Plato and the Republic Argument Against His Views
Marie Adjei
English 240
September 5th, 2013
Response to #1, Plato and the Republic
According to Plato, “Using the written word to give a distorted image of the nature of the gods and heroes, completely fails to capture the likeness of the original,” (Book II, p46). An author or poet cannot simply say whatever he or she likes, rather there needs to be truth in what they are writing. In order to understand why Plato takes this stand, it’s important to have an idea of the time in history he was in. At this time many of the strong leaders were apt on building strong intelligent soldiers who would be able to conquer other nations and empires. To fill the minds of the future generation with fantastical stories of hero’s and distraught God’s, in Plato’s mind, only served to weaken the minds of the people. Stories that filled the minds of people with fear, sadness, or excessive pleasure indulged a part of the mind that did not need to be indulged…“If the young men of our community hear this kind of thing and take it seriously, rather than regarding it as despicable and absurd, they’re hardly going to regard such behavior as despicable in human beings like themselves and feel remorse when they also find themselves saying or doing these or similar things,” (Book III, p54). I on the other hand strongly disagree with Plato’s feelings; I feel that forcing people from enjoying the pleasures of expressive and creative writing is futile. To me, his argument is not well supported, he claim’s in book VII that it’s human nature to be driven towards darkness especially if they’ve been shrouded in darkness for most of their lives. The only way to change people’s minds is to use force, Plato alludes to this when he supposes what would happen if a cave dweller were forced out of the darkness… “Imagine him being dragged forcibly away from there up the rough steep slope,” (Book VII, p62). Using force to change the minds of people does not mean that all people will be willing to
English 240
September 5th, 2013
Response to #1, Plato and the Republic
According to Plato, “Using the written word to give a distorted image of the nature of the gods and heroes, completely fails to capture the likeness of the original,” (Book II, p46). An author or poet cannot simply say whatever he or she likes, rather there needs to be truth in what they are writing. In order to understand why Plato takes this stand, it’s important to have an idea of the time in history he was in. At this time many of the strong leaders were apt on building strong intelligent soldiers who would be able to conquer other nations and empires. To fill the minds of the future generation with fantastical stories of hero’s and distraught God’s, in Plato’s mind, only served to weaken the minds of the people. Stories that filled the minds of people with fear, sadness, or excessive pleasure indulged a part of the mind that did not need to be indulged…“If the young men of our community hear this kind of thing and take it seriously, rather than regarding it as despicable and absurd, they’re hardly going to regard such behavior as despicable in human beings like themselves and feel remorse when they also find themselves saying or doing these or similar things,” (Book III, p54). I on the other hand strongly disagree with Plato’s feelings; I feel that forcing people from enjoying the pleasures of expressive and creative writing is futile. To me, his argument is not well supported, he claim’s in book VII that it’s human nature to be driven towards darkness especially if they’ve been shrouded in darkness for most of their lives. The only way to change people’s minds is to use force, Plato alludes to this when he supposes what would happen if a cave dweller were forced out of the darkness… “Imagine him being dragged forcibly away from there up the rough steep slope,” (Book VII, p62). Using force to change the minds of people does not mean that all people will be willing to