I really like the way it was written. It was easy to read. I like how Socrates states that there are four regimes (methods of rule) and then states that any regime other than these four fir somewhere between them. "...that Cretan and Laconian regime, and the second in place and second in praise, the one called oligarchy, a regime filled with throngs of evils; and this regime's adversary, arising next in order, democracy, and then the noble tyranny at last, excelling all of these, the fourth and extreme illness of a city..." He then asks if regimes follow the character of men or if the regimes arise from oak or rocks. To which the other man agrees, as always. There is one other regime that isn't a regime at all but rather a lack of regime: anarchy. The type of person who would rule would be no one, the type of person that would enable it however, would be someone with no direction, not commitments, no responsibility, no care or thought in the world. It kinda like Socrates either omits it because it isn't a regime, and at the same time useless to discuss because anarchy is just an intermediary step between regime. changes.
"Those men are ours. For they are nothing." In the Oligarchy when the poor man sees the rich man, he realizes how out of step the rich man is, how awkward he is. He realizes how much the rich man depends on the labors of the poor man to live, and is disgusted. why should the rich benefit from the toils of the poor? Why should a few, in their greed, neglect the needs of the many? In this, the egg that births democracy is made manifest. I like how the four regimes make up a cycle that repeats itself, like the cycle of life and death, or void, being, nothing.
A question for Professor Borck: did these conversations actually occur? Was Glaucon a real person or just an imaginary speaker?
No comments:
Post a Comment