Reading the Republic of Plato has been, by far, the hardest thing for me this year. Not only is it confusing, but I have not really been able to connect with it like I’ve connected with the other works of literature that we have read. As I read book one a few days ago, one of the things that I noticed was that I could not really follow their arguments very well. They seemed to be going in circles. Honestly, they didn’t make much sense. Here is what I wonder: are they really debating about justice? Did Plato really write this to argue about the definition of justice? Although I am not sure what it is yet, I believe that there is a deeper argument and cause to this. It might not all really be about justice.
I commented on Tiffany Tindall's blog "Socratic Wisdom"
I'm not sure about others, but I don't think it's all about justice. Even if the primary theme were to be 'justice', that entails several sub-topics that can branch out into various social, psychological, and philosophical areas of interest. The questions can... no... ARE, seemingly redundant most of the time. But it appears to me that Socrates is trying to synthesis a "going in circles" theme with his debator by turning the argument back against them with examples that start out positive, then reveal flaws with their train of thought. The read is hard, but it's ultimately worthwhile (as is most any read in Honours anyway, haha). We'll just have to "suffer into truth" with this one, hm? :)
ReplyDelete