Thursday, March 16, 2017


Do a short story on Plato's lottery for sex.

I imagine a very somber, melancholic room. Sex has been stripped of its fun. The lottery has been going on for centuries. Instead of creating excitement it now creates dread. When the lottery is drawn the couples perform in front of bored audiences. The woman is then sequestered until she is with child. If she doesn't conceive both the man and the woman are released from the lottery system. They are thrown out into the free love room. This is where I want to do the myth of the cave kind of story. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I am picturing an aesthetic similar to Dogville by Lars von Trier...

I'm not sure where this will go (if anywhere) but there you have it future Chris. Good luck with this one...

Class notes on Plato

(Originally written September 19, 2006)

History of Philosophy I Class Notes

Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)

Influenced by: Socrates, Pythagoreanism

Major Themes

  1. Dialectic
  2. The Soul is Paramount
  3. Theory of Forms (eternal ideas)
  4. Learning is recollection
  5. Virtue is the fulfillment of function
  6. Justice is a harmony of parts
  1. Ethical
  2. Political

Thrasymachus: Justice is what is in the interest of the stronger party
Socrates: When a ruler makes a mistake and it is followed despite it being not in the strong's advantage.

Republic, Ch. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11

(Originally written September 17, 2006)

Plato's Republic
Ch. 6 continued...

This morality so far has been applied only to the community as a whole, not to individuals.

A moral individual will resemble a moral society.

"A community was moral when each of the three natural classes that exist within it did its own job, and also other states and conditions of the same three classes made it self-disciplined and courageous and wise" (Pojman, 145).

Humans resemble the society they live in because the society springs from their nature.

There is a category of the human mind which contains desires, the most prevalent of which are thirst and hunger.

There is a category of the human mind which possesses rationality.

There is a category of the human mind which possess passions.

The Rationality of the mind seeks higher goals (akin to the Guardians).

The Passions seek desire (akin to the Auxiliaries)

The Animal instinct, that which seeks food, drink and sex (akin to the Workers)

Individual morality consists of harmony between the three distinct parts of the mind. Individual immorality is the result of inner conflict or civil war of the mind.

Each part of the mind must properly perform its job and not overstep its bound for their to be a moral individual.

The rational part of the mind must be educated and stretched to reach its full potential. The passions part of the mind must be inculcated with music to soothe and relax it. Once these two parts have been properly trained they will be able to control the larger part: desire.

Desire is the insatiable and greed for tis objects of desire.

The rational part will devise plans to stop unwelcome invasions from outside sources and the passion part will defend it with courage.

The rational part of the mind is the ruler of the mind, the source of wisdom.

The passions part of the mind is the auxiliaries; it is courage.

Self-discipline is the rational part being the rule and the other two parts being willing subjects.

Immorality is any part of the mind overstepping its bounds and intruding on another's rules. It is indiscipline, cowardice and stupidity, any form of badness.

Goodness springs from morality because morality is in accordance with proper nature. Morality is mental health; immorality is mental disease and the source of badness.

Goodness is a consequent of good conduct and badness a consequent of bad conduct.

The community of Plato can be either a kingship (monarchy) or aristocracy. Either way the rulers will be educated properly and the outcome the same.

Chapter 7: Women, Children and Welfare

Plato calls his community good and right (and thus the people individually are good and right). There are four other types of communities which are bad and flawed and corrupt the nature of their inhabitants.

Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Thrasymachus demand an explanation of Socrates' idea of "sharing wives and children"

Socrates admits that he purposefully omitted a detailed discussion because of its enormity. He is also nervous about the plausibility of the topic in being put into action and doesn't want to be accused of wishful thinking. He doesn't want to lead anyone astray because he has not fully formulated his theory.

He starts with equality among male and female guardians. He maintains that convention must be ignored because it may be wrong. (Men and women were not equal in Greece).

The guardians are to be shepherds, the auxiliaries are to be sheepdogs and the workers to be the flock.

Men and women guardians must be educated in exactly the same way.

Men and women auxiliaries must be trained in the same way.

Socrates admits the impractical nature of his proposal. One major, obvious instance is the training in the gymnasium (all gymnasium training was done in the nude). He reminds them though that it used to be mocked for men to train nude, so time could make it reasonable for women to do the same.

Because of the nature of men and women being different they are suited for different tasks. In this system they cannot have the same jobs because it would contradict the system of one nature = one job. Socrates dismisses this criticism as pure rhetoric. It is a verbal distinction masked as a pure critique. He compares it to distinguishing the nature of haired men and bald men.

The nature of men and women can differ vastly but a woman with a medical mind and a man with a medical mind have a nature similar enough to make them both suitable doctors. "If the only difference turns out to be that females bear offspring while males mount females... we'll continue to think that our guardians and their women should have the same occupations" (Pojman, 156).

While females are the weaker sex they can possess the aptitude to be guardians.

Men and women are separate classes. Men are compared to men; women compared to women. The best men are guardians because they are better than other men. The best women are guardians because they are better than all other women. (If a worker man is better than a guardian woman it makes no difference, though this is unlikely because women guardians will have a fine education and the worker man only a skill).

There is no private marriage in the guardian class. All women are to be shared with all men. All children are to be likewise shared. No child is to know who he/she is the child of. No mother or father is to know who he/she is the parent of. The guardians are to be one big incestuous family.

The rulers must employ a bit of deceit to make people believe that sex should only occur between two people of similar standing. That way the best will be procreated and rampant, undisciplined sexual conquests will be minimized.

The rulers will need to employ a fake, but seemingly real, lottery system to have sex. That way the rulers can choose the best mating pairs and the inferior men/women will blame chance for not getting picked and not the rulers.

Women and men should procreate in their prime. Men 25-55; Women 20-40

The act of sex will be performed on fabricated holidays. That way the public will believe that children born out of this time have been blessed and children born out of some other time are not. This will deter too many sexual encounters.

When men and women have passed their prime they are free to have sex whenever, with whomever, but the child must be aborted.

Fathers cannot have sex with daughters and mothers cannot have sex with sons, but these are merely generations  because obviously no one knows their true kin.

The regulations of the guardian class are aimed at eradicating possessions and a feeling of possessiveness.

The best thing for a community is anything that unifies it. The word thing for any community is that which splits it.

This system of community wives/husbands/children is best because it brings unity.

Fear and respect will keep the younger guardians in line.

Men and women will fight alongside one another in war and take children to learn.  The soldiers will know all there is to know about warfare and bring the children to learn only when it is as safe as it can be.

Children will also be on horseback in case the danger becomes too great.

Anyone who fights like a coward or deserts will be demoted to the worker class. Anyone who is brave in battle is to be commended and given free reign to be kissed and kiss anyone he chooses. This is also an incentive for bravery.

Those who die bravely in battle will be crowned deities and their tombs will become worship sites. (Those who are brave in battle and die of old age will receive the same treatment)

If their enemies are non-Greeks then they can enslave them. But Greeks ought not fight other Greeks and definitely not enslave them.

Good soldiers ought not to defile corpses because it is wrong and because it can promote cowardice.

They should not destroy other Greek's homes and crops, but only take the year's harvest in victory.

Conflict between Greeks ought to be called conflict because it is internal. A war is between Greek and non-Greek states.

By not completely devastating another Greek community and only taking one year's crop the two communities can escape perpetual warfare and move towards reconciliation; a goal al Greeks ought to aspire to.

This way conflicts (Greek vs. Greek) are disciplinary actions, not actions motivated by hatred.

Chapter 8: Philosopher Kings

The feasibility of this community is that it can only come to fruition when philosophers become kings or when kings become philosophers.

Socrates starts by pointing out that this community is theoretical and if one were to become actual it would be less perfect than the theoretical community.

Until philosophers become kings or kings practice philosophy with integrity all political systems will be flawed and bad. Political power and philosophy must coincide.

What is a philosopher?

A lover of something must love/desire the whole of it, not an aspect or part. (This is a truly disturbing passage, ca 474d-475b, but pedophilic homosexuality was custom in Greece)

A philosopher is a lover of knowledge. A philosopher's hunger for knowledge of all sorts must be insatiable.

People who enjoy one type of knowledge/expertise with an insatiable appetite for that singular particular branch are not philosophers, but resemble them.

Philosophers seek out things in and of themselves, not things that resemble it. (i.e. a painting is beautiful, but it is not itself beauty. It is a particular manifestation of beauty). Philosophers would seek knowledge of beauty, not knowledge of a particular thing which is beautiful.

Beauty (and things like it) are more real than beautiful things. Thus, anyone seeking more real things seeks truth, which is knowledge; whereas those seeking particular things obtain opinions and beliefs.

Particular things fall between reality and non-reality. Anything that has reality is knowable. Anything that has non-reality is unknowable. Those things that fall between reality and non-reality therefore is somewhere between knowable and unknowable. We cannot call it knowledge because knowledge is reserved for absolute reality. We can't call it unknowable because that is reserved for non-reality. Thus, it must be opinion/belief.

Faculties are those things that give human beings their abilities, i.e. sight, hearing, etc.

Knowledge is the strongest faculty. Opinion/belief is likewise a faculty. Every faculty has its own domain. Therefore knowledge and opinion/belief must have different domains.

The domain of knowledge is reality. Thus belief is not accessible to reality.

Belief cannot be knowledge, nor can it be incomprehension. It is an intermediate between the two.

Philosophers are lovers of knowledge, thus lovers of reality. This is a virtue which would do well for a ruler. Reality is permanent and undying.

Philosophers are as good as any other man in practical aspects and have an advantage because they have a sense for reality.

Philosophers are tenacious and unwavering in their pursuit of the whole./

Philosophers are honest. They are incapable of tolerating falsehood/.

They are self-disciplined. He is not caught up in petty details. He is not small-minded. He will not fear death. He is unswayed by money. He is moral. He is a quick learner, not anti-social, well-angered, and not uncouth. He is not forgetful. His mind must have a knack for proportion and elegance. He is to be cultured. All of these qualities are noticeable at a young age and moldable through proper education.

A true philosopher then, is fit to rule a community.

The common perception of philosophers is that stye are either useless or bad.

Philosophers appear to be useless because the public is so narrow minded that they cannot see anything beyond their immediate gratification.

A true philosopher is a rare human nature.

If an exceptional mind is subjected to bad education it will become exceptionally bad.

Goodness cannot be taught. A person is naturally good or bad. But, when they are swayed by threat or praise all minds are susceptible to falling in with the masses.

The masses are swayed by whims; but philosophers are not swayed. If the masses' opinion changes to something against the philosopher than the philosopher will be regarded as wrong.

Socrates claims there isn't a single political structure in existence that is favorable to philosophy.

Chapter Nine: The Supremacy of the Good

Normally men who learn quickly are carried off into every which way, but philosophers must be quick to learn and remain steadfast in their love of country.

Goodness is the most fundamental quality of a guardian. It is what gives morality its benefit and value.

Some people call pleasure the good and some high browed individuals call knowledge the good. Both are mistaken.

Goodness is the goal of all activities of all men/women.

Socrates admits he cannot give a proper definition of goodness, but can explain it through a simile somewhat. Light is the thing that makes it possible for us to see. Our sight depends on an outside source for it to work. Each of our eyes resembles this light giver, which is the sun. Sight is not granted by the Sun, but it is enabled by the sun.  Goodness is like the sun. It enables us to have knowledge, but does not provide it itself.

When goodness is gone or dim (as with a light) knowledge is unattainable and all one can have is murky beliefs.

Goodness gives things its truth and the possibility of knowledge to us. Knowledge and truth resemble goodness, but neither are goodness.

The Analogy of the Cave

All men are trapped in the cave. There is a fire in the back that causes shadows of the men to move along the wall. All men in the cave can only see the shadows. They believe that those shadows are the true reality. But one man escapes from the cave. He cannot see clearly right away because his eyes are not used to the sunlight. Slowly but surely he begins to see and comprehend the world outside of the cave. He is now contemplating and comprehending the goodness. Understanding the goodness compels him to return to the cave and free all of his fellow prisoners. But his eyes cannot adjust back to the darkness and all who hear his story believe he is mad. But knowing the goodness he is compelled to enlighten everyone.

Education is the cultivation of person's potentials.

The guardians must come to know the good but mustn't be allowed to stay up there. They must educate all their fellow prisoners. This way the rulers will know that no material goods can substitute for the good and won't be tempted to acquire private wealth and guide the whole community toward the good.

Chapter 11 Warped Minds, Warped Societies

There are five political systems. The community they founded is the only good and right one.

What are the other four?

1. The Cretan & Spartan system
2. Oligarch
3. Democracy
4. Noble Dictatorship (The ultimate political disease)

With five political systems there are five natures of people.

Aristocracy is their system and the person within this system has been proved to be moral.

The person of the Cretan/Spartan system is competitive and ambitions. Socrates calls this system a timocracy. A timocracy is an aristocracy gone bad by the passions ruling and corruption of money. The timocracy falls between the system it grew out of (aristocracy) and oligarchy. The timocracy will be ruled by money hungry politicians, but because they want to appear as an aristocracy they will do it ins secret and become mean-spirited. They will stress physical training, but neglect philosophy, culture are reason. The persons of this society will be ambitious, eager to submit to authority, but wanting power. They will be obstinate. They will grow into mercenaries.

An oligarchy is a system in which a wealthy few rule. They love money over goodness. The oligarchy lacks unity and individuals are valued over society as the whole. Envy corrupts the oligarchical community. Wealth is admired and goodness is despised. There becomes a rigid two class-system: the extremely poor and the lavishly wealthy. They will despise one another and plot against each other. They will fail in war. Their rulers will be pseudo-rulers and fail in their duties. Crime will rise out of the utter poverty. It is caused by a poor political system, bad upbringing and poor education. They will use property value for ruling criterion, which inevitably leads to bad ruling.

A timocratic person will devolve into an oligarchic person at the loss of wealth. He will abandon ambition and take to hoarding money and became a mercenary.

An oligarch will put the highest value on money. He will become ascetic. He will attempt to make profit out of every situation. But he will be unwilling to spend it. He will be uneducated and stupid.
They will be criminals as guardians and beggars elsewhere. They will be quick to spend other people's money to fulfill their drone desires.

The Salmon of Doubt

With a name like The Salmon of Doubt I wasn't sure what to expect. I mean, I've read nearly every major work of Douglas Adams, but this one wasn't giving any clues as to what was going to happen by the title. That's just a part of the charm in this book.

Here's my Goodreads review: This book is an anthology; therefore it's impossible to review as a whole. The Dirk Gently draft at the end is very humorous and very unfinished. I understand why Adams struggled a bit with it. It certainly felt mixed up between The Hitchhiker world and The Gently world. Had he finished the novel it would have been on par with most of his other work, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

The other bits of this book are essays, interviews and just random scraps of thoughts found on Adams' macs after he passed away. I'll tell you my favorites were some of his little blurbs as they gave me some insight into his thinking. That was fun. His essays were what you'd expect from anyone who writes essays. They fell on a spectrum. I don't adhere to all of Adams' worldview, but some of his arguments for it were weightier than others (much as some theistic arguments are weightier than others). The interviews are as good as the interviewer was. 

Some of the highlights for me are the biscuits at the train station because that is flat out one of the funniest stories I've ever read, the puddle analogy against a teleological worldview because it makes me think even when I disagree and his story about the manta rays because it highlights how good stories can be about nature. If more conservationists were like Adams there would be less need of them.

I really did enjoy much of the book. There were parts that had me rolling and laughing out loud to myself. Then there were parts that were humdrum. Here are some of my favorite parts in my first reading (I plan on rereading it at least 41 times to get to the meaning of everything). In writing some of this, I hope to glean some of the storytelling tricks Adams uses to employ in my own writing.

Fifteen Second Timespan

In describing himself and his nose Adams writes, "One of the more curious features of my nose is that it doesn't admit any air. This is hard to understand or even believe. The problem goes back a very long way to when I was a small boy living in my grandmother's house. My grandmother was the local representative of the RSPCA, which meant the house was always full of badly damaged dogs and cats, even the occasional badger, stoat, or pigeon. Some of them were damaged physically, some psychologically, but the effect they had on me was to seriously damage my attention span. Because the air was thick with animal hair and dust, my nose was continually inflamed and runny, and every fifteen seconds I would sneeze. Any though I could not explore, develop, and bring to some logical conclusion within fifteen second would therefore be forcibly expelled from my head, along with a great deal of mucus"(Adams, 13). 

P.G. Wodehouse

Douglas Adams and I both have a strong affinity for Kurt Vonnegut. Adams lists his favorite authors as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Kurt Vonnegut, P.G. Wodehouse and Ruth Rendell. I'll admit to have never heard of Rendell or Wodehouse. Wodehouse is now however on my periphery as someone I'd like to read. (Rendell doesn't really strike me as all that interesting and while I may get around to reading something of hers and have my mind completely blown, I've got a lot of other books I want to read until I get to hers). Dickens is fantastic. He is very wordy and very descriptive, which slows down my reading; but, there is no denying his incredible storytelling. Jane Austen is on my list for 2017. And, as previously stated, Vonnegut is one of my favorites. Adams writes about P.G. Wodehouse's last novel, Sunset at Blandings, as being unfinished, "It is unfinished not just in the sense that it suddenly, heartbreakingly for those of us who love this man and work, stops in mudflow, but in the more important sense that the text up to that point is unfinished. A first draft for Wodehouse was a question of getting the essential ingredients of a story organized - its plot structure, its characters and their comings and goings, the mountains they climb and the cliffs they fall off. It is the next stage of writing - the relentless revising, refining, and polishing - that turned his works into the marvels of language we know and love" (Adams, 63). Sadly, and rather poignantly, this is somewhat how I feel about The Salmon of Doubt (at least the Dirk Gently part).

Life as a matter of opinion & The predestined puddle

I find it somewhat unsettling that I am frequently drawn to writers and thinkers that I am thoroughly at odds with on some fundamental level. Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy was what got me into philosophy in the first place and I've read much of his other work as well. Vonnegut and Adams are among my favorite authors from the relatively contemporary period we live in. Voltaire is one of my favorite authors of all time. Russell, Vonnegut and Adams were all atheists and Voltaire wasn't exactly friendly to orthodox Christianity. I don't know why I seem to be drawn to those who have such vastly different views from me on things that are as crucial and foundational as a belief in God, but I am. I think that is because I'm drawn to interesting writing and ideas and while I may agree with a sermon by the average preacher, unless they present it in an interesting manner I simply nod along. With Adams, he makes strong arguments for atheism that are challenging and I like to be challenged. In his speech Is there an artificial god? he notes, "without a god, life is only a matter of opinion" (Adams, 128). I think that he's right. If there is no god, the definition of everything becomes subjective - including the fundamental question of what is living and what is not. I find his notion of where did the idea of God come from as somewhat shallow, man looks around and sees a great world and as masters of that great world it must be made for us. I don't find that very convincing or challenging. He makes other points that are challenging. This just isn't one of them. But, the notion that the meaning of life is purely subjective without the existence of God is an intriguing philosophical problem to me. His parable of the puddle is a better nuanced version of this argument. The puddle finds itself in a hole exactly the shape that is suited for it and thinks that this world was made for him. As the puddle evaporates it hangs on to the notion for dear life that the world is made for him, even as he is receding into nothingness. That's a challenging idea. That's a difficult one for the theistic minded man to contend with. It calls for better apologetics (but not new theology). 

The Cookies Story at the Train Station

This might be one of my favorite bits of the book. Adams states that in 1976 he went to a train station and bought a bag of biscuits and a paper and sat down across from a man. The man opened a package of biscuits and began to eat one. Adams, in shock at having someone eat one of his biscuits, doesn't say anything but eats a biscuit himself. This back and forth goes on until the whole package is finished. The other man leaves without having said a word to Adams. Adams is in disbelief as to what had just happened (as was, presumably, the other man). When Adams finally gets up to go he picks up the paper to discover the packet of biscuits he bought is actually under his newspaper. "The thing I like particularly about this story is the sensation that somewhere in England there has been wandering around for the last quarter-century a perfectly ordinary guy who's had the same exact story, only he doesn't have the punch line" (Adams, 151). This is seriously one of the funniest things I've ever read.

The Letter to David Vogel at Walt Disney

When Adams and Disney are having problems with making Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into a movie, Adams writes Vogel about the lack of communication between them and how it's making it difficult. So he ends the letter with a plead to get together to discuss the movie and a page and a half of ways of reaching Adams. He gives him his email, assistant's number, office fax, his home number, UK cell phone, US cellphone, his French home number, his wife's office number, his film agent's number, his book agent's number (office, home and other office), his producer's number, his director's number (office, home and cellphone), another woman's office, home and cellphone number, his UK producer's number (office, home and cell), his mother's number, his sister's work and home number, his nanny's number, his next door neighbor's number (work and home) and some 'restaurants I might conceivably be at', including the telephone number for Sainsbury's '(supermarket where I shop; they can always page me)' and his website. Too funny. "[Editor's Note: This letter had the desired effect. David Vogel responded, resulting in a productive meeting that pushed the movie forward]" (Adams, 171). Who says sarcasm never worked?

I also enjoyed his incomplete novel and his short story about Genghis Khan, but that is enough for now.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Notes on the Republic Ch. 6b

(Originally written September 16, 2006)

Plato's Republic Ch. 6 continued

Today was absolute shit. The most exciting thing is I have to work from 10pm - 8 am. Hooray!

The guardians are fewer in number than any other group of people and are responsible for the community's wisdom.

The bravery or lack thereof, of the guardians and workers would have no effect on the community. The bravery/courage of the community will be supplied by the auxiliaries.

The soldiers will be selected for their character and then through proper and rigorous education the soldiers can be instilled with a courage that will never falter.

Self-discipline is a self-mastery, a control over one's pleasures and desires. It is the better portion of a man controlling his own worse parts.

Rationality is reserved for "those few people who have been endowed with excellence by their nature and their eduction" (Pojman, 163). Rationality allows the privileged a chance to escape most of the pains, pleasures and desires which harm self-discipline.

The workers will suffer from the largest quantity of pleasures, pains and desires. The desires of the masses (workers) will be checked by the intelligence of the guardians.

Self-discipline spreads over all three classes.

Self-discipline is the harmony of society bringing its best and worst elements into a perfect unity.

Morality is everyone in the community performing their specific duty and not overstepping their bounds.

Plato claims there are three parts of the mind, or that man has a tripartite mind. Each part has distinctive desires, aims, objectives and pleasures:
1) instinctive desire
2) the desire for one's overall good
3) the desire for good results based on one's self-image

Notes on the Republic Ch. 6a

(Originally written September 15, 2006)

Plato's Republic

Ch. 6 - Inner and Outer Morality

Plato's community has four elements of goodness:
1) Wisdom
2) Courage
3) Self-discipline
4) Morality

The community's wisdom comes from the thought and resourcefulness of the guardians.

The community's courage comes from the bravery of the auxiliaries.

The Community's self-discipline comes from the submissive nature of the workers.

The community's morality comes from each member of each class acting in accordance with their class duties/responsibilities and not over stepping those boundaries.

Notes on the Republic Ch. 2-5

(Originally written September 14, 2006)

Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman

The Republic

Chapter 2: The challenge to Socrates

Glaucon and Adeimantus (Plato's brothers) demand a full justification of Socrates' claim that morality enables one to prosper.

Glaucon holds that morality is not good, only a lesser evil.

Adeimantus holds that morality is valued only for its external rewards.

Socrates has to prove that morality is intrinsically good and that it contributes towards a person's happiness.

Glaucon sets out to:
1) Explain the usual view of morality
2) Show that it is practiced reluctantly as a necessary thing, not a good thing.
3) Show that this is unreasonable because an immoral man is happy than a moral one

Morality is originated by people coming into contacts with one another and forming laws.

Morality is a compromise. It isn't good, but it is valued because it prevents wrong doing.

If people are given a choice between morality and immorality people will always choose immorality. If someone were to choose morality if given a choice, he would rightly be seen as a fool.

The pinnacle of immorality is being immoral while still appearing to be moral.

If we are to truly believe that a person is moral for morality's sake, we must treat him as a sinner and see if he will still live as a saint. Then we can gauge who is happier: a moral person or an immoral person.

Adeimantes then barks in and defines morality from the standpoint of the rewards it brings.

Adeimantes claims that the gods give moral people rewards.

Adeimantes affirms that appearance of morality is much more important than the reality of morality.

Adeimantus claims that those who believe morality is good have never refuted those who claim immorality is not good.

Glaucon and Adeimantus hold that it is not enough to show morality is better than immorality because that is a praise of morality's rewards and a condemnation of immorality's stigma. They contend that if one only does this they accept Thrasymachus' claim that it is good to be immoral and appear to be moral, rather than being moral outright.

Chapter 3: Fundamentals of Inner Politics

Socrates calls Glaucon and Adeimantus "sons of Ariston" (godlike) because of their articulation of immorality and resistance to its rewards.

Socrates wants to investigate morality by investigating the morality of a community, then of an individual.

A community is formed when men realize they are deficient in some manner and combined with other men to overcome their deficiencies. We have lots of needs and lots of deficiencies so we form large communities to meet all of these needs. Different people are inherently better suited for different trades, thus we need all sorts of people in our community.

Success comes from specialization, not a man endeavoring in numerous tasks.

So once the community is formed does it contain morality and immorality? Adeimantus remarks if it does it must have something to do with how the inhabitants treat one another.

A community's size must be increased to the point of bloating to fulfill all of the human non-necessary wants.

As the community grows the community's appetites will increase and the community will have to commandeer part of their neighbor's land to fulfill their wants. But that other community will need to do the same to our community. The next step would then be an inevitable war.

War would produce a need for an army and an army would need soldiers and thus, the community would grow.

The community will need guardians to protect the community from aliens and to educate the young nobility.

The guardian must be like the noblest of dogs: vicious to strangers and lovers of knowledge.

"Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosopher's love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong" (Pojman, 129).

Chapter 4: Primary Education for the Guardians

Guardians must have a natural aptitude.

A guardian's education must be started young and inculcate values.

Young guardians must have only morally sound stories. Immoral stories must be censored.

The guardian role in the community is the most vital of the whole community. Every person is predestined by their abilities to a certain task. All these tasks work together to form a functional community. The guardian's task is to make sure the community functions properly.

Education begins young because the mind is most impressionable when it is young.

Story-telling is the first step in education. Story writers must be scrutinized so that only moral stories are told to the guardians (because guardians must be moral) by their nurses and mothers.

Homer and Hesiod must be censored because the distort heroes and the gods.

While Socrates admits that these poets' stories are allegorical, he states that since young children cannot distinguish allegory from reality, the stories must be chucked altogether.

Whatever stories are told, they must be in accordance to the nature of God, which is good.

Anything good is harmless. Anything harmless cannot cause damage. Anything that cannot cause damage cannot do anything bad. Anything that cannot be bad cannot be held responsible for anything that is bad.

Goodness is responsible for all things good in a state and bad things are not bred out of goodness.

Chapter 5: The Guardian's Life and Duties

There are three castes of people: Guardians, Auxiliaries and Workers.

Guardians - rulers - "Gold"
Auxiliaries - Militia - "Silver"
Workers - Craftsmen - "Copper" or "Iron"

God wants there to be three casts and the members of each caste must believe this. There is a little room for change however.

The best, oldest guardians ought to be the rulers and the rest the subjects. The old and best have the best skill and most complete love for the community.

The community fails or success according to the rule of the guardians (and vice-versa). Thus, the guardians have a vested interest.

Rulers are selected through careful watch throughout their whole lives and selected based on their devotion to the community.

Rulers are chosen on their adherence to the beliefs instilled in them from a very young age. It won't do at all to select a ruler who is liable to lose his faith.

To set up this community one will have to develop a tall tale (as Homer and Hesiod did) to instill the values of the community:
1) All men were formed in earth
2) All crafts were formed in each
3) The earth spit out the men and crafts into a specific land, which is their home to love and defend with honor
4) All men are brothers, but not equal
5) Some men were made with gold (guardians), some men were made with silver (military), some men were made with copper and iron (workers/farmers)
6) Gold, silver, copper/iron are one's class
7) Man beget children of the same class, but occasionally a gold man will beget a silver body and silver man will beget a gold boy. If a son of a farmer or worker is born predisposed to silver or gold nature then he must be elevated.

The most important job of the guardians is to maintain the three classes and to make certain that everyone is placed in the right class (even if they are born of another class)

The guardians and auxiliaries are to live an alert military life and own no property (much like Sparta).

The guardians/auxiliaries are not to own property because it will corrupt them and the community will fall.

The guardians/auxiliaries will not be happy in the vulgar, materialistic form but can be happy in a greater sense. But, if they aren't it doesn't matter because the happiness of the whole community is greater than the happiness of any single part.

It is vital that the classes do not act as one another. A guardian ought not act as an auxiliary. An auxiliary ought not to act as a guardian or as a worker. A worker must act as a worker. But, it is also as important that a higher class citizen not abuse or exploit a lower class and a lower class ought not to intimidate or rebel against a higher class.

Gold men (guardians) and silver men (warriors) are not to desire earthly gold or silver because that gold/silver is tainted and the gold/silver in them is untainted. They are to be paid in only their stipend to live which should leave them no excess and also not leave them wanting.

If Gold/silver men obtain property they will become envied/hated by copper and iron men and will lord over their lesser brethren. They will become enemies of their community and the community will collapse.

The individual is sacrificed to the community of Socrates so that all will have a share in a higher happiness and not the lower, vulgar happens individual now seek in gluttony.

Plato maintains that the stability of the community lies in the guardians' ability to keep workers working. They must not become too rich or too poor.

The military of Plato's community will not be able to sustain prolonged warfare so must appear ferocious and aim to solve conflict with fear and diplomacy.

Education and a good system will provide all three classes with structure so a huge amount of laws will not be needed.

Overly wealthy people become too lazy in their work. Overly poor people will create inferior products/labor.

Too much wealth brings "indulgence, indolence, and innovation". Too much poverty brings "miserliness, bad workmanship and innovation"

Innovation is bad because the system is good and no change is needed.

The size of the community is important. It mustn't be too small or too large. It must remain a unity.

Good education produces good people. Good people (if they continue the education) will better the education and make it more complete.

Music must be regulated because new music will affect people's moods about the law. Change is bad.

All aspects of life will be orderly and spring out of good, early education and needn't be legislated, which is foolishness.

In a good society, with proper education orderliness and rules of conduct will spring forth out of the good character of all the citizens of a good society. There will be no need of continual lawmaking and editing. The goodness of their nature will suffice to provide all the rule of law they need. (on top of the broad constitution of the State).