We never got to discuss this part of the power point, and it was absolutely crucial to understanding the city/soul analogy presented in Book IV. As we already saw, happiness in a city can be achieved if everyone is playing their part and doing the jobs that their nature entails them to do. This is loosely defined as the virtue of justice, although even then we don't have a very specific definition. "...one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted;- now justice is this principle or a part of it.” (Plato 123) In light of this, is it fair to assume that this applies in the modern day? It's a bit separatist in terms of class. At the moment, we live in a world that is becoming more and more about money, and we're all kind of caught in this race to get rich or die trying. New York City, in particular, has been put under scrutiny as a place that is no longer somewhere to look for opportunities, but rather a place to settle once one has acquired unfathomable wealth. What does this tell us about duty and our jobs? Cities are well-oiled machines because everyone is doing what they are meant to be doing, but how does nature decide what one is meant to be doing: does this refer to us following our passions to live happy lives (thus creating happy cities) or staying in our lanes and doing what we each need to do depending on our social status and what money we have at our disposal?
-Eduardo R.
I don't think everyone, or even most people, in New York are "doing what they are meant to be doing". I think the modern American metropolis is so far removed from the Ancient Greek context there is no feasible way to compare the platonic utopia to the modern ideal of the "American dream" and so on. In a capitalist society, there is no regulatory force of nature predetermining a citizen's lives, and, at least in theory, such a city would be founded on free decisions concerning economic matters. On such an idealistic model, the first proposition in your question would be accurate: each individual is free to follow there passions. Whether or not the "free market", in practice, actually promotes freedom of any sort is another matter entirely. But that is clearly the diametric opposite conception of the ideal city from Plato's theory. His counterargument to the capitalistic endorsement of market freedom would likely pertain to irrationality and the inability of the ignorant masses to determine their most apt livelihood. Plato would emphasize the need for benevolent dictators, like his own philosopher-kings, as upholders of justice and order in the polis.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that idea applies to modern-day New York City either. Yes there are obvious ways people keep the city going (vendors, train workers, cab drivers, etc.) but for the most part, the New York society is very individualist. Everyone is in their own bubble on their way to success and sometimes the lines of respecting each other are blurred when one is trying to accomplish a goal. A "happy city" is only happy in the eyes of those who aren't struggling. And because big cities like NYC will always have the haves and the have-nots, I don't think a city can ever be perfect.
ReplyDeleteI can agree that not everyone in New York is fully happy in what they are doing with their lives. However, I believe that when Socrates says doing what nature has for oneself, he doesn't actually mean what nature actually has for us. It is hard to believe that one can say what really makes us happy at birth. People change and humans are now influenced to be very individualized. I believe that Socrates meant that where ever that person in placed to do a certain job, they will be happy because that have nothing else to like. Socrates doesn't give people that freedom to test out different jobs to see which they truly and naturally feel happy with. So according to him happiness is where a person adapts to a job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melissa. Socrates doesn't give people much of a chance to explore what they're naturally inclined to and make a decision. Instead, he believes that people should be given a job and because they'll know no other skills, they'll be happy with the job that they're placed in. As for the idea of comparing NYC to the utopia-like city in the Republic...I don't think it's possible. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both fruit (cities), but that's really it. New York is based around a capitalistic system where each person has to make and then fight for their idea of happiness. They have to work for it and though many fail at this because of circumstance, many also succeed. In the Republic, everything is essentially handed to you and you have no freedom to make choices--it's definitely an easier living than the harsh realities of New York are. But in turn, you'd know nothing else. It's a very false and conditioned sense of happiness.
ReplyDeleteI think many people in New York City are unhappy with their jobs. Not only that, but there are many New Yorkers that do not even have jobs or homes. Plato does not mention a social class that is equal to the modern day homeless. Together, his perfect society would all be employed by a job that would benefit the society as whole. Also differing from the ideal society, not all of us know what job we were meant to have. Many of us are exploring possible careers for this very reason. Agreeing what his been written above, I do not believe this comparison is plausible.
ReplyDeleteI think Rama makes a good point about how in Plato's society, there is no class that is equal to our "poor" or "unemployed" class today. In the world of Plato, everyone in the city has a purpose and a job, but I don't think this is very realistic. This would work perfectly if humans were born knowing exactly what they wanted to do and become in life. Many people don't know what they want to do or what they're good at, and a lot of times people change interests. I think that Socrates would rather have a smooth-running society even if that means sacrificing the happiness of some people. In New York City (and in many cities in the world), people are trapped in jobs they hate. I think it would be better to have everyone doing the job they love (or at least like) and be happy rather than forcing certain people to take jobs they may hate in order to make the city run well. Who's to say that when people are unhappy, the city will thrive? Unhappiness usually leads to poor performances in jobs, so I think it would make more sense to let people choose whatever they want and be happy. Happier people are can be more likely to be successful.
DeleteNew York City and the society that Plato and Socrates described/lived in are two very different cities in various respects. I feel that in today's world, many people believe that it's much more important to be rich than to be happy in a job. The mindset is that if a person becomes rich from working hard in an unfulfilling job, they can then make enough money so that they can quit their terrible job earlier and retire in comfort. In Plato and Socrates' society, the idea was to work hard because it was the designated job, and the motivation to work hard was because the city needs everyone to work together so that everything runs smoothly. Also, the fact that people couldn't choose their own jobs in the "perfect city" probably made a big difference in their happiness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Cat said about the idea that nowadays it’s more important to work a job you do not enjoy to become rich and then retire early in comfort than to really enjoy what you do. But I think that most people in current societies aren’t only working jobs they don’t like to become rich. Many people are pretty much forced to work jobs that they absolutely hate just to get by. In the Ancient Greek society that Plato and Socrates described, general necessities were already given to the people, and they were working to ensure that the city could keep prospering. In that sense, most people in that society were working for a “greater good” of the city, while in today’s world it’s more of an individualized society that focuses on the well-being of yourself.
ReplyDeleteUpon reflecting about the modern city and the hierarchies that are clearly visible in it, what do you all think about the social structure of our society in general? We don't exactly have an auxiliary class, but policemen and other service workers get certain benefits that those in other professions do not get. This, along with the inflated sense of power some of them have, is interesting to note as it goes with the idea of one type of people holding all the knowledge, and thus all the power. This can be seen in several leaders, although I thought it was worth highlighting the police in the wake of the Mike Brown incident. Any thoughts, you guys?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that people should be doing "what they are supposed to be doing." I believe that even if everybody was doing what they were supposed to do in a society then almost nobody would be happy except for the people on top, but even they might not be happy doing what they are doing. Money does not equal happiness. I think if everybody does what they want to do, and what makes them happy then there will be a just society. There will always be people who are unhappy, but when there are people around them who are happy it will drive them to do what they want as well. I think that if there were a society where everybody was doing what they were supposed to do there would be no incentive to do better. People would just end up settling with the job they got. If it was a norm instilled in our society then nobody would expect to do better. So when there are middle class people and lower class people who are living their lives as mediocre as they can, they do not have a reason to rise up classes and create something new, those minds would be trapped because people would be preaching to stay in your class or everything will get screwed. It is very similar to 1984 by George Orwell.
ReplyDelete