Lecture 02 Notes
Document Actions
Reading a Platonic Dialogue
II. Excerpt of the Republic
III. Reading this Excerpt Philosophically
I. Shakespeare as a Model
Consider the following excerpt from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II:
Caesar: Calpurnia!
Casca: Peace, ho! Caesar speaks.
Caesar: Calpurnia!
Calpurnia: Here, my lord.
Caesar: Stand you directly in Antonius’ way,
When he doth run his course. Antonius!
Antony: Caesar, my lord?
Caesar: Forget not, in your speed, Antonius,
To touch Calpurnia, for our elders say,
The barren, touched in this holy chase,
Shake off their sterile curse.
Antony: I shall remember.
When Caesar says “do this”, it is perform’d.
Caesar: Set on; and leave no ceremony out.
Soothsayer: Caesar!
Caesar: Who is it in this press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry “Caesar!” Speak; Caesar is turn’d to hear.
Soothsayer: Beware the Ides of March.
In order to understand this exchange, what should you look for?
- Appreciate Language and Meter
- Understand Difficult Language
- Understand Allusions
- Appreciate Relationships Among Characters
- Appreciate Caesar’s Power
- Foreshadowing
- Compare this Soothsayer with Others
II. An Excerpt from The Republic
Proceed.
I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just or subjects to obey their rulers?
I do.
But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?
To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err.
Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not?
True.
When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that?
Yes.
And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects, --and that is what you call justice?
Doubtless.
Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse?
What is that you are saying? he asked.
I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider: Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted?
Yes.
Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger?
Nothing can be clearer, Socrates, said Polemarchus.
A. In order to understand this exchange, what should you look for?
- Keep track of who is speaking.
- Put the piece in argumentative context.
- Identify thesis the speaker is defending.
- Identify the thesis the interlocutor is defending.
- Identify the line of reasoning that is supposed to support each claim.
- Ask yourself what speakers mean by central terms in their argument.
- Identify and query presuppositions.
B. What shouldn’t you do?
- Don’t read Plato’s works like novels.
- Don’t skim looking only for main or general ideas.
- Don't worry about the plot.
REMEMBER: You learn to read and write one way in English class, another in philosophy!
III. Reading this Excerpt Philosophically
A. What to Look For
- Socrates and Thrasymachus, a sophist.
- Context: Socrates discussing various proposed definitions of moral goodness drawn from traditional sources. arguing that don’t work. Thrasymachus impatiently bursts in to offer his own view.
- Socrates not yet defending a thesis of his own.
- Thrasymachus will defend a number of related claims: (i) morality is what ever is in interest of most powerful; (ii) rulers ought to exercise power for their own advantage; (iii) immorality makes people better off than morality.
- Presupposition to query: Socrates’ claim that morality is a craft
B. A Closer Look
Proceed.
I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that (2) it is just or subjects to obey their rulers?
I do.
But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?
To be sure, he replied, (3) they are liable to err.
Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not?
True.
(4) When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that?
Yes.
And (5) the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects, --and that is what you call justice?
Doubtless.
Then (6) justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse?
What is that you are saying? he asked.
I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider: Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted?
Yes.
Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger?
Nothing can be clearer, Socrates, said Polemarchus.
C. Socrates' Argument Against Thrasymachus
Suppose, as Thrasymachus says, that
(1) Justice is whatever is in the interest of the strongest party.
So it follows that:
(2) Obedience to the government is always right.
Thrasymachus agrees that
(3) Governments are capable of error when it comes to legislation,
and that
(4) When they get it wrong, the laws will be to their disadvantage.
Thrasymachus also insists that
(5) Subjects must obey any law that is passed.
But now Thrasymachus is in a dilemma, for:
(6) Suppose subjects don’t follow a misconceived law.
Then it follows from (5) that
(7) They do something wrong.
So instead of (6)
(8) Suppose the subjects obey the misconceived law.
Since the law is misconceived, it enjoins subjects to do something that is NOT in the interest of those in power. So from (8) it follows that
(9) Citizens act against the interest of the strongest
So from Thrasymachus’s definition of justice, it follows that
(10) Citizens do something wrong.
CONCLUSION: It is no more right to act to the advantage of the stronger party than to do the opposite. Thus, THRASYMACHUS LOSES! (The problem stems from his concession at (3).)
Thrasymachus replies by modifying his claim: Morality is whatever is in the interest of the ruling party, WHEN THEY MAKE NO MISTAKES ABOUT WHAT IS IN THEIR INTEREST.
Consider for next time:
- How does Socrates respond to this modification?
- What role is played by his claim that morality is craft?
