book 1 is a doalogue itself and probably written before the rest .. pasted to the front
original intention might have beenn to be a standalone dialgue
Per. was a sophist
debate is confusing because it never satisfactorally answers the questions
a lot of word play rather than really getting to the trouth
eristics .. an excrise that sophists used as training for the young people
you would have one person called the responder / answerer pose a statement or definition and another student ask yes/no questions and try to get this person into a contradiction .. game / contest
if yo could reach the time limit w/o a contrdiction, they won, other wise other person won.
kinda like a cross-examination.
plato modified that concept
socratic dialogues
plato tried to put a positive spin on it .. turned off by the negative aspects of it .. aad thought that this kind of discuss could actuaaly be a postiive exercise rather than just tear somthing down .. coined dialectics .
elantict - comes from elencius -- when the questioner would win .. that was either a refutation or ...
greek word was elancus
since many of the early dialgoues are like that .. they're often colled elantic dialgoues
these plato wrote early in his carreer and the just stopped writting them
republic is an exposition . probably these were used as textbooks
probably the elantic dialgoues were not used i the academy .. deicded that that metohd was dangerous
most imprtant book for plitical lit or utopian philosophy
utopian lit is the republic and "a bunch of footnotes"
social contract theory -- civil society is formed out of the state of nature .. people get together and agree to form a society
utilitarian -- scientific ethics (vs based on religion)
liberal -- 1) adherance to free entrprise (captialism) 2) value on inteelectual liberties 3) democratic form of political deicsion making
structure of "the republic"
-------
alterior motive not reavealed in teh eginning
the first part of the republic is this elenctic dialogue called persymachus .. .. some of the big issues that will be discuessed
basically a computation on several different vieews on justice
negative dialgoue in the sense that nothing positive is agreed to
book 2. the soul-state analogy .. (state: plitical orgainization of the society) .. ar. and gla. are not at all satisfied with what happens in book 1
they don't feel that the question of why should you be just hasn't really been answered.
in book 1 , P basically says that justice is relative -- based on power .. sorta refluted in a word game sort of way but it really doesn't answer "why be just"
socrates does take the challenge -- will give a better view -- but has to define justice
they talk about justice and injustice but never define it. get the sense that they're talking about the standard interperetation but they never say
so in the second part -- books 2-4 -- what plato says .. before i can teel you why its good to be just .. we have to figure out owh=what justice means
what is justice in the city -- then we can see what it meaans in the inidivual person
so answering the question -- what do we mean by the just person .. but maybe he's really meaning to describe an ideal society
that goes on for 3 books
by the end of that point, he supposedly has definied justice .. just state and just person as analogy
at that pont, ready to discuess the unjust states and unjust souls
3rd part -- interrupted .. one huge digression.
logically he would give you a catalog of all just and unjust states and souls .. so you can see why just soul is preferable.
but glacon interrupts him and asks for more explanation -- but there's a good chance that actually this is the most important part.
some ff the most controversial parts of the republic -- equality of women .. in the ideal state, women are equal t o men in all respects -- even in war.
communism - not just economic but communal families .. abolishes the nuclear family ..
.. alegory of the cave
.. the theory of forms
philospher king - contratory to what the people of athens thought bout phiolosophers .. ie, danger to status quo or no proctical common sense
to plato , the philosopher is the only person capable of ruling the ideal state
books 5-8
part 4. -- plato gets back to the catalog of unjst states and soulsfinally compares the just person to the totally unjust person
byt this point socrates has essentially had answered the challege -- bettter to be just than unjust
.. even if the just person gets no benefits
book 9.
book 1.
Poly's dad = cephelus
persimus is the sophist
glacon and adamantus .. platos brothers
this dialouge is probably fairly historically acurate
cephalus -- you've got all this money , what's the benefit.
nice thing -- "i can kinda make up for it" and it can make sacrifices to the gods.
plus, having money he feels he can tell the truth to people because you don't have to care about your money
makes him comfortable when he dies.
justice to him : truthful and pay all his debts .. either actual debt or an injury he did
soc starts asking questions: is it just to repay all your debts?
should you give the knife back when the owner has gone insane?
so, not just does this belong to someone but is it fitting .. requres knowledge -- mabye returning the knofie is not fitting.
maybe the definition is not toally incorrect but it lacks
parlimarchus takes over the definition: says .. nice to friends and bad to enemies
really what we need to do is be good to freinds and do harm to enemies
ie, giving people what they deserve.
attack: but humans make mistakes .. dimension of knowledge -- presupposes you're right about who your friends are
that part he's able to correct .. when i use tese terms i'm using them technically .. only when they're right about hings
2) if you are being just you are making somebody less just.. kinda backwords.
-------
Wed 08/27/08
book I -- difficult for a number of reasons
justice not really definied
persymichos uses the words in reverse
debate switches .. who's superios .. just or unjust.
socrates says its the just person
seems to be the common definition
polymarchus .. second definition of justice
some of the rebuttals that socarates came up with
according to his definitin of a just person .. aids friends, harms enemies .. are you being just if you make a mistake?
but socrates asks .. what would be the kind of activity that a just person would be best at?
polymarchus says war .. given my definiton .. the most valuable activity is war.
socrates syas: wouldn't justice be useless in peace time?
that's when poly says money
socrates pushes the issue --- when is the just person most valueable with money?
concludes the saving of money.
then basically you're saying that the only time a just person is valuable is when money is of no use
if you're good at holding money, you can be very good at stealing it too, so there can b eproblmes with that
knowing who your friends are .. poly fixes that by saying that justice includes doing it with the knowledge of who your firends and enemies are
persimochos says that might makes right -- people who hold political power deicde what is just
socrates piookes holes at it
compares governing to other "arts" being a sheapherd or a doctory.
in all the other arts, the person doing the art correctly when they do it on something other than themselves
if rule=ing is like an art, then it must be similar .. must be directed to something other.
so something wrong with persymichuses definition
persymechus says about the sheapard - eventually that sheep will be slaughtered .. so really an alterior motive
socrates wants to make distinctions between the different roles we have
when a sheapherd is practtcing sheapery is acting on behalf of the sheapord
it's true that the sheaperd willl get a benetfit from it, .. that's wage earning and it's separate - compensation
distinction between the actual pracice of sheaparding with what he might get from it as a wage earner.
somewhat of a rebuttal
laos, makes the knowledge point -- what if your rulers don't knoow what's in your best inteest .. maybe they construct their laws wrong .. is that still justice according to your definition.
eventually Persymichus says that he's including the fact that ttey know what's in their best interest .. otherwise, they're not ruling
justice has to have some component of knowledge
if yyou look at people who rulle, they expect to get paid for it .. if Persymichus was right, whey are they getting paid ofr it?
there must be this idea that they're providing a service.
socrates, in my mind, the just person would not even rule for wages .. such a burden .. can only be compelled to rule is for the greater good .. otherwise, some one esle, who's not worhty will do it and screw things up.
the question shifts .. persymichus says, I don't care what you say, I'm going to say that hheeunust person is really the just person . person whos superior
better to be unjust than just says persymichus
how greeks think:
the unjust person according to persymichus is always out ot get more
by doing that persym says hte unjust person is superior in that respect.
greeks did not treat excellence as more .. but more like hitting th right musical note rathr than getting mooe points
socrates reminds persymochus of that ..
so youu definitio of the unust man, doesn't appreciate the true meaning of excellence.
this seems to have effect .. persymichus doesn't really argue for the other pages.
how could he have argued? by being perfectly unjust .. excellence
with the idea of hitting the right pitch, you can't do better than perfect pitch, but that doesn't mean that all forms have to be necessarily like hitting the perfect pitch.
like persymychus has gotten tired of arguing
also says that this discussion is not really that important to persymachus .. he's not interested in truth .. just arguing.
maybe plato didn't have a good response so he didn't include it
the seond arguement is a little easier to unnerstand.
gang of theives idea .. a gang will only be successful if they are just to each other, so you can't be completely unjust.
you can't be tootally unjust even if you're trying to do stuff in a group that's mean and nasty
need coocrdination to do your motive
goes down to two
but then just one person .. really unjust .. then the various parts of the soul are fighting each other too much
but are the parts of an indivual analogous to the individuals in a gnag of theives
other problems: there is honor amoung theves .. they coorporate with each other to rob a truck
.. unjust as far as you need it.
but persymachus doesn't argue
third debate/argument .. this is probably the most bogus argument of the three
greek idea that every thing in the universe has a particular function or reason for being .. telos.. so for example .. a knife .. has a telos .. to cut things.. that's it's reason for being .. it's function.
in conjustion with the ocncept of telos is the idea that hhe object has some sort of virtue that allows it to achive it's telos .. ex: sharp edge of a knife.
human beings have a telos.. never very preciesely definiteed but identified.
a human being's function is to live the good life.
even though we don' have a definitin of the good life.
the the virtue is justice .. so justic is the virtue at hat allows a human being to achive their uliimate purpose .. therebore, jutice must be superior to injutice.
.. but the original point was that the unjust person gets all the goodies
the reader should be dissatisfied with these arguements. word games .. and we want meaty arguments
so book2 -- platos brothers .. they belive in philosophy and they know what they heard so far isn't doig the trick.
show us the two people just and unjest .. but give us a just person who's reupation is the opposite -- treated like durt .. make that the just .. make the unust cleaver enough so that he can fool people .. pretend to be just.. material and respect and honor.
and hte unust has enough to pay off the gods .. the unust person will get at leat the same benefit and the just person..
takes away the theological argument .. why be good if you have no reward in heaven.
you have to convince us underr these contraints that the just person would still be credible.
beginning of soul -state analogy
socrates uses the state and hhe city as a comparision for the person
arguments by anoalogy are commen but they can be kinda problmeatic .. is ttere really a good analogy?
gotta justify the analogy or the argument breaks down.
idea also of if you see osmething larger is better .. not always true -- solar systems.
just person analogous to the society
how does a state come into being:
producing class -- people who produce things that are necessary to live .. rudimentary state.
states happen naturally out of a state of nature becuase we need each other economically speacking . on person might be goo d a carpetnry , etc. natural talent.
natural attraction of people to get together.
luxurious state - merchants, actors, peotts .. not just bare necessity .. culture emergies .. have to have doctors and judges.
as the city expands, it needs more space and there are presumably other states like it.. just like you need to expand, others need to . so you need soldiers not just for the sake of conquest but also to defend land.
why the wars from a just city -- well, we're learnin a definitin of justice that were not used to
who's going to be a soldier? make it their economic telos .. specialization .. idea is that everbody is doing what they do best (comes from the pforming of the rudimentary state) .. aren't certain people goig to be better at that.. isn't that the thing they do best .. .. views these talents as innate , but it takes the right training as well.
to plato the education is really important .. like ding wool -- you need good wool and good dying technique.
having the talents and then getting a bad education will runin you .. and good education doesn't help a person with no talent.
characteristics for the warrier class - adept at war somewhat atheletic, spiritedness, and philosophy
spirited .. not a good translation for it .. something about a person that makessthe be courageous. .. sorta an empotion .. but unteachable necessary ingredient.
if you just have spirited and adept then they might just turn on you. uses the watch dog analogy .. the guardinans have to be like watch dogs .. kind to the people they're guarding but mean to the people outside.
watch dog automaticaly loves the htings it knows and hates the things he doesn't know.
so the watch dog has a "philosophic" nature .. "lover of knowledge" .. kinda the nature needed for the guardians .. have to have this type of wanting to like and love the things that they know an not like tht things they don't know.
eventually , as we take this guardian class, we have to separate into two classes . who really are destined to the highest leve -- political leaders
rulers and the remaining -- auxilerary and they havee distinct roles.
blasting the education that says sooldiers should want to die.
high schoool education for these sholdiers. .. censored.
-------
Fri 08/29/08
page 92 -
in defining the just state , spearated in to two parts
the guardians at the top -- superior to the rest of the people
/\
/ guardians \
----------
/everyone else\
---------------
page 90, 91 .. we see a further delination in the picture the guardian class is separated - rulers, and the rest of the top .. in theory it could be 1 or just a few.
the lower level guardians .. auxilerary
guardians -- the top two parts together
how do we make this separation of the guardians into two classes? what do we look for?
discussion of the education they'd get in the ruler class as kids -- very censored .. appropriate way of thinking.
ideally, the indiviual and the state shouldn't be distinguishable
series of oreals , tests, trials to see which of these guardians really stick to these beliefs .. or do some change their minds
go through this testing process to see which ones are really gong to be elligable for the higher slot
the noble lie..
everyone is made of certain medials .. the highest class is gold, then silver for aux, and bronse or tin for the rest
story beings that the original inhabitants were orignally inside the oearth and then born form the earth ..
while they were in the earth, the metals were mixing with their souls .. they are idfferent foom each other depending on the kind of metal
and as a society progresses, those metals reporoduce themselfs in future generations
genecics was easy enoygh to bserve back then .. noble parents can give birhh to "good" kids
so through the generations we have either god, silver, bronse
no explanation for why that can't be mixed together
not really a myth .. myth is a metaphor for soething that isn' litterally trrue
but in this case, socrates wants the people to actually believe this.
not really a lie either .. noble lie . how political liders have to lie for the good of the state .. connotation .. usually can lead if found out to damage .. not like a white lie
to call it a like is kinda strange too .. socrates wants the leaders to actually believe this too - giant falsehoood --
at least two reasons for this like ..
coming out of the earth -- the idea that the land they live on .. give them a natural love for it .. as if its their mother .. even though i might have originally been obtained unjustly .. patrriotism
political objective to have this thing about the metals .. legitimatizes the structure ..
later on, we find out when they start talking about the just state, they talk about moderation -- might be related to having that particular virtue
in many ways, this is a meritocracy .. idea that people should serve the state in the best way they can .. people selected to be the rules are supposed to be the best people from society
if son, hen why this lie -- well maybe people won't believe that there's a special quality
rulers selected by rulers
this stuff about what it takes to be a ruler seems pretty subjectigve .. maybe because its so abstract and subjective there might be a tendancy to believe that the rulers mkae mistakes .. don't always pikc out the best people
whereas if there's something really concreate .. gold, silver, bronse, it maky make it seem like the decision making is not as subjective .. the lower people don't know why they see it but the fact that htey believe that thisese thigs exist allows them to say that maybe therulers are seeing these objective qualities.
similar to divine right to rule
way of legitimizing political power
this idea is radical for the time
athens primarily know as the first democracy ..
this idea state is not a democracy .. either monarchy or aristocracy
democracy everybody rules
so socrates and plato were anti democracy
socrates lists democracy as second from the bottom on the list of just states.
only ting worse was depotism -- ruled by an evil person.
so this work was quite cohntroversial.
noble law -- modern example
- weapons of mass destruction
are noble laws necessary?
plato -- dogmatic .. not open to a variety of positons but rather asserts that he really understands reality
can be an awefully aragant additude .. leads to censorship, etc
if there's one true society .. shouldj't we do everything we can to create that
but aren't there mooe than one just person / ideal society
republic sorta dispmisses individuality .. or ties it intimately with the needs of the state
socrates places less of a value on personal freedom
94 - 96 - lifestyle of the guardians
doesn't metin the lifestyle of the artisan class
we can deduce that the artizan class 's personal lives are very much spent like normal -- they would have their indivual homes, spouses, children , etc
but there's a prescription for the lifestyle / how they are to live of the guardians
- no private wealth / property
all live in common .. very spartan
plato was an admirer of sparta .. thought it was closer to the idea society than athens
everything in common including family
given enough to eet but not overly fed - given a wage but only enough to survive on .
they've got nothing materially .. just enough to exist on .
the lifestyle of the guardian class is intended to achive this idea of the guardian sthinking o their self-interest as totally tied to the state
what keeps the people in the state?
the artizan class is probably pretty content -- so not so much of a problem wwth the artizan class saying they don't like the society.
in this state, the people you think might leave are the peop.e at the top
only communistic at the top .. artisans are different ..
but the guuardinas don't leave because they've been trained right
if you neverrhave gold and silver and thy're taought that they're not good, then you'll never desire them.
but if you're a guardian and yo see all these artizans having all these benefits, they you might want to be like them.
page 96 - you caal this an idea state and have the guardians live like this!
soc says I'm creating the ideal society as a whole - not necessarily a particular subgroup happy.
he doesn't even contend that they're less happy .. egven with this lifestyle , i'm not ready to admit that his group is not happy
there are some pleasures that the rulers have . have to do with filosophy .. what they're going to experience beyound material pleasures
99-101 - discussion of what the main objectives of rulers
in times of peace .. not letting the state get too right .. and not too poor either.
ideal amount of money that one could have .. sorta a golden mean in how rich a state is.
too poor, can't function
too rich -- soft .. might be conquired
also golden mean in terms of physical size .. make sure that the society doesn't beoome too msall in area and population or too large
if you get too large -- thers will make you a target
large - hard to protect
mor room for dissent .. if it wrre bigger -- less unity .. easier to feel tied to a small community .. the larger the oommunity gets, the more you feel like the common interest is diffused.
this mmodel doesn't scale at a certain point
managing an economy
the selection of rulers -- one of the most important duties of the current rulers
education - managed by the rulers -- make sure that it doesn't get corrupted
laws to create -- not something ke's worried about -- the rulers will know what laws to create and the artisans will just act right if everything's organized correctly.
the main thing is that if you get th right people in charge, they'll know what to do.
religious matters -- do it the old fashioned way -- instruction from oracle of delphi
what are the virtues of the ideal society?
eudaimonia - happiness -- .. human flurishing
.. being all you can be . in a moral sense.
so the tels of a human being is essentially to achieve eudaimonia
four virtues that allow a human being or state to achive their ultimate purhpose:
wisdom/produnce
courage/fortitude
moderation / temperance
justice
cardinal virtues -- of utmost importance . virtues that'll allow a human being to reach the good life .. to be full moral agents in the sense that was intended for them.
the first time that these are listed as the cardinal virtues is in the republic -- and there's no real debate .. why not??
figure out justice by process of elimination .. indentifies the other three
wisdom -- what part of our society has the wisdom --> the leaders , political rulers .. who's main role is to keep the good of the city as a whole
wisdom .. knowledge of what's good for the city as a while is explicity a virtue of the rulers
not just smart -- certain type of smartness
courage - funny one in the republic -- not bravery as such .. happy medium between two extremes for all these virtues
not powerless and not toal fearlessness, but kinda a happy median between those two extremes.
courage -- knowing what sort of things are terrible.
so not fearlessnes but knowing what's terrible and hwat's not
part of this .. who are your friends and who are your enemies
knowledge of what to fear and what not to fear
courage - primarily the aux have it .. but rulers have it too .. courage is the absolute necessary virtue for the aux
moderation / temperance. page 110. temperance / moderation .. a virtue that applies to the entire society .. absolutely necessary for the lowest group to have this particular virtue.
ruled should know that they should just be "farmers" .. everbody is in their proper position in society
so what is justice then?
minding one's own business .. internal harmony
society in which everyone is doing their appropriate function
what might be unjust . when these things get out of wack -- people who aren't supposed to be rulers are ruling
the start of this idea is base on the idea that specialization is important
but what if it's best for people to do a variety of things
so the premise he started with is used to justify where he ends up.
read next -- look at how socrates and plato achive this puzzle:
how do you keep you ruleing class totally to identify wihh the state and not their own personal intersts and still practice good eugenics .. want to procreate the good people.
-------
Wed 09/03/08
---
courage
temperance -- the sense that this arrangement was most appropriate
especially most iimportant for the ruled class.
justic is kinda what's left over.
-- each part of the state attending to its own business.
page 114
is the individual soul orignaized like the state?
since we started wth two parts in the state, we separate the soul into two parts
distinctin between reason annd spirit ..
most people will accept that ther's a rational side and something else .. mental and physical.
that gives us two parts .. but we need three
can we distinguish something else .. spirited .. emotion
the spiritedness has to be similar to one side .. like the rules and the aux.
story of looking at the dead bodies
desire to look at the gore but kows it's not too classy to do so
but does so and gets angry ...
this extra part seems to be associated wit the rational part rather than the irrational
but perrhaps the spirited ness is really an aspact of the rational
justifies that by saying even babies can cry even though they don't have developed reason.
Prof. L
now le'sts identify the cardinal virtues in the person.
reason associated with rulers
spiritedness associated with the aux
aux -- hands and arms making the rules will happen -- so they're the spirited ones.
so wisdom ties back to the telos of the human soul -- achieve full human flurishing
wisdom is that virtue ttat understands what it takes to lead the good life
spiritedness .. like the will .. yes, we hear what needs to be done.
temperance in the individual soul ..
if apetites have temperance .. ttey have a tendancy to be controllable by reason
justice in the individual soul .. your reason is actually ruling your life .. based on what your reason tells you
everything in its right place .. appetites aren't bad .. necessary but thee have their appropriate place -- not in charch of how we live our lives.
justice in the soul -- moral healthiness .. and that's almost intrinsically desireable
the challenge was to demonstrate that justice is desirable no matter the ocnsequences .. could end the argument right here.
not just just soul and in just soul
but four levels of injustice
four types of unjust states , four types of unjust individuals
but he's interrupted at this point .. and this is where the digression takes place
when he said that the guardians whould have all things in common, he needs to explain himself
1. women .. when he saad the gurdians have wives and children in common, hen there must be women on the scene .. what are they doing there ... do they just hang out?
when you think about the qualities that are needed for a guardian, virtually everything is gender neutral .. except strength
says that there might be a difference in muscular strength
otherwise, the genders are eqal .. so they are treated equally for all practical purposes
now aditting, even though the education section seems to talk about just men, that woman are part of the guardians.
in some ways, this is a very modern idea .. perhaps more equality in this than in modern US
we have some enlightened ideas but not the social strucutre to back them up
plato says if we want some enlightened ideas to inform our state, we have t redo our social structures
second wave, solution for what seems like a real dilemma .. he doesn't want the guardians to have individual families -- draw them away from the state .. so anything that would smack of an individual family , would draw you attention from the state.
so one way to solve that problem would be to say that these gurdians will not have families .. like catholic preists
problem of breeding .. idea the peole from the lower class would not have the right metal in them.
you don't want to take the best people in yyour society and say you cant have kids .. from the genetic point of view .. that would be nutty.
how does he allow the guardians to havee children w/o families
marriage festival
some perioid of time .. once a year .. that lasts probably 30 days. during that 30 day period , a certain select group of the guardian class will be paired up .. assignments made
and encouraged to have sexual relations for that 30 day period of time.
7-9 months after the festival we get a batch of children .. they take them away from the parents and raise them together .. and they're just treated as a batch .. not individual children.
who gets into this festival .. war heroes, be a certain age .. that makes sense .. procreting at the most healthy period of time. beyond that, that's part of the job of the rulers .. to figure out who gets to participate. that could create a problem .. dissention.
they are prohibited from relations almost all the time .. 30 day peroid where some are allowed tto have relations and some are not.
if they don't pick someone, they'll get mad.
so they try to pass it off as a lottery .. even though they are deciding the best of the best.
related to the noble lie.
doesn't that take out a lot from the guardian class? we'll its a small proportion that are actually in the festival, maybe.
if a child doesn't turn out to be guardian material, give them to the artisan.
sacred duty? wll to the state ..not religion
problem of incest. have to keep good records to determine that.
the batch of cildren call htemsleves brothers and sisters .. but they're not .. they should be the ones that are allowed to have sex with each other.
ss there must have been some good record keeping ... they prabably know which parents are associated with which children .. but that's kept secret.
remember, sacred dugty to the state .. personal preferences are the state's.
possibility -- is this ideal state even possible
socrate-'s short answer . philosophy .. only possible if philosphers were rulers or kings became philosophers.
but what doesshe mean by philospher?
Prof. L.
some of the things he's saying seem to go so against the grain of our most basic tendancies ...
early on we wanted to banissh the poets ..corrupting the citizens with negativie thoughts .. poets can be very pursuasive .. when you reaaly want to say something in a compelling way .. artists .. poets
murdering for the sake of beloved, going to war, etc.
made into a very romantic kind of story ..
plato said get ride of these writers .. sayihg disasterous toughts and very pursuasively
when plato talked bout the good soul being healthy .. appetities are a l9ittle used to submiission to the will.
the right poets will talk about moderation, etc .. willl help us learn and feel that it's normal to have appetites in check.. will to be fighting the good battle. that's a healthy psyche ..
and what mroe arguemnt is needed.
but he hasn't proved that that is health .. reason ruling the will ..
is that healthy? maybe plato was really way off base .. hasn't proven that that's the heatlhy way to be .. and to do this, he has to say .. this really is the best way to be .. gotta make an argument for that is by going metaphysical.
he can't show us through our normal world phenomenon how this is a healthy psyche. gotta go beyond our natural world.
and so he goes metaphysical.
metaphysical -- what really consititues ulitmate reality .. vs physical world
other things out there that aren't tangile .. only through our reason can we get hold of them.
Arche
-- anarchy -> w/o rule, government, chaotic, ssambles, lacking order, structure / goverrmet and law
an -- negative prefix
arche .. order ..
pliosphers search for an arche for the world.
that by reference to which everything else makes sense. .. ie, the college's mission is to eeducation.
what are some courses that further education?
what most promotes education .. becuase that's your arche.
another example -- planning a hospital
arche -- welness/ health.
financial considerations
good idea to have people who know health inside and out that plan.
health is the arche .
lab technicians are important .. but have to realize that what they're doing is in the service of health.
anaology -- mission statement. how does this further the missions statement -- the arche expressed out.
sometimes you get so engrossed in what you're doing, you take the eye of the target.
arche of the republic: justice
he will say that we need to keep ou eye on justice as we form the state .. everything .. the way food is distributed.
so the planner must be someone who truly understands justice.
metaphysics - if i want the philospher to be someone running the state, i want this philospher to really understand justice ... so i'm going to have him want judge judy -- not sufficient. .. applicaton of justice.
imperfect ideas of justice by just watching it.
even for us to have some inclings of justice .. there must be some perfect Justice .. the form. eternial perfect entities.
goodness is the form that informs all other forms.
we want the philosopher to learn the form. .. never see it .. because we're phiscally oriented ..
philosopher needs to keep his eye on Justice with a J>
the way to learn about the forms is to open up our soul a bit more -- look outward .. sojmething bigger out there ..
like religion .. rather than lecture .. , wake up that spiritual part of you.
plato's system tries to tap that part of our soul that understands the forms .. and seeks and understands justice.
cave analogy .. philosphers try to pull us out of the cave.
philospher king wil try to create a state with an eye on JUstice.
why is the state built around justice and not goodness? well really interchangeable with goodness, etc.
-------
Fri 09/05/08
first paper -
this book or next book or compare
thesis is your choice
theory of forms -
to understand what's going ion in th reading, need to know the forms.
forms -- metaphsycis - concept of reality .. doesn't defend the validity of it -- assumes that it is true.
states it as if a fact in the republic -- dogmatic
what do we mean by a form?
template
pure - complete, single, unmixed
changeless
abstract
ultrareal -- if the pysical is real, then the other thing is utrareal - higher form of reality
perfect - we experience things that have this .. but not in its purest form
no erfect table in the world of apperances -
one idea of a table -- all these tables are imperfect examples
form of a table is it's inaate tableness
equilateral triangle .. can only have sort of an equalateral triangle
math is reaaly important i this dialog - math takes things in its pure form.
abstractions are more real - can only experience it through pure thinking
language-dependant
.. a little problematic
the thing we can say for sure is that this is a higher reality
rally influences everything that follows ... arguements in foavor of the philospher king
higherarcy of forms
sometimes beaty is the highest, sometimes justice .. he's inconsistance
good as highest form - compare to sun .. two wayys: the sun enables us to see things .. in this world of appearacnes ..enables our visiion to work .. in the same way inthe form of the good is that forms which enables us to percieve the other forms.
secondly - the sun is the source of the existance of most things in our physical world -- the sun is the reason for existance .. so is the good the sorce of the other forms.
.. starts to sound liike god language
why didn't he just call it god ? becuase the crime of impiety was still a captial crime .. one that socreates was actually convicted of .. still doing trials when this was written. so he's not ging to call good God.
so maybe he just didntt want to make that extra step.
so we have this ultimate reality -- different ways to understand it.
line of cognition ..464
imagine a line that has been divided into two parts.
then subdivide the two parts with the same proportin
intelligable
visible { (trust)/(image, imaginationn)
platonic dualism ..
appearances, forms
rhings vs images ..
accuracy
when we exist in the real world some of our ideas are false .. some are true up to a point -- some of the understanding of the physical world is accurate some isn't
how accuriate is it? if we're seeing it accurately, we're at the trust / belief state, but if we're wrong about things .. then that's at the lowest level - imagination.
top half -- intelligable
at the very top is forms, intellection
bottom of top - mathematical objects , thought
visualizes math as being dealing with pure idea -- sees it as a bridge between the world of appearances and the world of forms.
so the philospher has to get to the top -- a philosopher does not really represent an activity as such -- its an achievement .. getting to the top ff the line of cognition -- fulll understnading of ultimate reality
if you can get to the top of the line, you will understand what justice is in the purest sense -- you will know what goodness is ..
know how to put justice in a society you are called tt rule.
this metapyhor is followed by another meteaphor .. see picture
alegory of the cave ...
cutouts of dogs, cats .. etc
the light of the fire will cast a shadow on the wall .. these people will think that those shadows are real.
and echos as actual sound.
lowest level of cognition -- shadows on the wall
what's real are the cutouts.
so the cardbord figures represent trust and belief, but these people don't understand that
but that's not real either -- they're cardboard cutouts
so the cave as a whole represents the lower half.
if somebody has their chains removed, educated -- somebody has to release them .. imagine this person released fom the chains .. would be able to say that the shadows are wrong.
suppose we have a number of people like that.
.. auxilerarys in our ideal society
what if that person who ahs seen the cutouts can take a long journey to the goound level - that probably represents the transition between appearances to the true world .. so that would be like math
but the math only takes you so far.
exiting the cave -- really really bright .. almost blinded.
.. the person gets to see the real thing -- the forms.
after percieving these real objects, he sees the sun --> realizes that its the source of seeing these other objects .. the sun is the good.
.. dialectics -- if we have two peoople trained engauging in dialogue, could make it all the way to the top -- perceive th4e forms.
now that person has to go back in the cave -- must rule .. but you can't see in the cave -- look like a clutz
-------
Mon 09/08/08
philosopher outside the cave .. would rather stay .. but goes back to tell the others
but hwnn the person goes back down there , he appears as not very competent becuase has to get used to the darkness again.
takes awhile for the person to get aclamated to thh cave again.
line of cognition
extended discussion about the education of the future rulers which parallels this.
education of the guardian class -- we read before -- was primary educaton -- up to about the age of 17
perhaps 5-17 - indoctrination to it .. what they're going to be able to hear, listen to .. very controlled to provide the best images to the person
after that age of 17 .. three yea period: gymnastics -- physical educaiion .. said to be able three years worth .. really military training
probably the end of the educatio for the guardians tat are aux
now, the most talented peopoe go on for further education: (future rulers)
.. start with math -- this mathematical training - 20-30 years (so ten years of training(?)) .. followed by
dialectics (30 -35) .. at the end for several reasons
.. the really only way to make tee final step to the forms .. no other way of thinking apparently will work .. dialectics .. positive spin on euristics
dialetics done too early can be a danger too .. more than rhetoric .. has the power to give you the wrong ideas .. put you down the wrong path. . some evidence was that it wasn't even used in the acadmey he founded
by 35 - has received knowledge all the way up to the forms
this has been a period of pure thought for five years, so they're out of touch with the common person .. so they come back in the cave -- look like clutzes .. so it takes
35-50 - about 15 years to get these people reacclaimated -- so they're secondary rulers -- administration.
by 50 -- ready to take their final role as rulers of the society
what they do in math .. why is it in there:
4 are standar math .. 1 added by plato
every subject has both problems and theorums .. plato assumed that both areas would be covered but the theoretical aspects are more important.
1) arithmetic / number theory . queen of mathematics .. the theory behind integers .. and its not that easy .. factorization, prime numbers, integer solutions to equations
2) plane geometry - practtcal -- and intro to theorums and proofs .. ,
3)solid geomtry - 3d objects
4) astronomy - he thought the motions of the heavens hd an aspect of omore than just the natural world -- but still imperfect
5) harmonics - understanding sounds .. a lot of things that can be described as ratios .. the practtcal side .. that's sort of the equivalent of fractions .. but also music theory .. very much mathematical
first too and last two were commonly thought of as math at the time.
forms appearances
pure mathematics .. somewhere inbetween
we can think of a perfect circle easily even though it doesn't reaaly exist
.. axiums , basic truths, postulates .. axiums .. sorta like semi forms .. certain kinds of truths that just seem self-evident
through a point not on the straight line you can draw exactly 1 parallel line
euclid's elements did not exist at this point .. but he was not making it up either -- he kinda just put it all together
axiums --> theorums
from a given set of statements going to statements that are derived from
through deductive reasoning
there are formal rules of logic .. like pure thought ..
idea of just coming up with new statements that are true using just pure thought , logic
you could argue that theorums are closer to forms
axiums .. semi forms, jv forms
need to get from axiums to forms
.. dialectics .. formal logic is not sufficient
how can the dialecdts really get you any further if you've basically been brainwashed for 30 years??
ryan's analygy
dialectics:other proof methods::euristics:proof by contradiction
euristics .. if the questioner wins, he gets't eh responder into a contradiction
all this stuff is the huge dirgression .. bgan when adieumantes and glacon askeddwhat socrates really meant when he said that teeguardina class ahd all things in common including wifes and children
.. marriage festival
guardian class having children in common but they don't know who's children are whol's
communism .. sharing everything
cave
education of future rulers.
defense of philosophy
.. apology for philosophy. .. philosophy is the most important activity that goes on in a state
not subversive to the state -- you should be the state.
what was plato reaaly trying to do .. ultimately this is an apology frr philosophy ..
which brings up another question - isn't the apology a defense of philosophy?
certainly a lot of important stuff has occured in this digression
the digression started when socrates was going to catalog all states of unjust souls
no now he resumes the catalog of unjust states/souls.
just state <--> just soul
historical dimension -- ideal state unravels into the unjust society
.. really just a way to talk about deterioration
just state deteriorates into a ..
(justice is having all the bits in balance .. people ruling are doing their just and nothing else, .. artizans are doings their trades .. everyone attending to their own business)
(just soul .. intelligence, spiritedness, appetites .. moral healthyness)
deterioration -- something gets screwed up in the marriage festival .. was designed vey carefully to produce rulers
.. no souls with 'gold' .. ..
so the subpar children will become rule s-- they're going to promote some people
but the cream of the crop is not capable becaase of the errors in the marriage festival
so they are goin to be more like .. aux who isntt fit to be a ruler -- primary virtue is courage -- spirited aspect of society .. courageous war-like .. so people in the highest leves who aren't capable of the theory of forms .. but they value war -like characteristics the most
so now the people whith silver are ruling ..
timocracy .. timarchy
.. the second level
not ideal but it's not too bad -- unjust but least unjust of the possible states.
emphasis on honor, military prowess
love of honor / military honor -- plato had a lot of respect for sparta
403 -- unverthrough spartan rule .. new democracy .. but very concerned .. so that might explain why they executed socrates
sparta -- spartan .. bare bones .. very kind of lack of luxury .. valued warefare .. plato like it better than the democracy in athens.
not the idea state .. but closest to the idea on the list of unjust states.
how does a just father have a timocratic son
.. child hears the complaints about the father from the iiea solciety -- but he does like some aspecdts of the father .. the courage, etc .. so he becomes more dominated by that part and devalues the intelectial aspects of the father.
oligarchy/plutocracy - rule by the property owners
what qualifies you to be in charge - having more property etc .. minimum levee of wealth
how do we get there?
the society was one that was supposed to have no gold and silver -- guardian class very spartan
some of these rulers begin to stash away some money .. and somehow they begin to become more attrached to wealth than they do to honor
wealth becomes the measure, eventually of how they are determined. people in charge are the people who have the money
family:
something hapens to the timocratic father .. somehow that honor was taken away .. so that person was esentially destitute .. the child sees this and says this is aweful .. money is important .. gotta have security over honor .. honor takes a back seet .. obsessed with the acquisition of wealth.
2nd to last in injustice .. democracy.
demogratic state and soul
democracy - everything goes --
everyone has political power
how does a state devolve from oligarchy to democracy. ..
in this oligarpchy you have poor people who are unable to contribute to society .. beggars. .. rich contribute to the problem
create an underclass of poverty
.. can be a very unstable society ..
why do these people have the money? create a society where we're all equal .. both material and political .. associated with freedom.
not all the people are capable of ruling .. so if you have everyone in charge, you have almost the worst kind of society possible
transofrmation in the soul..
oligaric person is dominated by the apetite of material gain
cheap
clever
hard worker, positive role model, frugal, save their money
have taken one apitite and let it rule the soul -- will keep other apitites under control
democratic child:
sees parent with all his money -- not reaaly enjoying it, meets others that kinda corrupt him
whatever that person feels like doing at the moment
tyranny / despotism -
in democratic society - dromes - corrupted spiriteds, people who have $$ in opposition to each other
drones find a way to get the money from the $$ and siphen off to people
person emerges out of the lower class .. the people's champion that they elevate to a person of pwer in tee society .. comes into power with the support of the people .. in the beginning that person seems like a great person
but what happens -- gets corrupted easily
power corrupts and abs power corrupts absolutely
.. leads that person to turn on even his supporters and then needs body guards
tryaniezes the population
least ideal state
.. tryannical soul - ruled by lawless desires that usually we only dream about
in indulguing in all of those apetites, one gets control .. like people's champian -- one of those lowlevel apetites
.. dope adict
if you add up everythnng with just and unjust .. prety hard to want to be the dope addict
think about a couple questions:
how compelling was this whole dialogue about just souls and unjust souls? attractive? strong points? weak ponts?
Is plato right about political leadership? is it really dependant on intellectual .. like plato says?
formal preparation of people to be leaders.
3) why plato might have felt to make an apology for philosphy
-------
Wed 09/10/08
absolutely unjust person .. just person compared to the totally unjust person ..
much better to be this nice , healthy person rather than a dope addict.
In what ways is the just person better?
question of human freedom.
anology of the dope addict -- he's in a bondage to the habit
so the totally unjust person s the least free ; just person has the greatest person to live life to the fullest
second argument .. lover of wisdom in place of the just soul .. seems a lot like philosopher .. making a connection between just soul and the philosopher
lover of wisdom is better off than the lover of honor / wealth etc
.. lover of wisdom is more competent becaase he has experienced all other pleasures that tte human is capable .. pure thinking is the greattest pleasure
that's the person who leads the most pleasurable life
superior
final argument ..
sectrum:
pain ---- neutral --- pleasure
pleasure on the righh is real pleasure
the philosopher , person who does wisdom .. moving from a state of neutrality to a state of pure pleasure
on the left hand side of the spectrum, it's possible that if you're in extreme pain, the alleviation of it might seem like pleasure.
.. drug analogy .. creates a euforia .. as you become addicted, you start to take the drug just to get back to the neutral state.
philosopher, person engaged in philosophy .. just soul .. one who has ahcieved the genuine pleasure
unjust person .. moving from pain to neutrality
so the just person is percieved to be the superior to the unjust person.
end of reading.
question:
just soul vs unjust soul
why should I be good?
how is a just person going to act? almost a natural thing.
for plato .. no difference between knowledge, wisdom and goodness .. we tend to separate knowledge and morality
what is the alterior motive for writing this
are we inherantly good?
looking backword: humans are good .. they've been corrupted by society
should we develop a society that promotes the good or prevents the evil
plato has a way to decay from the ideal but not so go up the ladder
sort of implies that htere's a way to climb .. have to find people who have the natural talents and incliinatio to be a philospher
... are there people that cannot be just?
if indeed justice and inteligence are linked.. you'd have to be intelligent to be just
how do they pick the guardian class?
spiritedness .. warfare
implies that philsopher kings have to be adept at warfare .. physical dimension on things that runs contrary to our notion of philosophy
.. stephen hawking
.. implies that anyone with a mental or physical disability cant achieve that happiness ... but we se plenty of counter examples in the world.
.. but the just person in an unjust society would not seem to be very happy
why doesshe use a corruption scheme rather than progression / improvements
could an idea society end? does it have to be ideal indefinitely?
unstable kind of thing
maybe part of an idea society is one tht self-sustains?
don't we need a mechanism where we can modify it as we go? -- constitution
what about new arrivals?
how do we give them an ideal position
city exists in a vacuum . what about the noble lie? to outsiders
allegence to the land -- seems to imply no moving in or out
what about the issue of dividing justice from religion?
broader appeal
"weaker philosophy" with religion arguments?
person acting morally
includes a person who is doing something that they know is right even if it's not in their self interest.
challenge takes away all the benefits that you can get from being just
"in the end I'l be better off" --> morality back into self interest
possible christian response -- i'm good becaase jesus is the example
can use religion terms to kinda argue similiarly to plato
in a way , has his own religion in there . beliefs,
forms etc.
motive of self interest vs .. plato reasons
perhpas the same thing in an ideal society
also queston of economics
another question: what constitutes leadership ability?
according to socreates .. whole idea intrinsic characteristics and really formalized education?
is formal education so important?
example of presidential elections
skills vs wisdom
liberal education - not applying the knowledge directly .. but somehow affecting how you operate in the world
.. we don't necessarily adopt that in our society
political leadership - do we value that kind of education?
in this society -- we solect a person .. and thee are no criteria besides age of 35 ..etc
society decides education, qualities needed
since 1897 there has only been one president who did not have a bachlers's but he was harry trueman .. a great president
plato says the best leaders don't want to lead -- do we really want someone who wats the job so bad?
plato say there's only one way to understand reality .. we say there's multiple ways to the truth
formal education vs experience .. but we don't include formal education in the equation for experience
US idea .. that you can do anything you put your mind to .. plato says .. no, there's some people with gold in their souls ..
we say : everbody has a chance
plato society .. no emotion ..
choosing someting becuase you like them .. gets away foom the issues
thorsen's reaction to book:
allan bloom says that this is an apology foo philosophy .. whasn't that what the apology was all about?
the trial of socreates book .. written by a newspaper writer
how could athens take their most valuable speaker and condemn him?
his conclusion was that the reason was that socrates wanted to be executed .. alludes to that in several places
stone's idea is that he committed judicial suicide
performance at trial .. not necessarily the best defenses
probably historically true .. another accoutt written by zenafan .. matches up pretty well.
first thing that socrates does is brings up a stroy about going to the oracle and asking if anyone is wiser than socates .. everyone groans
socrates looked for wise peoole says he asked everyone and they didn't know anything
i don't know anything but the other people don't even know they don't know anything
then pure socratic dialogue
corrupting the youth
and impiety
gets melitus to agree that if he were corrupting the youth he was making them more unjust , if I make them more unjust then they want to kill me .. so I didn't mean to do that .. ahtenian law requires intent
belief in God -- belief i demigods => belief in gods
he should have stopped there.. the rest of the defense is down hill .. basically socrates bragging
calls himself a gift from god sent the peopole of athens to straighten them out
alternate account uses
megalogoria - great oration .. sublime speech .. but could be "big talking"
when he does use this, the jurers are appauled .. register alarm .. not swayed by eloquence
like the packers .. not only do they lose but they play lousy
so plato didn't think that socrates defended philosophy -- lousy playing of your hero
gotta translate philosphy at some point into something more than negative -- gotta put a positive spin on philosophy .. requires him to develop the theory of forms.
the first expository thing he writes is the republic where plato has socrates say that philosophy is the highest thing .. the applogy plato wanted to hear.
-------
Fri 09/12/08
Rennasance
(Desiderius) Erasmus (or Roterdam)
1466-1536
born before More but died just a year after MOor did
Moor was beheaded for denying the authority of henry the 8th
erasmus was responsible for getting utopia (1516) published .. recommendation from him gets the book published
Moor was enjoying personal peace when he wrote this book
in 1520's enters the kings coart
.. Mr. Nosense .. debates whether to enter .. MOor enters
rises higher and higher .. "vice president and atterny general" .. lord chanceller
henry viii was trying to produce a male heir
decided to devorce his first wife but the popoe can't grat a divorce because of tee king of spain who decided to pillage rome
and henry's wife is the aunt of the king of spain
so Henry VIII declares himself head of the church in England
Moor tries to weasle out of this .. before taht .. resigns as lord chanceller
henry vii wants moor on his side .. eventually thrown to prison later beheaded..
moor had a great sense of humor .. even in the face of death
"You see me up the stairs , i'll take care of the way down"
MOor was also simpathic to humanism
rennaisance .. interest in grece and rome
so humanism as an intellictual movement that emphasized the moral life of the ancient greeks and romans. .. believed that they were the embodiment of wisdom.
moor adagio .. "adages" .. each chapter is devoted to a different latin or greek proverb
gave people an entry into the daily life of ancient greeks and romans
"front before back" .. if you pay attention to what's in front of you .. you'l do better than ignore it
applies to the whole community as well as those who lead it
hamnists
1) there's wisdom to be found i the ancient grek & romans
2) there's a lot of problems we have in our society that we could solve with this wisdom
moor .. when he write the utopia .. looks outward instead of backword -- to another supposed country instead of to history
.. so rafael -- is living in different parts of the world ..
impulse to find alternatives to the current setup elseware .. that's what he hhs in common with Erasmus
part of humanism is studying great examples of good writing in both latin and greek .. cared of style & good style
.. gotta know greek if you really want to udnerstand homer, aristotle
improve knowledge of latin .... the current use of it was barbaric .. compare to cicero
foster an elligant style of wirting and speaking
that's why moor uses delibrately greek words in the utopia
main character is raphael hythlodeaus - meaas expert in nonsense .. but you realize that only if you know greek
.. talks about utopia
utopia .. means nowhere
so you can't go there
main river of the utopia is the Anydreus .. means that it has no water!
moor defending humanism, which emphasises:
1 retoric
2 grammar - study of the languages
3 history
4 poetry / liturature
5 moral philosophy - eithics
need the langauge in order to beneift from thh moral wisdom of the philosophers and you need to llarn foom them how to seak well so you could convince others
"the praise of folly" - came out righh before utopia .. by Erasmus
person giving the speech is named Folly and its a speack being foolish
.. written to More who's name sounds close to the latin for folly
priase of folly .. irony .. reworks it to create utopia
praise of folly exerpt: ...
so moor takes that and asays instead of an embodyment in folly, uses expert in nonsense
prisoners shouldn't be hanged, they should be put to work.
book 2 .. dealing with nobodies .. or what nobody does
everyone of his ideas is undermined by the fact that he's talking about what nobody does
what's he doing ..
relaxation - enjoy the humor
sadness .. nowhere in the world do people work just 6 hours, everyone there are more than a few laws
--> a willingness to think about alternatives to the present society but think about them in a relaxed way that's open to a variety of viewpoints
unlike the republic, there are actually disagreements .. like when he's saying why he doesn't want to help out the king
like yogi bera sayings
--------
trial of socretes
socrates judicial suicide .. the second part of the trail makes the STone thesis more plausible
part 1 .. question of guilt
part 2 .. penalty phase .. acccusors name penalty and the convicted person gets to name a penatly .. the jury has to pick
in the first part of the trial he's convicted by 280 to 220 vote split
in the second part of the trail .. according to a writer 600 yers later
in the penalty phase, 80 more jurers actually voted for death than voted for conviction
.. sounds almost incredible .. but you can see why in the second part
tendancy for both sides to meet in the middle
what them to picc your side becuse it's also reasonable.
side 1 says death
socrates should meet in the middle
but instead he says "free meals in the city hall" basically
finally suggests $50 as his potential punnishment .. friends convince him to raise it to 1500 .. but then the damage was already done.
.. so maybe he malipulated the trial because he wanted to die
so .. utopia
book 2 was originally divided in about 9 parts .. so almost the smae number of books as in the republic
so book 1 is analogous to book 1 in the republic
.. sets up the framework
outcome .. they basically get "nowhere" but it's somewhere .. maybe we don't really know what justice is .. sets the stage . makes us more receptive to hearing the rest of the story
so utopia something analogous is: prepare for the status quo to be challenged in england
enclosure of the sheep -- using up all this land .. reserving for the sheep becaase of the demand for fancy wool .. a lot of farmers out of work .. was creating much more poverty than there was before
so "here's anothe way that england is screwed up"
so that's the analogous function .. but book 1 seems to have a lot of other functions too
other things going on.
debate about whether to help the king
debate about communism
really a debate between more and himself
case of communism .. in a sense , pure communism does appeal to christian values in ways that captialism does not very well .. more lives in a captialistic society but he's a very devout christian
so internal debate .. on one hand, we'd really like to do it this way .. but on the other hand we have to kinda do it this way (with incentives)
debate about being in the kings court .. .. might be a debate with himself .. from real life; he did frelance things .. was on assignment when he wrote book ii (which he wrote before book i)
joined a year after writing that debate
book written in latin l.. translated to english in 1551
as written in latin, the indended reader would have to hhve been fairly well educated
also intended for higher ups who didn't know greek (we dont need greek; we have latin the language of the church idea) - all the names are in greek. .. so you wouldn't get the joke
in book 1 .. the person with the weird ideas is rafael, not more
rafael knows about utopia bgecause he's been there .. an "actual" society that exists
rafael tied to actual events .. with amerigo vespucci .. there was an incident where he left 24 of his men at cape frio .. rafael becomes one of those 24 according to this book
makes it