Method Of Philosophy

I am a bit torn. As I understand it, Plato is forming this city to determine if any act performed by man can be inherently good. To answer this question he forms this “perfect” city. I realize that this was established in the first chapter of this read, but something about it has continually bothered me. This method sounds great in theory, but I think in order to make it successful one would have to fully understand the human condition and in turn the deepest motives of man’s heart. Can anyone so accurately portray a scenario that one can draw a universal truth from it? Also how can one know that what is then found is truly a universal truth? Are there any universal truths when it comes to the motives of man?

~P.S. I commented on Caleb's post.

Three Manly Men

In his second argument of book 8, Socrates repeats his argument that the soul is divided into three parts: reason, the spirited part, and desire. So That would mean there exists three basic types of men: the man of reason who seeks knowledge; the "spirited" man who seeks honor and success; and the man of desire who seeks gain (wealth) and satisfaction. Remember that the man of reason possesses knowledge of the Forms, hence, Justice. The first man is the just man; the second, the timocratic man; and the third is a sort of mixture of the oligarchic, democratic, and tyrannical. If we were to ask each of these manly men if he thought himself to be the happiest, each of them would probably answer yes. It's possible that each man may have experienced happiness, but Socrates insists that only the man of reason can experienced the happiness of knowledge because he is the only one of the three who posses it. And the same way with the other two men. So, the man of justice is correct in his judging himself to be the happiest. And it is self-evident that the man of reason is best fitted to judge, since he alone of the three knows Justice.
This is my breakdown of it. If I understood incorrectly, please someone correct me!!!

P.s. I comment on Charlie's. 

Plato's Number

I want to start by saying I am fairly decent at math, and at determining the various different applications, whether scientific or practical of numbers that may be used in every circumstance. Now I can say, I highly dislike Plato's "geometrical figure of dissonance". I read his math about the fertility and prospective matchmaking of people within a society, and it made no sense. I reread the paragraph and it made less sense. I then looked up what I could about the passage and every source comes to the conclusion of his math not even being algebraically sound. I respect Plato's theories, he is even incredibly spot on with a lot of his societal changes within governments based on human nature, but; it bothers me when when people use something, like math, that cannot be used in a theoretical discussion with sound importance or even a manner of sense of any kind. Geometrical figures cannot in any way describe the complexity of the thousands of jolts of electricity that run through our grey matter every hour in order to produce the expected route someone "should" take in order to find someone for marriage. I just don't understand, and it angers me.

I commented on Sydni's.

The Degeneration of the Just City

What I found to be the most interesting was the inevitable degeneration of the Just City in book 9. There was no way to spare it from this fate, as long as people make mistakes (so everything).  DUe to one lapse in judgment, the Just City falls to the honor and spirit-driven timocracy to the greed and appetite driven oligarchy. As things fall apart, the oligarchy devolves into a democracy with too many opinions, person pitted against person, with no common aims. At this point, there can no longer be said to be one city, because they are no longer looking for the common goal, but for their own protection from other citizens.  As the city progressively declines,  one individual stirs the poor to rise against the rich, and overthrow the apparent unjust, and they then replace the rule of the wealthy with the tyrannical rule of the one individual.
This decline is really concerning. If this can't be avoided, is this where we are headed? Was Plato right?
P.S. I commented on Brydon's post

The tyrannical man

Nobody would associate themselves with someone who acts irrationally or ridiculously.  The tyrannical man is absurd and promotes absurdity.  The irony of this image, though, is that there are small streaks of tyranny in all people, I think, even the "philosophers".  Even though no person would admit it, all have "casted off sleep and sought something of gratification".  What separates the tyrannical man from the non, is that the non-tyrannical man can control himself, or at least has learned from his tyranny.

P.S. - Caleb's

Philosophy

It shocked me that though I normally judge Plato rather harshly, most of his philosophy shares a foundation similar to my own. When he discusses that the perfect examples of people must spend time each day to their studies reminded me of Roman 12:2 where we as believers are commanded to renew our minds daily. Just another example of the flesh twisting fundamental truths. 

P. S. I commented on Collin's bloggity blog blog. 

Selfishness

It's interesting to see how Plato describes the degeneration of the government. It's also interesting to see that the downfall is brought about by selfishness and a lack of contentment. Plato talks about how the various forms of government change as the rulers begin to focus more on the accumulation of wealth. Their greed eventually leads to distrust, revolution, and tyranny. I think back to what Plato said in book five about literally making the entire city a family. As strange and shocking as his methods were in doing so, it is actually makes you think. Consider the early church. The Bible says that people actually sold their own property to provide for those in need. If we overcame selfishness to the same degree today, how different would our government be?

I commented on Abbey's.