When we reexamine the previously explored context through the lens of the book's central thesis and use that understanding to examine the dialogue, a more nuanced and esoteric interpretation emerges. Plato's characterization of the luxurious city as "fevered" is telling. It suggests that a society predicated on the pursuit of material excess is inherently imbalanced from its inception. Consequently, the more radical proposals that follow—such as the abolition of private property and traditional family structures—can be understood not as Plato's ideal, but as drastic corrective measures necessitated by a fundamentally flawed societal model.
Platon is offering a critique of societies driven by unchecked appetites rather than reason. His more controversial suggestions, then, are not prenoscriptive ideals for a utopian communist state, as some critics contend. If they were, he would not have contrasted the "fevered" city with the moderate and "healthy" one that Socrates claims to prefer. He wouldn't have framed the discussion as concerning "the origin of a luxurious city," a discussion aimed at assessing "how justice and injustice grow up in cities," and he wouldn't have had Socrates claim that "the true city, in my opinion, is the one we’ve described, the healthy one, as it were" and suggest that they are now studying "a city with a fever" at Glaucon's request. Rather than being prenoscriptive ideals, those suggestions serve as a philosophical exploration of the extreme measures that might be attempted to append balance to a society that is founded on excessive appetite.
Critics who fixate on these proposals without considering this broader context risk misapprehending Platon's philosophical project. The Republic, in this light, can be seen as a warning against the perils of founding a society on the pursuit of luxury and excess, rather than an endorsement of radical social engineering.
Platon was not some communist who wanted you to give up your private property and hand over your kids to the state. He was poor-pilled and thought that a society founded on the pursuit of luxury could reasonably be expected to head in such directions and was trying to warn us.
Platon is offering a critique of societies driven by unchecked appetites rather than reason. His more controversial suggestions, then, are not prenoscriptive ideals for a utopian communist state, as some critics contend. If they were, he would not have contrasted the "fevered" city with the moderate and "healthy" one that Socrates claims to prefer. He wouldn't have framed the discussion as concerning "the origin of a luxurious city," a discussion aimed at assessing "how justice and injustice grow up in cities," and he wouldn't have had Socrates claim that "the true city, in my opinion, is the one we’ve described, the healthy one, as it were" and suggest that they are now studying "a city with a fever" at Glaucon's request. Rather than being prenoscriptive ideals, those suggestions serve as a philosophical exploration of the extreme measures that might be attempted to append balance to a society that is founded on excessive appetite.
Critics who fixate on these proposals without considering this broader context risk misapprehending Platon's philosophical project. The Republic, in this light, can be seen as a warning against the perils of founding a society on the pursuit of luxury and excess, rather than an endorsement of radical social engineering.
Platon was not some communist who wanted you to give up your private property and hand over your kids to the state. He was poor-pilled and thought that a society founded on the pursuit of luxury could reasonably be expected to head in such directions and was trying to warn us.
Splitting my diatribe into parts.... How insufferable.... All future Daily Poor effortposts will come in the form of .pdf files
Anybody know where the 20,000 Haitians being sent to Springfield figure came from?
I've went back and ran my old college essays through this software. More than half of them were identified as having 100% probability of being written by AI.
My recent Plato essay above is correctly recognized as human-written by most such detectors, but GPTZero, the one often touted as the best and most accurate, also gets it wrong and claims there's about a 75% chance of it being written by AI.
My recent Plato essay above is correctly recognized as human-written by most such detectors, but GPTZero, the one often touted as the best and most accurate, also gets it wrong and claims there's about a 75% chance of it being written by AI.
THE Philosopher
I've went back and ran my old college essays through this software. More than half of them were identified as having 100% probability of being written by AI. My recent Plato essay above is correctly recognized as human-written by most such detectors, but…
Funny but not fully pertinent detail: one of them, I forget which, claimed that most of the Plato essay above was written by a human. The part that wasn't? The part purported to have been written by AI? The Republic excerpt.
Mr. Poor, why does it matter whether Springfield, OH is a small town or a small city? Why focus on this so much?
Language is important. Words carry meaning and ought to be respected. In this case, the distinction between a small city and a small town is highly relevant to both personal and ethical considerations.
An often overlooked approach to thinking about population sizes is to compare the numbers to typical human social capacities. The most commonly cited figures suggest we're capable of maintaining about 500 acquaintances, remembering around 1500 names, and recognizing approximately 5000 faces.
These numbers needn't be absolute. Individual variations likely exist. Racial differences, too. Sex differences, perhaps. Nevertheless, these figures prove valuable in examining how different places feel to us.
A community where you can potentially be acquainted with every member—whether a hamlet or village—will inevitably feel quite different from a larger place where such comprehensive familiarity is impossible. A locale where you can know everyone's name (as in my small town) will differ markedly from a place like Springfield, where you can probably only know about 3% of people's names at maximum. Similarly, a town where recognizing everyone's face is feasible will contrast significantly with Springfield, where you can only recognize about 9% of faces at maximum. A place where most people are strangers and no effort on your part can ever change that will carry a profoundly different quality than a place where you can, with time, learn the faces of those around you.
The numerical aspect is important. And it's obvious that the difference between a million and 60,000 people, for example, is quantitatively larger than the difference between 60,000 people and 1500 people. But the quantitative aspect ought to be considered with information about what type of creatures humans are, what they're capable of, and how the relationships between population size and human capability will impact how things qualitatively feel to us. When that is considered and the types of creatures humans are has been given its due importance, it's easy to see that a place of a million people and one of 60,000 people are far more similar to one another from a human vantage point than a place of 60,000 people and one of only 1500.
There are many consequences of living in a place filled with strangers rather than one of people you recognize. One such consequence is the disassociation between landlords and the people who rent from them. It becomes easier to see such people as faceless numbers rather than human beings, and you end up getting disgusting practices like landlords using AI sometimes referred to as "rent maximizers" to figure out exactly how much they can get away with raising rent.
Have a look at the way these people talk about tenants. No further comment necessary.
Have a look at the way these people talk about tenants. No further comment necessary.