Knowledge and Truth

In Book VI of the Republic, Socrates claims that the highest form of wisdom is truth, and then goes on to say that a philosopher should be preoccupied with finding every kind of truth. I found this phrasing to be interesting. By saying there are different kinds of truths, does Socrates mean the truth about various subjects, or that truth comes in multiple forms? I think the second interpretation is more interesting, though I'm not sure that's what Plato intended. Is Socrates potentially saying that truth is not just what is clearly real, that perhaps a different lens is needed in order to understand all the different kinds of truths in the world? And if so, how does the limitation of artists in the city of words lead to or hinder the pursuit of truth?

The Individual in the Republic

I was intrigued by our discussion before break on the allusions to gender equality made in Book IV. I think it was Clara who found particular fault with viewing Socrates as believing that women are capable in the same way men are, and I am inclined to agree with her. However, I think the formation of this city of words, though it is a macrocosm of the individual, disregard the individual so entirely that issues of equality of any sort, for anyone, cannot be addressed. Obviously, this city of words can be constructed so that women are disenfranchised or not, but in the end I think everyone under this political regime would become disenfranchised from their own internal motivations and passions.

Of course, this is an extremely basic understanding of the city of words, and I suppose it would be possible for every individual to achieve their happiness through the state being able to identify their true purpose and role, as we have discussed. Still, I am uncomfortable with this seeming loss of self-determination. Moreover, I wonder if this should even be something I'm concerned about, as Socrates states time and time again that this city is not for practical construction, and is symbolic of the individual.

Themes of Paternalism in the Republic

I have been thinking about the many different forms of paternalism in the Republic, and how Socrates is not immune to using forms of manipulation when talking with other people. In the city of words that Socrates and the other men are constructing, where a "ruler as such" is the ultimate paternal figure, it seems impossible for people to do what Socrates continually entreats them to do: think critically on their own. Socrates' very method of conversing with individuals and acting as a catalyst for them to examine themselves and their society seems counter to any notion of the sort of city that is being constructed, so I do believe Socrates actually believes a city should be constructed in the way they are talking about. However, there still seems to be a paradox, and that is that Socrates wants individuals to think for themselves, but he uses rhetorical tricks to appeal to them. While we can say that this is alright because, unlike a sophist, Socrates does this because he truly wants to help the young men of Athens, but that seems rather consequential to me, and I am still not sure how comfortable I am with the implications of curtailing individuals' freedoms of thought and choice, both in the city of words and Socrates' method of teaching.