Plato Blogging: Literal Just Doesn't Make Sense

Andrew offered a thoughtful response:

I certainly think it's possible to discern what Plato meant and I don't insist that I know what Plato meant, since I can't even really read him in his original language and tons of context have probably been lost over time.

My skepticism over your interpretation of Plato is principally because you seem to be cherry picking bits of the text to make your case and ignoring the main thrust of what Plato actually said. Perhaps Plato did intend The Republic to be primarily a metaphor (and that metaphor is unquestionably present in The Republic), but since it makes perfect sense to read it literally, I don't know why we would prefer the metaphorical interpretation only.

I am reminded of a talk I went to as an undergraduate where a leftist professor made the claim that all the "diversity" in The Republic meant that Plato couldn't possibly be serious about his totalitarian message. Nobody in the room bought it. It's hard for admirers of Plato (and I am, occasionally, one myself) to realize that he was a totalitarian, but that's where the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence lies.

If Plato's theory is simply, true philosophers should rule and here is how they should rule, then why write The Republic? The people he wants to rule wouldn't need it, right? They already know Truth.

I guess my point here is that if we define Philosophers as the only ones who know the truth, then it's almost tautological that they should rule. Or perhaps it's more of a syllogism:

Only philosophers know truth.
Truth is required to know justice.
Therefore, philosophers should rule.

Well, no shit. Who wants the blind leading the blind? Then isn't it more important, and far more interesting, if the point is how one becomes a philosopher? Or baring that how one orients one's own soul for flourishing?

On the totalitarian point, I would accept his totalitarianism if it weren't so contradictory. And I'd accept contradiction if his writing weren't otherwise so clear, thoughtful, and coherent on multiple levels. Nietchze's contradictions I can chalk up to his incoherence. I can't do the same for Plato.

Anyway, I understand why people are skeptical. Indeed, I used to take it literally too. I like taking people at face value. They wrote X, then they must mean X. It gets hairy when you start going down the path of, for example, the author wrote about how he was motivated by his faith in God, but that's all cover to placate the societal norms. He was really an atheist.

Platonic dialogues are also incredibly complex and rich. They offer many plausible interpretations.

Lastly, I'm not hubristic enough to say that I have the definitive truth of Plato. Although, it does chap my ass though when people use the term philosopher-king as some sort of utopian political vision of a world run by the wisest.

Anyway, perhaps I'll change some minds once we get into The Republic. Or even open the possibility to people.