Plato...is pretty clear, IMO, that you can't create perfect justice without perfect injustice.
This idea is interesting... I'll have to try to look at the Republic again sometime. I admit I'm still hesitant: it's so hard, especially with the dialogue form, to tell just what Plato means sometimes. Is an apparent tension deliberate, or just an inconsistency in an intellectual structure that hasn't been fully worked out?
It's in part, I'd argue, tied to his understanding of Being versus Becoming. We can be ungood, but only become good. That is to say we can be bad, but only aspire to good. We are imperfect and only aspire to perfection.
A real city can become just, but will never be just. Likewise, a person can become a philosopher king, but never be one. So, yes, we should have philosopher kings, but they will never be, only become. The system only works, if it would at all, with philosopher kings who are, not becoming. So, the system will never work. It is doomed to injustice.
However, you can attempt to rightly order your soul without injustice. Part of this is based upon my conclusion that Plato believes that you can't be unjust to yourself, so reason dominating your appetites and passions in pursuit of an ideal soul isn't an issue.
Sorry, that's a lot of stuff. My biggest issue with Plato is that I'm sure I have a coherent theory that brings it all together boiling around somewhere, but whenever I start thinking about it I get sidetracked by all the issues Plato raises
BTW, I could be completely full of shit on this.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment