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.
I think the idea of self-determination has been difficult for me to accept too. I understand the theory of it and think that people do have a destiny but it's difficult for me to believe it could actually be a good idea to have a city like that
ReplyDeleteFull actualization of a person, as Aristotle later argued, requires that the person be part of a good polis (Cf. Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village"). Contemporary Americans have a kind of obsession with what we call self-determination, but we tend to ignore the social context that makes any realistic form of self-determination possible -- including the many people whose lives are severely constrained by the economic arrangements that give some of us life choices...
ReplyDelete