Sexuality In The Republic

Our discussion in class today concerning Plato's ideas of men and women prompted me to think about a rather controversial issue that modernly lays beneath the city's mating structure and what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. Here I will attempt to prove that homosexuality, though overlooked, is not only possible, but probable in the city, and therefor natural to human nature. (I am not attempting to prove anything about homosexuality, but acknowledge its inevitability based on the facts given in the text.)

The article "Hairy Cobblers and Philosopher-Queens" deduced that there are four possibilities of determining one's gender:
a) a male soul in a male body
b) a male soul in a female body
c) a female soul in a male body
d) a female soul in a female body

Each person must be born one of these (due to Plato's belief in reincarnation), hence having a sexual preference of either a physical male or female body. This person, though, must also participate in the city's mating rituals, based on their physical sexual characteristics, in order to advance the civilization.

Here we must discern whether sexual preference is attributed to the physical capability of the person, or if it is a part of the soul which contains the person's natural desire for sex. Let us assume, for the sake of factual argument, that bodily possibility A is prone toward bodily possibility D, and vice-versa, based on the one's desire to match with its physical opposite. This suggests that soul A is prone toward soul D, and vice-versa, for the sexual desire, at this point, is for the purpose of procreation. So if a male-male is prone toward a female-female, and the opposite, we have, for all intents and purposes, defined heterosexuality.

If all the male-males and female-females die and are reincarnated into different bodies with no care to match body to soul, we inevitably end up with possibilities C and D. Now the male soul is prone toward the female soul, for their matching bodies would need to match with their opposite for procreation. The city's mating rituals, though, insist on one physical body matching with its opposite, despite which body or soul the soul is prone toward. Hence we have determined that somewhere, in the grand scheme of the city, homosexuality must have existed solely based on a male body's necessity to mate with a female body despite soul-gender, and the inevitable possibility that one's soul-desire lead to male-male and female-female intercourse.

Of course, this does not account for the possibility that a male-male could inherently be prone toward another male-male, and same for female-female, but like I said, I'm trying to work with the facts given in the text.

More Thoughts on Justice (Book II)

As we began to examine Thrasymachus's idea of justice, we deduced that if justice is, in fact, the advantage of the stronger, then people benefit those in power to avoid punishment. In other words, people are solely just to avoid punishment. From a cynical standpoint, I can't disagree, but I do feel that Plato is striving for a more hopeful definition where justice is a motivation rather than a threat.

It was here that we discussed the concept of justice as an ideology - a facade for moral structure - that emphasizes the idea of justice as the advantage of the stronger. I immediately grew agitated at this concept and attempted to make sense of this definition; if it is true, my cynicism goes unchallenged, but I needed, still, to assume Plato had better intentions.

I deduced: Justice as an ideology is a halfway point to the intention of being just. Some are content with being just as it will benefit those in power and save them from punishment, but [I assume] Plato seeks to further define justice so it will benefit the person.

It is in this that justice moves from an ideology (threat) to a virtue (motivation). Ultimately, I hold fast that, being aware of this, people would choose to be just because it makes them a better person, an exemplary human being. (Here, exemplary ought not be taken lightly; to be exemplary should be the most basic ingredient toward human motivation. After all, we are all inherently models of humanity.) And in this, I found hope, as I often strive to find in philosophy, even if the hope I found is just a matter of my selective reasoning.

Didn't this piss anyone else off?

Book I of Plato's Republic

There really is no easy way to start an entry about Plato and his Republic. Thus far, we've at best begun to think about a definition of justice that will satisfy our fearless conversation leader, while trying to maintain personal composure and a cool head. I, so far, understand what he's getting at, or so I think. Here, I will challenge myself to take another approach to achieve a similar conclusion.


The ever-so-modern dictionary.com provides the technologically savvy human being with several definitions of justice:

jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tis] –noun

1.	the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

2.	rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

3.	the moral principle determining just conduct.

4.	conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.

5.	the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

6.	the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.

7.	judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.

8.	a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.

9.	(initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.

—Idioms

10.	bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.

11.	do justice, a. to act or treat justly or fairly. b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice. c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.

Now, friends, let's pretend we're Plato and refute everything that is accepted as a definition. (disclaimer: in the interest of time, I will carefully - or randomly - choose a few of these definitions to discuss.)

First and foremost, I will entirely disregard the first definition (and other parts of definitions containing the idea of a presupposed justice), for one certainly cannot define a word or idea by using that same word or idea.

Onto something tangible...

And there we have it. It seems that dictionary.com has defined justice just as well as Plato in his Republic; everyone knows justice, but for one to define it poses a seemingly severe predicament. Perhaps it can be looked at as a tiered structure rather than a social implementation. On the bottom of this - what I imagine to be inverted-cone-shaped and multi-colored - tower is the most personal (smallest), yet most important (strongest), definition of justice, which without no other level can exist. I'll name this tier You - for lack of a better term - or, in other words, a personal set of standards that determine right and wrong. It is here that each person holds their own ideals, virtues, and standards, acting as model to others in their own first tier, and inevitably influencing everything above it. Moving upwards, each tier grows in size, but lessens in strength. The next may be family, a group of people closest to that at the bottom, having similar - but not identical - ideals, values, and standards, yet maintaining a certain structure of morals as a group. The process continues upward accordingly, to social groups, community (which could have a few tiers if we think of community as local-state-national), culture, until it reached the top at the final tier - world. It is here that everyone's values come together, bonding at places and rejecting at others. At some point though, is there one value that everyone holds in common? I'm sure there must be one thing that everyone agrees on to some extent. I think Plato would concede to this being a definite definition of justice, but there is no way of knowing.

There is justice in each of the tiers below, though. It's more, though, of a justice-to-this-point; a compromise, perhaps, of the lower tiers' ideals, values, and standards that that tier can reasonably hold everyone responsible for. Or maybe, just maybe, I entirely missed the boat Plato.

Welcome

Hello, friends. Welcome to my temple of philosophy where I will reflect, refute, and discuss philosophical topics as per my Intro to Philosophy class. My intent with using an internet blogging medium rather than a personal journal is to share my ideas and interpretations while welcoming feedback and discussion. Somewhere deep inside all of this, we might find something to take with us. Perhaps something to be meaningful to our lives.