The History Book Club discussion

This thread is being set up for a discussion of Plato's Republic.

Plato: The Republic

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the Republic has been Plato’s most famous and widely read dialogue. As in most other Platonic dialogues the main character is Socrates.

It is generally accepted that the Republic belongs to the dialogues of Plato’s middle period.

In Plato’s early dialogues, Socrates refutes the accounts of his interlocutors and the discussion ends with no satisfactory answer to the matter investigated. In the Republic however, we encounter Socrates developing a position on justice and its relation to eudaimonia (happiness). He provides a long and complicated, but unified argument, in defense of the just life and its necessary connection to the happy life.

The dialogue explores two central questions. The first question is “what is justice?” Socrates addresses this question both in terms of political communities and in terms of the individual person or soul. He does this to address the second and driving question of the dialogue: “is the just person happier than the unjust person?” or “what is the relation of justice to happiness?”

Given the two central questions of the discussion, Plato’s philosophical concerns in the dialogue are ethical and political. In order to address these two questions,

Socrates and his interlocutors construct a just city in speech, the Kallipolis. They do this in order to explain what justice is and then they proceed to illustrate justice by analogy in the human soul. On the way to defending the just life, Socrates considers a tremendous variety of subjects such as several rival theories of justice, competing views of human happiness, education, the nature and importance of philosophy and philosophers, knowledge, the structure of reality, the Forms, the virtues and vices, good and bad souls, good and bad political regimes, the family, the role of women in society, the role of art in society, and even the afterlife.

This wide scope of the dialogue presents various interpretative difficulties and has resulted in thousands of scholarly works. In order to attempt to understand the dialogue’s argument as a whole one is required to grapple with these subjects.

by Plato

Remainder of Article and Table of Contents:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

Source: IEP

DISCUSSION ITSELF STARTS AT POST 13 WITH TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SYLLABUS

START DATE - MAY 16TH

Literature Project - Free Book On Line:

http://www.literatureproject.com/repu...

Free Book On Line;

Project Gutenberg

Approaching Plato:

http://campus.belmont.edu/philosophy/...

Librovox version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnZb7...

Audible had professional narrators and are better versions - better reading and quality. But the above is free.

The School of Life Video on Plato

Athens, 2400 years ago, was a compact place; only about a quarter of million people lived there.

There were fine baths, theaters, temples, shopping arcades and gymnasiums.

It was warm for more than half the year.

This was also home to the world's first true and probably greatest philosopher - Plato.

Plato was born into a prominent and wealthy family in the city.

Plato devoted his life to one goal - helping people to reach a state of what he termed - Eadaimonia - fulfillment.

Pluto is often confused with Socrates.

Socrates was an older friend, who taught Plato a lot but didn't write any books.

Plato wrote tons of them - 36 in all - all dialogues - beautifully crafted scripts of imaginary discussions in which Socrates is always allotted a starring role - among them.

Five well known ones were:

The Republic
The Symposium
The Laws
The Meno
The Apology

Pluto had four big ideas for making life more fulfilled:

1) Think More
2) Let your love change you
3) Decode the message of beauty
4) Reform Society

Source: The School of Life

Regarding - Think More

1. We rarely give ourselves time to think carefully and logically about our lives and how to lead them.

a) Sometimes we just go along with what the Greeks called "doxa": popular opinion.

b) In the 36 books he wrote, Plato showed this common sense to be riddled with errors, prejudice and superstitions.

Some Doxa
Fame is great
Follow your heart
Money is the key to a good life

The problem is, popular opinions edge us towards the wrong values, careers and relationships.

Plato's answer is: Know Yourself.

It means doing a special kind of therapy - philosophy.

Subjecting your ideas to examination rather than acting on impulse.

If you strengthen your self-knowledge you don't get so pulled around by feelings.

Plato compared the role of feelings to being dragged dangerously along by a group of wild horses.

In honor of his mentor and friend Socrates, this kind of examination is called a Socratic Discussion.

a) You can have it with yourself or ideally, with another person who isn't trying to catch you out but wants to help you clarify your own ideas.

Source: The School of Life Video

Plato's Second Big Idea - Let your love change you

1. That sounds weird. If you think love means finding someone who wants you just the way you are - you are not getting Plato.

These kinds of folks who do not get Plato would typically say - "If you loved me, you wouldn't try to change me.

2. In The Symposium, Plato's play about a dinner party where a group of friends drink too much and get talking about love and relationships.

3. Plato says true love is admiration.

a) In other words, the person you need to get together with should have very good qualities which you yourself lack.

b) Let's say they should be really brave or organized or warm and sincere.

c) By getting close to this person, you can become a little like they are.

d) The right person for us helps us grow to our full potential.

e) For Plato, in a good relationship, a couple shouldn't love each other exactly as they are right now.

f) They should be committed to educating each other - and to enduring the stormy passages this inevitably involves.

g) Each person should want to induce the other into becoming a better version of themselves.

Source: The School of Life Video

Plato's Third Big Idea - Decode the message of beauty

Plato was the first to ask - Why do we like beautiful things?

a) Beautiful objects are whispering important truths to us about the good life.
- Renounce selfishness
- Learn to be generous
- Be Modest

b) We find things beautiful when we unconsciously sense in them qualities we need but are missing in our lives.
Like -
- Gentleness
- Harmony
- Balance
- Peace
- Strength

Beautiful objects therefore perform a really important function. They help educate our souls.

Ugliness is a serious matter too. It creates dangerous and damaging characteristics in front of us.

- When confronted with ugliness - it is harder to be wise, kind and calm.

1. Plato sees art as therapeutic.

It is the duty of poets and painters and nowadays novelists and TV Producers and designers to help us to live good lives.

Source: The School of Life Video

by Rebecca Goldstein

SYNOPSIS

Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away
Read
Is philosophy obsolete? Are the ancient questions still relevant in the age of cosmology and neuroscience, not to mention crowd-sourcing and cable news? The acclaimed philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein provides a dazzlingly original plunge into the drama of philosophy, revealing its hidden role in today’s debates on religion, morality, politics, and science.

At the origin of Western philosophy stands Plato, who got about as much wrong as one would expect from a thinker who lived 2,400 years ago. But Plato’s role in shaping philosophy was pivotal. On her way to considering the place of philosophy in our ongoing intellectual life, Goldstein tells a new story of its origin, re-envisioning the extraordinary culture that produced the man who produced philosophy.

But it is primarily the fate of philosophy that concerns her. Is the discipline no more than a way of biding our time until the scientists arrive on the scene? Have they already arrived? Does philosophy itself ever make progress? And if it does, why is so ancient a figure as Plato of any continuing relevance? Plato at the Googleplex is Goldstein’s startling investigation of these conundra. She interweaves her narrative with Plato’s own choice for bringing ideas to life—the dialogue.

Imagine that Plato came to life in the twenty-first century and embarked on a multicity speaking tour. How would he handle the host of a cable news program who denies there can be morality without religion? How would he mediate a debate between a Freudian psychoanalyst and a tiger mom on how to raise the perfect child? How would he answer a neuroscientist who, about to scan Plato’s brain, argues that science has definitively answered the questions of free will and moral agency? What would Plato make of Google, and of the idea that knowledge can be crowd-sourced rather than reasoned out by experts? With a philosopher’s depth and a novelist’s imagination and wit, Goldstein probes the deepest issues confronting us by allowing us to eavesdrop on Plato as he takes on the modern world.


My impression
I really liked this book, and certainly it deals with the Republic (among other things). The author is both a novelist and a philosopher - so it's not only accurate, it's readable.

Thank you Peter - I am setting up this thread for the discussion of The Republic by Plato. I am glad that folks will be able to take a look at the book you posted as well.

Plato's Fourth Big Idea - Reform Society

1. Plato spent a lot of time trying to think how government and society should ideally be.

2. He was the world's first utopian thinker.
a) He was inspired by Athens great rival - Sparta.
b) Sparta was a city sized machine for turning out great soldiers.
c) Everything that Sparta did, how they raised their children, how their economy was organized, who they admired, what they ate, was tailored to their one goal and Sparta was hugely successful from a military point of view. But the above wasn't Plato's concern.

3. Plato wanted to know how could a society get better at producing NOT military power but fulfilled lives.

The Republic

1. Plato identifies a number of changes that should be made.
2. Athenian society was very focused on the rich - like the louche aristocrat - Alcibiades and sports celebrities like Boxer Milo of Croton.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades
Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_of...

I. Plato wasn't impressed!

A. It really matters who we admire.
B. Celebrities influence our outlook, our ideas and our conduct.
C. Bad heroes give glamour to flaws of characters.
D. Plato wanted to give Athens new celebrities replacing the current crop with ideally wise and good people he called Guardians - models for everyone's good development.

1. These people would be distinguished by their record of public service, their modesty and simple habits, their dislike of the limelight and their wide and deep experiences.

2. They would be the most honored and admired people in society.

II. Plato also wanted to end democracy in Athens.

A. Plato wasn't crazy. He just observed how few people think properly before they vote and therefore we get very substandard rulers or leaders.

B. Plato didn't want to replace democracy with a horrible dictatorship but wanted to prevent people from voting until they had started to think rationally. - AND UNTIL THEY HAD BECOME PHILOSOPHERS.

C. Otherwise, government would just be a kind of mob being dragged by wild horses.

D. To help the process, Plato started a school, The Academy, in Athens which lasted a good 300 years.

E. These pupils learned not just math and spelling, but also how to be good and kind.

F) His ultimate goal was that politicians become philosophers, The world will not be right until kings become philosophers or philosophers king.

Source: The School of Life Video

Feel free to discuss any of the above ideas here.

Khan Academy - great videos for learning: (free)

Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Socrates in Plato's dialogues. He explains why Socrates closely connects his account of the good life with justice, a concept understood not just as a political arrangement but also as a state of a well-ordered individual's soul.

The Good Life: Plato - really a discussion not only of Plato's ideas but also his teacher Socrates

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

BEGINNING OF GROUP READ SECTION:

We will be beginning a discussion of The Republic on this thread - Vicki will be the moderator.

Here is first the Table of Contents:

Table of Contents

Introduction and Analysis.

Book I.

Book II.

Book III.

Book IV.

Book V.

Book VI.

Book VII.

Book VIII.

Book IX.

Book X.

The Republic.

Book One - Of Wealth, Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites - START HERE
Book Two - The Individual, the State, and Education
Book Three - The Arts in Education
Book Four - Wealth, Poverty, and Virtue
Book Five - On Matrimony and Philosophy
Book Six - The Philosophy of Government
Book Seven - On Shadows and Realities in Education
Book Eight - Four Forms of Government
Book Nine - On Wrong or Right Government, and the Pleasures of Each
Book Ten - The Recompense of Life

THIS IS A LINK TO THE FREE VERSION:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plat...

IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS - UP FRONT YOU HAVE THE ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE TEN BOOKS - AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM WITH THE BOOK TITLES IS THE WORK ITSELF WHICH WE WILL BE READING AND DISCUSSING. THE ANALYSIS OF EACH CHAPTER ABOVE SHOULD BE HELPFUL TO ALL OF YOU WHO ARE PARTICIPATING.

REMEMBER TO USE THE SPOILER HTML SINCE THIS IS A ONE THREAD DISCUSSION.

SYLLABUS

Start Date - May 16th, 2016
Completion Date - June 19th, 2016

The Republic.

WEEK ONE: - May 16th - May 22nd
Book One - Of Wealth, Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites - START HERE
Book Two - The Individual, the State, and Education

WEEK TWO: - May 23rd - May 29th
Book Three - The Arts in Education
Book Four - Wealth, Poverty, and Virtue

WEEK THREE: - May 30th - June 5th
Book Five - On Matrimony and Philosophy
Book Six - The Philosophy of Government

WEEK FOUR: - June 6th - June 12th
Book Seven - On Shadows and Realities in Education
Book Eight - Four Forms of Government

WEEK FIVE: - June 13th - June 19th
Book Nine - On Wrong or Right Government, and the Pleasures of Each
Book Ten - The Recompense of Life

Beginning soon! Stay tuned

From Sparks Notes - here are some basic facts on Plato's The Republic.

"FULL TITLE · The Republic

AUTHOR · Plato

PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT · Plato was his own philosophical movement, known as “Platonism.”

LANGUAGE · Ancient Greek

TIME AND PLACE WRITTEN · Plato wrote The Republic in Athens around 380 B.C.

SPEAKER · As in nearly all of Plato’s works, Socrates acts as Plato’s mouthpiece.

AREAS OF PHILOSOPHY COVERED · Though The Republic is primarily concerned with defining and defending justice, it is in no way limited to ethics and political philosophy. It also presents bold and fascinating theories in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics.

PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENTS OPPOSED · Plato’s main opposition in The Republic is the Sophists.

OTHER WORKS BY PLATO ON SIMILAR TOPICS · For more on Plato’s political theory see the Laws. For more on his theory of Forms see the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Symposium."

Source: All of the above from Sparks Notes:
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on The Republic.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2002. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Remember the following:

Everyone is welcome but make sure to use the Goodreads spoiler function.

If you come to the discussion after folks have finished reading it, please feel free to post your comments as we will always come back to the thread to discuss the book.

The rules

You must follow the rules of the History Book Club and also:

First rule of Buddy Read:
Respect other people's opinions, no matter how controversial you think they may be.

Second rule of Buddy Read:
Always, always mark the Book number and spoiler alert your posts if you are discussing parts of the book.

To do these spoilers, follows these easy steps:

Step 1. Enclose the word spoiler in forward and back arrows: < >

Step 2. Write your spoiler comments in.

Step 3. Enclose the word /spoiler in arrows as above, BUT NOTE the forward slash in front of the word. You must put that forward slash in.

Your spoiler should appear like this:
(view spoiler)

And please mark your spoiler clearly like this:

State the book. Eg:

Book 1
(view spoiler)[Put your comment here. (hide spoiler)]

If you are raising a question/issue for the group about the book, you don't need to put that in a spoiler, but if you are citing something specific, it might be good to use a spoiler.

By using spoilers, you don't ruin the experience of someone who is reading slower or started later.

Thanks.

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.

Everyone, for the week of May 16th - May 22nd, we are reading Book One and Book Two of Plato's The Republic.

My edition - by Plato translated by W.H.D. Rouse

The first week’s reading assignment is:

Week One - May 16th - May 22nd
Book One: Of Wealth, Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites - pages 139 - 173 and Book Two: The Individual, the State, and Education - pages 174 - 207

Chapter Overview(s) and Summary

Book One - Of Wealth, Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites
(view spoiler)[
Socrates meets some friends in Piraeus and they all go to Cephalus' house. Cephalus says he's glad to be wealthy in his old age, not because riches make you happy, but because they make it easier to do what is morally right, like not lying and paying back what you owe. Socrates counters that it might be wrong to return what is owed, for example to give back a knife to a friend who's very angry and might hurt someone.

Polemarchus, Cephalus' son, says justice is giving each person his due - doing good to your friends and bad to your enemies.

But Thrasymachus says this is all a bunch of platitudes. Surely "justice" is whatever is in the interest of the ruler. Socrates replies that the function of a ruler is to serve the best interests of his subjects, just as the function of a physician is to cure his patients.

Thrasymachus claims that only the weak practice justice, that the strong can do whatever is necessary to get what they want. But Socrates points out that even among thieves and murderers, they have to be just with one another, or they couldn't all prosper. Socrates ends by saying now he doesn't know what justice is, or even if it's a virtue.
(hide spoiler)]
Book Two - The Individual, the State, and Education
(view spoiler)[
Glaucon and his brother Adeimantus try to restate Thrasymachus' argument. It seems to them that justice’s only value is that it’s good for your reputation. If you could get away with doing bad things but nobody found out, everyone would do it. Conversely, no one would choose to be truly just if he somehow got a bad reputation anyway.

Socrates says it might be easier to define justice if we look at it on a city level instead of for individuals. Imagine that we have a large group of people, each doing the job he’s most suited for – farmer, tailor, carpenter, etc. Of course we’d also need people skilled in the arts, and physicians to keep people healthy. But other cities might want what we have, so we’d need guardians to protect us. These guardians must have special qualities because we don’t want them needlessly attacking our neighbors. They must have a love of learning and a love of wisdom.

It’s vital that the guardians have the proper education. They should be told stories of the gods and heroes, but only suitable stories. We must leave out stories where the gods commit murder or other atrocities. And we must never tell them stories which make them fear death.
(hide spoiler)]

Questions for Week 1


Book One
(view spoiler)[
1. What do you think of Cephalus' idea of justice - never to lie and to pay back what you owe? And what of Polemarchus' definition - to do good to your friends and hurt your enemies?


2. Thrasymachus, understood by most scholars to represent Sophists, claims that justice is whatever the strong leader says it is. How relevant is this view today?


3. Here we get a good idea of the Socratic method, questions and answers. How do you like this method?

(hide spoiler)]
Book 2
(view spoiler)[
1. What do you think of Socrates' ideal city-state? Is such a situation possible?


2. Regarding education, how can you leave out stories where gods or heroes do bad things? It seems to me most myths would be disqualified.

Perseus and Medusa
(hide spoiler)]

Discussion Questions - Book I

(view spoiler)[

1. I think Cephalus' idea of justice is a good definition - as far as it goes. Those are certainly factors that belong to a just person but it doesn't give a very full definition and doesn't include an abstract sense of what is just. Polemarchus' idea is also very specific but at least has something of a modern idea. We wouldn't use those terms and we define justice as having more to do with right and wrong. We would probably say something like "to favor the right and make the punishment fit the crime."

2. Whenever I hear the words "strong leader", I start thinking of dictators and not benevolent ones, either. So, using that for a definition, I would imagine there are still a lot of places that would believe that definition.

3. Frankly, it sends me right back to high school with endless questions that began, "What do you think the author is trying to say?', "What is meant by that phrase?", "Can you relate this to that?', etc. It's actually a very good way to learn a subject and make it your own but the constant questions make you long for a declarative sentence that you can just argue for or against. (hide spoiler)]

Discussion Questions - Book II
(view spoiler)[
1. I actually thought it was a pretty good discussion on the nature of cities. I don't think you could set out and organize one so efficiently, perhaps. I don't know much about city building in antiquity but I would think they came about more haphazardly. Still, it's pretty much how they work.

2. I think that may have been the point. If myths are so influential to the development of youth, then the emphasis should be on providing good ones. I'm not at all sure that's possible though. We like our stories to have a large dose of superhuman courage and cleverness even today. The argument is still around, though, in the form of whether or not too much violent TV or Movies is destructive. Also, I don't think it's possible today to have a public, civil discussion of the nature of God. (hide spoiler)]

Response to Pamela - Book 1 Questions

(view spoiler)[
1. It's really very hard to define how an individual acts in a just manner. It seems to me that you need to treat each person as he deserves to be treated, but how do you find out what that is?

2. I guess the appeal of a "strong leader" is that you don't really need to think for yourself, just do what he says. Tough luck if you get on his bad side.

3. Apparently many Socratic dialogs ended in aporia or a state of puzzlement, as at the end of Book 1 where Socrates says he doesn't know what justice is. But in The Republic, there's lots more to hear and a resolution is ultimately reached.
(hide spoiler)]

Response to Pamela - Book 2 Questions

(view spoiler)[
1. I keep wondering how you find out what the ideal job is for each person, particularly for the ruling class. Who decides that this or that person makes an ideal Guardian?

2. This discussion of myths reminds me of my granddaughter, who doesn't like the scary parts of fairy tales, and most of them have them.
(hide spoiler)]

Answer to Vicki

(view spoiler)[
I think you're right about the strong leader. Maybe people are just happy to turn it all over to someone else. I guess then that makes him/her the one who decides what everybody else will do and he picks out the Guardians.

Your granddaughter sounds like my youngest granddaughter. She makes us fast forward through the scary parts of Disney movies. I always have loved fairy tales and it wasn't until I had children that I began to think about them being cautionary tales. A lot like our telling children, "Look both ways", " Don't go with strangers", or "Don't put that in your mouth, it's dirty". Not as colorful maybe as Snow White, but effective. (hide spoiler)]

Response to question one, book one.

Please excuse. I'm having problems to get the spoiler function to work properly.

It seems inherently wrong to say that a just person does harm to enemies. That might be acceptable if we were willing to call retribution just and some do use the phrase 'retributive justice'. But it strikes me as question begging to include retribution in the definition of justice when one of the questions we should be considering is: are actions of this type really just? It's important to know how to properly frame a definition so as not to preclude answers to important questions. >

Response to Jeffery
(view spoiler)[

Jeffrey, would you consider criminals 'enemies of the state' ? If the definition of retribution is punishment for wrong doing and the state has a right to take retribution for that, then the use of the death penalty and even incarceration would have to be considered just. Now, personally, I don't consider the death penalty to be just. But I certainly think imprisonment, even for life, to be not only just but something the state has an obligation to do. Or should we define retribution differently? Or the obligation of the state to protect its citizens? (hide spoiler)]

Response to Jeffrey

(view spoiler)[I think I can see your point, in that one's personal enemy might not deserve being damaged. For instance, if you're running for a political office, someone running against you could be considered an enemy, but shouldn't have to worry about your beating him up. On the other hand, if you had proof that this person had set fire to your campaign headquarters, it would certainly be just to turn him in to the authorities, but not to set fire to his office. (hide spoiler)]

Jeffrey your comments are excellent but place them in spoilers with a heading - like Response to Pamela or Book One

Folks please use spoilers - just do a copy and a paste and this gives you the proper html - put your text in the middle.

You can copy and paste below to get your spoiler right:

<spoiler>Put Text Here</spoiler>

Adelle wrote: "So I just finished reading Book One. And here's where I'm at:

I see that this thread seems to be set up to discusses what we think about the issues raised in the book. But what I'm interested in d..."

That seems to me to be perfectly fine, and rather interesting. Just remember to put your comments in spoiler tags, as Bentley shows in message 31 and preface them with a line about what book you're commenting on.

Vicki when someone is having some issues - you may need to send them a PM and help them that way and also copy and paste their post into spoiler quotes.

Jeffrey has had some issues with the spoiler tags so I am placing his posts in the spoiler html to now ruin things for folks coming along later:

Response to Book One Questions - Jeffrey posted

(view spoiler)[Good questions.

I would suggest that we consider criminals as enemies to themselves. We should consider the possibility that punishment may not deterrr crime and the result of imprisonment is more likely to be a hardened criminal rather than a reformed citizen. Many crimes are the result of mental illness and we usually say we don't want to punish the mentally ill but that is what we often do.

I don't consider the death penalty just either. We still haven't answered the question about punishment. Do we agree that punishment does either physical or mental injury to the person harmed?

AND

Very interesting. This can become really complicated quite quickly. It may be a mistake on our part to understand someone who opposes us in an election as an enemy rather than a less culpable class of opponent. If we saw all who disagreed with us .....

But breaking into our campaign headquarters or torching the place are clearly a violation of law. And putting him in jail after due process is called for. I don't think that is the question. I think the question has something to do with punishment and or rehabilitation. It's probable that we would agree rehabilitation helps society and the individual while punishment causes harm. Punishment seems to target the effect of law breaking rather then the cause. If incarceration fails to address the cause of the crime then it has become ineffective. (hide spoiler)]

Adele's comments on Book One:

(view spoiler)[So I just finished reading Book One. And here's where I'm at:

I see that this thread seems to be set up to discusses what we think about the issues raised in the book. But what I'm interested in doing is writing up my thoughts on what the various characters said, i.e., what it seems to me Socrates/Plato is saying.

If I did that, would I be acting outside the parameters of this discussion? (hide spoiler)]

Guys look at message 31 - do a copy and paste and just put your comments in the middle and then preview and post - because this is a single thread discussion - you have to be careful to not spoil it for the folks who are coming after you and have not read the entire section of Book.

Here is a nice big image of Plato himself:



Another image and a fragment of a 4th century edition of the Republic by Plato:



Topics for Discussion:

1. You cannot tell a book by its cover - but what you do think about how he looked (Plato) and what he must have been like? What was the philosopher Plato like? Just take a guess or give an opinion.
2. If you saw this man walking down the street (of course during the time period in question) what would be your first impressions.
3. It is always important to know a little bit about your author - so read the bit below in this comment box and the one below and find out a little bit about Plato himself as you read The Republic. What surprised you the most or the least about Plato?

Here is a little bit about Plato himself:

Early life

Due to a lack of surviving accounts, little is known about Plato's early life and education. The philosopher came from one of the wealthiest and most politically active families in Athens.

Ancient sources describe him as a bright though modest boy who excelled in his studies. His father contributed all which was necessary to give to his son a good education, and, therefore, Plato must have been instructed in grammar, music, gymnastics and philosophy by some of the most distinguished teachers of his era.

Birth and family

The exact time and place of Plato's birth are unknown, but it is certain that he belonged to an aristocratic and influential family.

Based on ancient sources, most modern scholars believe that he was born in Athens or Aegina[c] between 429 and 423 BCE.

His father was Ariston. According to a disputed tradition, reported by Diogenes Laertius, Ariston traced his descent from the king of Athens, Codrus, and the king of Messenia, Melanthus.

Plato's mother was Perictione, whose family boasted of a relationship with the famous Athenian lawmaker and lyric poet Solon.

Perictione was sister of Charades and niece of Critics, both prominent figures of the Thirty Tyrants, the brief oligarchic regime, which followed on the collapse of Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War (404–403 BCE).

Besides Plato himself, Ariston and Perictione had three other children; these were two sons, Adeimantus and Glaucoma, and a daughter Potone, the mother of Speusippus (the nephew and successor of Plato as head of his philosophical Academy).

The brothers Adeimantus and Glaucoma are mentioned in the Republic as sons of Ariston, and presumably brothers of Plato, but some have argued they were uncles.

But in a scenario in the Memorabilia, Xenophon confused the issue by presenting a Glaucon much younger than Plato.

The traditional date of Plato's birth (428/427) is based on a dubious interpretation of Diogenes Laertius, who says, "When [Socrates] was gone, [Plato] joined Cratylus the Heracleitean and Hermogenes, who philosophized in the manner of Parmenides. Then, at twenty-eight, Hermodorus says, [Plato] went to Euclides in Megara." As Debra Nails argues, "The text itself gives no reason to infer that Plato left immediately for Megara and implies the very opposite."

In his Seventh Letter, Plato notes that his coming of age coincided with the taking of power by the Thirty, remarking, "But a youth under the age of twenty made himself a laughingstock if he attempted to enter the political arena." Thus, Nails dates Plato's birth to 424/423.

According to some accounts, Ariston tried to force his attentions on Perictione, but failed in his purpose; then the god Apollo appeared to him in a vision, and as a result, Ariston left Perictione unmolested. Another legend related that, when Plato was an infant, bees settled on his lips while he was sleeping: an augury of the sweetness of style in which he would discourse about philosophy.

Arisen appears to have died in Plato's childhood, although the precise dating of his death is difficult.

Perictione then married Pyrijampes, her mother's brother, who had served many times as an ambassador to the Persian court and was a friend of Pericles, the leader of the democratic faction in Athens.

Pyrijampes had a son from a previous marriage, Demus, who was famous for his beauty. Perictione gave birth to Pyrilampes' second son, Antiphon, the half-brother of Plato, who appears in Parmenides.

In contrast to reticence about himself, Plato often introduced his distinguished relatives into his dialogues, or referred to them with some precision: Charades has a dialogue named after him; Critics speaks in both Charades and Protagoras; and Adeimantus and Glaucoma take prominent parts in the Republic. These and other references suggest a considerable amount of family pride and enable us to reconstruct Plato's family tree. According to Burnet, "the opening scene of the Charades is a glorification of the whole [family] connection ... Plato's dialogues are not only a memorial to Socrates, but also the happier days of his own family."

Name

According to Diogenes Laërtius, the philosopher was named Aristocles (Ἀριστοκλῆς) after his grandfather. It was common in Athenian society for boys to be named after grandfathers (or fathers).

But there is only one inscriptional record of an Aristocles, an early Archon of Athens in 605/4 BCE. There is no record of a line from Aristocles to Plato's father, Ariston. However, if Plato was not named after an ancestor named Plato (there is no record of one), then the origin of his renaming as Plato becomes a conundrum.

The sources of Diogenes account for this fact by claiming that his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him Platon, meaning "broad," on account of his robust figure or that Plato derived his name from the breadth (πλατύτης, platytēs) of his eloquence, or else because he was very wide (πλατύς, plates) across the forehead.

Recently a scholar has argued that even the name Aristocles for Plato was a much later invention. Although Platon was a fairly common name - instances are known from Athens alone, the name does not occur in Plato's known family line.

Another scholar, however, claims that "there is good reason for not dismissing [the idea that Aristocles was Plato's given name] as a mere invention of his biographers", noting how prevalent that account is in our sources. The fact that the philosopher in his maturity called himself Platon is indisputable, but the origin of this naming must remain moot unless the record is made to yield more information.

Education

Apuleius informs us that Speusippus praised Plato's quickness of mind and modesty as a boy, and the "first fruits of his youth infused with hard work and love of study".

Plato must have been instructed in grammar, music, and gymnastics by the most distinguished teachers of his time.

Dicaearchus went so far as to say that Plato wrestled at the Isthmian games.

Plato had also attended courses of philosophy; before meeting Socrates, he first became acquainted with Cratylus (a disciple of Heraclitus, a prominent pre-Socratic Greek philosopher) and the Heraclitean doctrines.

W. A. Borody argues that an Athenian openness towards a wider range of sexuality may have contributed to the Athenian philosophers' openness towards a wider range of thought, a cultural situation Borody describes as "polymorphously discursive."

Plato and Pythagoras

Although Socrates influenced Plato directly as related in the dialogues, the influence of Pythagoras upon Plato also appears to have significant discussion in the philosophical literature.

Pythagoras, or in a broader sense, the Pythagoreans, allegedly exercised an important influence on the work of Plato. According to R. M. Hare, this influence consists of three points: (1) The platonic Republic might be related to the idea of "a tightly organized community of like-minded thinkers", like the one established by Pythagoras in Croton. (2) There is evidence that Plato possibly took from Pythagoras the idea that mathematics and, generally speaking, abstract thinking is a secure basis for philosophical thinking as well as "for substantial theses in science and morals". (3) Plato and Pythagoras shared a "mystical approach to the soul and its place in the material world". It is probable that both were influenced by Orphism.

Aristotle claimed that the philosophy of Plato closely followed the teachings of the Pythagoreans, and Cicero repeats this claim: "They say Plato learned all things Pythagorean" (Platinum ferret didicisse Pythagorea omnia).

Plato and Socrates

The precise relationship between Plato and Socrates remains an area of contention among scholars. Plato makes it clear in his Apology of Socrates, that he was a devoted young follower of Socrates.

In that dialogue, Socrates is presented as mentioning Plato by name as one of those youths close enough to him to have been corrupted, if he were in fact guilty of corrupting the youth, and questioning why their fathers and brothers did not step forward to testify against him if he was indeed guilty of such a crime.

Later, Plato is mentioned along with Crito, Critobolus, and Apollodorus as offering to pay a fine of 30 mins on Socrates' behalf, in lieu of the death penalty proposed by Meletus.

In the Phaedo, the title character lists those who were in attendance at the prison on Socrates' last day, explaining Plato's absence by saying, "Plato was ill." (Phaedo 59b)

Plato never speaks in his own voice in his dialogues. In the Second Letter, it says, "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a Socrates become beautiful and new" - if the Letter is Plato's, the final qualification seems to call into question the dialogues' historical fidelity.

In any case, Xenophon and Aristophanes seem to present a somewhat different portrait of Socrates from the one Plato paints. Some have called attention to the problem of taking Plato's Socrates to be his mouthpiece, given Socrates' reputation for irony and the dramatic nature of the dialogue form.

Aristotle attributes a different doctrine with respect to the Ideas to Plato and Socrates (Metaphysics 987b1–11). Putting it in a nutshell, Aristotle merely suggests that Socrates' idea of forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world, unlike Plato's Forms that exist beyond and outside the ordinary range of human understanding.

Source: Wikipedia

More on Plato (the author and philosopher)

Later life

Plato may have traveled in Italy, Sicily, Egypt and Cyrene. Said to have returned to Athens at the age of forty, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western Civilization on a plot of land in the Grove of Hecademus or Academus.

The Academy was a large enclosure of ground about six stadia outside of Athens proper. One story is that the name of the Academy comes from the ancient hero, Academus. Another story is that the name came from a supposed a former owner, a citizen of Athens also named Academus.

Yet another account is that it was named after a member of the army of Castor and Pollux, an Arcadian named Echedemus.[45] The Academy operated until it was destroyed by Lucius Cornelius Sulla in 84 BCE. Neoplatonists revived the Academy in the early 5th century, and it operated until AD 529, when it was closed by Justinian I of Byzantium, who saw it as a threat to the propagation of Christianity. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Aristotle.

Throughout his later life, Plato became entangled with the politics of the city of Syracuse. According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato initially visited Syracuse while it was under the rule of Dionysius.

During this first trip Dionysius's brother-in-law, Dion of Syracuse, became one of Plato's disciples, but the tyrant himself turned against Plato. Plato almost faced death, but he was sold into slavery. Then Anniceris bought Plato's freedom for twenty mins, and sent him home.

After Dionysius's death, according to Plato's Seventh Letter, Dion requested Plato return to Syracuse to tutor Dionysius II and guide him to become a philosopher king. Dionysius II seemed to accept Plato's teachings, but he became suspicious of Dion, his uncle. Dionysius expelled Dion and kept Plato against his will. Eventually Plato left Syracuse. Dion would return to overthrow Dionysius and ruled Syracuse for a short time before being usurped by Calippus, a fellow disciple of Plato.

Death

A variety of sources have given accounts of Plato's death. One story, based on a mutilated manuscript, suggests Plato died in his bed, whilst a young Thracian girl played the flute to him. Another tradition suggests Plato died at a wedding feast. The account is based on Diogenes Laertius's reference to an account by Hermippus, a third-century Alexandrian. According to Tertullian, Plato simply died in his sleep.

Source: Wikipedia

Discussion Question - Book One

(view spoiler)[

I don’t think that that ---- “never to lie and to pay back what you owe” --- IS Cephalus’s idea of justice. I think he merely says that…. to others and to himself. It seems to me that Cephalus has adapted that as “justice” because not being lied to and being paid back what he is owed is good for business. Self-interest. Moreover his view is the easy conventional view. And Socrates has made it clear that Cephalus likes easy.

Cephalus says, "If I were still strong enough to make the journey to town easily"... he would do it.

He says, “For if men are sensible and good-tempered, old age is easy enough to bear”… Old age (with wealth) is easy enough for Cephalus to bear, therefore Cephalus thinks to himself that HE must be sensible and good-tempered.

He says, “a good man may not find old age easy to bear if he’s poor, but a bad man won’t be at peace with himself even if he is rich” (6). Cephalus makes enough sacrifices to be at peace with himself. Therefore, Cephalus thinks to himself that HE is a good man.

I found it interesting, too, that Cephalus doesn’t say that he hasn’t done wrong. He says, “the man who is conscious of no wrongdoing is filled with cheerfulness and with hope” (7). Cephalus is a conventional man, who has adopted a conventional idea of justice, but has never delved deeply into the subject.

I think he feels he doesn’t need to, as his life is good, and he’s not conscious of wrong-doing, and even if he did wrong at times, he has made sacrifices to atone for it. Sacrifices that financially aren’t a sacrifice for him as he is a wealthy man, but it covers appearances and that’s enough for him.


Socrates begins by telling us that he had gone down to the Piraeus to say a prayer and to “see what they would make of the festival” (3). He speaks of how the Thracian contingent seemed to show well. He subsequently …pointedly… refers to it as a “show.” It seems that Socrates is suggesting that mere appearance …even in regards to what one would think are important beliefs… such as religion….often takes precedence.

I think we need to keep this in mind as we examine the positions--- or, the stated positions---of Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus.

Polemarchus “says” that his definition of justice is “to do good to your friends and hurt your enemies.” Yet look. The first act we see of his exemplifies the stated position of Thrasymachus! He has sent his slave ahead, and the slave through a physical act to force Socrates to halt, “caught hold of [Socrates’] coat from behind---- So NO attempt to persuade] and the slave said, ‘Polemarchus says you are to wait.’” Note that the slave doesn’t say Polemarchus ASKED them to wait. “Do wait.” An order. The self-interest of Polemarchus.

And then Polemarchus…. Although giving the appearance of joking, threatens Socrates: “Do you see how many of us there are?” (The force of physical numbers.) “Well, you will either have to get the better of us or stay here” (3).

Socrates says the he might be able to persuade [thru reason] Polemarchus to let them journey on. And here… oh, my… such a significant statement! Polemarchus says: You can’t persuade people who won’t listen.” And over and over through the rest of Book One this is shown to be true. Socrates tries using reasonable arguments with Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus.

*Cephalus finds what appears to me to be a convenient excuse to disengage from the argument when his position couldn’t be defended.

*Note that Polemarchus interjected (a force word) himself into this conversation thru verbal force. Socrates has just demolished Cephalus’s argument, and then almost as though he wants to protect his father from actually having to concede, Polemarchus interrupts in defense of his father’s position.

But we remember what Socrates had said about inheritance. He had said that those who inherit something aren’t as fond of it as people who create something themselves. Cephalus said, “I bequeath the argument to the two of you” (7). And Polemarchus NEVER really takes up the position of his father after he let his father off the hook… and “Cephalus with a smile” left.

Polemarchus and Thrasymachus both… sweep away what Socrates has said when they fail to win the arguments and they simply revert to their original positions.

Polemarchus: “Yet I still think that justice is to help your friends and harm your enemies” (12). It’s has though he didn’t really listen to what Socrates had said.

Polemarchus in the end says, OK, “What you say seems perfectly true. “ [Appearance only. I don’t believe that Polemarchus has been convinced…. He’s simply agreeing for the sake of form … appearance… to end the argument he was losing.] “For myself, I am quite ready to join your side of the quarrel” (14). Like his father, Cephalus, he simply wants out of the argument and takes a pleasant, convenient way of doing so. Ah… we can all still be friends.

As for Thrasymachus, I thought it rich that he argued that the strongest had the “right” to control the weaker… yet he can’t even control himself!

“While we had been talking Thrasymachus had often tried to interrupt {ie, he wanted to insert himself into the conversation thru vocal force} The self-interest and force of the others comes into play: Thrasymachus had tried to interrupt, “but had been prevented (by the power) of those sitting near him, who wanted [self-interest] to hear the argument concluded].”

Thraysamachus, too, is into appearances. “…he went on pretending he wanted to win his point” (18). He tries to bully by calling names and mocking and trying to disqualify answers the doesn’t like. And in the end… after reluctantly conceding some of Socrates’ points, “To avoid a formal defeat in the argument Thrasymachus interrupts it with a restatement of his main position” (14).

Well. That was my take. And now I'll remember this chapter!

(hide spoiler)]

Bentley wrote: "Here is a nice big image of Plato himself:

Another image and a fragment of a 4th century edition of the Republic by Plato:

Topics for Discussion:

1. You cannot tell a book by its cover - but wha..."

Introductory Material



One thing to be aware of are the dissimilarities between Socrates and Plato. Socrates was probably from a middle to lower middle class family. His father was a stone mason or so historical tradition has told us. Socrates was a citizen soldier, fought in three major battles. As such he would have provided his own armament unless friends supplied the weapons and armor. He may have been self educated. He wrote no books nor was he employed as a private tutor. Plato came from a wealthy family, was apparently well educated, was not a soldier and wrote the renowned dialogs. Socrates conducted his discussions in the marketplace where trade and politics lived; Plato conducted his own academy withdrawn from public frenzy and choose who he would accept for admission.

Plato came from an entirely different life style and yet was a life long admirer of Socrates and a devoted supporter.

Just think that is interesting in itself.

]

Yes Jeffrey you are entirely correct - very dissimilar backgrounds and yet Plato admired Socrates.

I did not place your post in spoilers because it deals in generalities about Plato and Socrates and not about The Republic.

Please try to get the hang of the spoiler html and get help from me and from Vicki when you are posting about the Books and the Republic discussion. You have great posts so keep them coming.

I did feel that we should talk a little bit about Plato himself. So thanks for diving in.

Is there a help file on using the spoiler function? I seem to be missing something.

Jeffrey wrote: "Is there a help file on using the spoiler function? I seem to be missing something."

(view spoiler)[By the dog, I think I've go it. (hide spoiler)]

Response to Vicki and Pamela re Book One, messages 22 and 24

(view spoiler)[

Yes,Thrasymachus was presenting the case of the "strong leader," but I don't think he was presenting it as any type of "appeal" as in "Vote for me because I'm strong and you won't have to think for yourselves." It seemed to me that his position was basically that the strong can take what they want or impose what they want BECAUSE they are strong and they can impose their views, their laws, their "rights" on others that don't have as much power.

On one level, I think that is what Socrates was demonstrating even when he had Thrasymachus and Polemarchus "interrupt" and "interject" the conversations. They both are demonstrating that when their self-interest is at stake, the use more vocal force... to FORCE themselves into the conversation.

That that is what people do. They use force when they can in their own self-interest. The strong, being strong, simply force their way more often and on a bigger scale.

(hide spoiler)]

Thoughts on Book Two

(view spoiler)[

(1) My take away from this chapter is that Socrates acknowledges that there will ALWAYS be war. I can't read it any other way. He sets up an ideal community, in which he says "fear of poverty and war will make [the community] keep the numbers of their families within their means" (59).

But Glaucon (like everyone, I suppose), has desires. He wants MORE. Even though Socrates has said that the ideal community must be small and simple or their will be war, still, Glaucon immediately wants MORE. "Really, Socrates, that's just the fodder you would provide if you were founding a community of pigs!"

Glaucon says, "Give them the ordinary comforts. Let them recline in comfort on couches and eat off tables, and have the sort of food we have today" (60).

{Doesn't this speak to the belief that what we already have is "right"? That what we own is "right," what we "believe" is "right"? Obviously Glaucon is not on the bottom ring of society. Those people (slaves, servants) don't recline in comfort on couches and eat the fine foods. Glaucon seemingly isn't concerned about them. Society for him is already "right"... unless maybe he could have more.}

Socrates says that if the community starts producing more, the community will face war and will need soldiers.

Socrates says, "That will lead to war, Glaucon, will it not?"

"It will."

So..... it seems that as long as Glaucon gets what he wants (self-interest, desires for more), he is OK with living in a society in which others have to fight for him.

The soldiers will be a professional class because, as Socrates points out, "the defense force...is the most important of all" (65).
Well... I can see taxes going up.


(2) Even were such an "ideal" state set up, it seems to me that Socrates is saying that it couldn't last.

Towards the end of Book Two, Section 2, Socrates is talking about this ideal community... NOW with luxuries... (and an already acknowledged threat of war)... "So they will lead a peaceful and healthy life, and probably die at a ripe old age, bequeathing a similar way of life to their children." (60).

What poppycock! Socrates points out in the next few pages that there will have to be a class of professional soldiers and there will very likely be wars when the community has to take land from the neighboring communities. So... (a) he knows there won't be "peaceful life."

Socrates says to Glaucon that if the "society will not be satisfied with the standard of living.....We shall have to enlarge our state again. Our healthy state is no longer big enough" (61). So (b) he knows they won't be living a "healthy life."

Socrates in Book One made it very clear that bequeathing doesn't work, that it doesn't hold, that those who inherit don't have the same passion for preserving as those who create something.

Example #1: Socrates to Cephalus: "Did you inherit most of your fortune?" (6). Cephalus says that his grandfather increased the family money....but Cephalus's father, who inherited the money, couldn't hold on to it, but rather "reduced it to less than what it is now" (6).

Example #2: Cephalus "bequeath[ed]" to Polemarchus the argument that he had been having with Socrates... (i.e., that justice is not to lie and to return things borrowed or pay what is owed). Yet Polemarchus, whom Socrates explicitly refers to as "the heir to this argument", immediately changes his father's position of "pay what you owe" to "give every man his due" and proceeds to interpret according to his OWN thinking (help your friends and hurt your enemies). He couldn't hold on to the beliefs his father bequeathed him. So... (c) Socrates knows they won't be successful in "bequeathing a similar way of life to their children" (60).



(3) Socrates makes the comparison between Guardians and well-bred dogs. Yet... the way a dog "knows" someone and the way a man "knows" knowledge are two very different things.

In Book One Socrates had spoken of how each thing has its own excellence. The excellence of a well-bread, well-trained dog is very different than the excellence of a man.

(hide spoiler)]

Jeffrey you have gotten it.

Adele you are really digging in - and doing a great job.

(view spoiler)[Have to say that I do agree with Socrates in the excellence of a well bred dog but of course I am partial to dogs. (hide spoiler)]

Bentley wrote: "Adele you are really digging in - and doing a great ]"

Thank you, Bentley! I appreciate your opinion. This is like my 3rd read of The Republic. It speaks to me so much more on this read through than on earlier reads. What "they" say is true. With some books, one gets so much more out them through re-reading when one is older.

(view spoiler)[ Oh, yes, a well-trained dog (for human purposes) is a much superior dog. Like my Yukon Cornelius was. :-)

But much of what he did he did because he loved me... or, he was loyal to my person. Which is excellent in a human-owned dog. ;-) But would we admire unquestioning loyalty in men? Or is excellence in men something different?

Lol. I know you knew that was what I meant. And, yes, there is something wonderful about a "good" dog!)

(hide spoiler)]

Reply to Adelle message 37 - Discussion Question - Book One

(view spoiler)[
I don’t think that that ---- “never to lie and to pay back what you owe” --- IS Cephalus’s idea of justice. I think he merely says that…. to others and to himsel..."

Very interesting "psychoanalysis" of the participants in the dialog. You seem to have caught the subtilties of Plato's using the words and actions of the men to make his own points. (hide spoiler)]

Response to Adelle re Book Two, message 42

(view spoiler)[
Even though Socrates concedes that war is possible, at least it's in defense of the city and not aggression to increase the city. And perhaps if defense is strong enough, other cities won't come after ours.

Thanks for your comments, Adelle, they make me go back and rethink the text.
(hide spoiler)]

I am not sure how many of you have watched the videos that I have posted from Yale but they are quite good - and though Professor Smith only covers in these the first five books of The Republic and we plan to cover the entire work - the videos bear watching,

Overview of The Republic

(view spoiler)[He starts out by giving an overview and tells you how to approach the reading of The Republic - transcript below.

Chapter 1. Introduction [00:00:00]

Professor Steven Smith: There is one person in here, I don't know who it is, and you will not know who it is yet, but there is one person in here for whom the reading of Plato's Republic will be the most important intellectual experience you have at Yale.

It is a book that one of you will go back to time and time again and it will stick with you forever. What I would like you to do is to remember this and four years from now, when most of you are ready to graduate, if that one person in here would email me and let me know who it is, okay? Maybe it will be you. Maybe? Possibly. Or you. Okay.

This is the book that started it all. The Apology, the Crito, these are warm-ups to the big theme, to the big book, the Republic.

Every other book in this political science that has since been written, beginning with Aristotle's Politics and moving on to the present day is, in one way or another, an answer, a response to Plato's Republic. It started the whole thing.

The first and most obvious thing to say about the Republic is that it is a long book. Not the longest book you will ever read, but long enough. In fact, in part, because of this, we are only reading approximately half the book, the first five books, to be more specific.

The first five books that deal with and culminate in the best city, Plato's ideal city, what he calls Kallipolis, the just city, the beautiful city, ruled by philosopher-kings.

The second half of the book turns in somewhat different, certainly equally important directions, but would take us much more time than the time we have allotted to deal with. So you will read that on your own. You can take another course, what have you.

The Republic is a very perplexing book, you will find out. Its meaning will not be evident to you on a first reading. It may not be clear to you on a tenth reading, unless you approach it with the proper questions and the proper frame of mind. (hide spoiler)]

REMEMBER WE ARE READING ALL 10 BOOKS OF THE REPUBLIC

I wanted to post this but was not sure where to put it. This is a link to The Stone, the philosophy column that appears in the New York Times. If you enjoy reading about philosophy, you will enjoy this column. It takes a modern look at the questions philosophy poses.

http://www.nytimes.com/column/the-stone