An essay concerning Bloom’s reading of the Republic

Type :

School essay

Pages :

5 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

04/19/2009

Category :

Philosophy & literature

Sub category :

Humanities/philosophy

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 10.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction
The problem of Socrates
Comparing defences
1. Socrates' arguments in his defence saying no person wants what is bad for them
2. His defence of the philosophic lifestyle in general
3. Plato's defence of philosophy
4. Justifying the society via philosophy
Conclusion
Works cited

Abstract

Philosopher and literary critic Allan bloom (1968) writes that "The republic is the true Apology of Socrates, for only in the republic does he give an adequate treatment of the theme which was forced on him by Athens' accusation against him. That theme is the relationship of the philosopher to the political community" (p. 307). What are we to make of such a claim? A more popular approach is to view the Apology and republic as accomplishing different goals, with the former providing a historical portrait of Socrates on trial while the latter concerning itself with Plato's theory of the forms, and how they relate to the state and the individual. Though the two dialogues may be mutually reinforcing, they nonetheless perform different functions and address different subjects. This point is buoyed by the fact that most contemporary scholarship views the authorship of Plato critically, in that those texts he wrote early in his career did not seek to accomplish the same goals nor advocate the same system of philosophy which the latter texts did, such as the republic. This being the case, Plato would have been in two very separate mind frames when writing the Apology and the republic; to compare the two as inferior and superior is to miss this point.