Hypothetic Study
During this semester, I read the book The Republic by Plato, with a style of writing in dialogue form. This book presents Plato’s idea for the certain construction, administration and justice, namely the management that an ideal republic should conduct.
The main character, Socrates, plays a vital role of narrator who aims to push the story, that is to guide the whole debate with direction towards the construction of a republic, from the very beginning of the existence of the city-states. Other characters, such as Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus and others who are mute audience, all play an important role as to amplify the concepts and storyline. Notably, every character has his unique perspective of analyzing and criticizing, which makes the answer the closest to the truth.
While reading this brilliant piece of art, I feel an intense sense of critical and logical thinking, which consists of contrast, cause and consequence, and most essentially, the hypothetico-deductive-method. Based on observation and analysis of the current politics and history, Socrates comes up with several hypotheses, directing towards a conclusion of political system, which is conducted majorly through abstract reasoning and visualization, and then he proceeds to perfect this certain argument with the help of the peer.
For example, initially, Socrates comes up that “the enchanted are those who change their minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or the sterner influence of fear”. Then he proceeds to put forward that, “we should teach the guardians not to be deceived and prescribe toils and pains and conflicts in which they’ll be made to give further proof of determination and ability”. When he is puzzled by what falsehood they should use to test the guardians whether they are steadfast enough, Glaucon keeps on inspiring him with instructive questions, thus leading to the final answer which is able to persuade all the philosopher. However, if those philosophers can barely agree with Socrates, they would clearly point out the irrational part and then lead this argument towards a discussion of another acknowledged perspective.
Not only does the process of critical and logical thinking inspire me to a large extent, but also the charming and distinguished personalities of those great philosophers have been capturing my interest throughout my reading experience. Polemarchus, described as a patriot, cares greatly about loyalty and reputation, standing for the spiritual part of soul. Thrasymachus, depicted as a scholar with cynicism, is so argumentative that the debate between he and Socrates is considered as the most splendid part of this whole argument. He stands for the rational part of soul. When they debate together, you’ll find delight especially from the connection between their concepts and their certain personalities, which shows the human nature deep within.
The writer, Plato, taking on as the character of Socrates, presents his ideal for an ideal republic by organizing a feast of debate for philosophers standing for different stakeholders, different understanding of soul, and different position of perspective, which ultimately reflects his support for slave owners to consolidate the government of the republic. Though there are some negative statements relating to religion, faith and other stuff, The Republic is still an far-reaching masterpiece full of inspiration and wisdom.
京公网安备 11010802032529号