Class Barriers vs. Intertextuality - WEBCT #1

Class Barriers vs. Intertextuality

While I have regarded Plato with high esteem, as a philosopher, a teacher, and a man of wisdom, re-reading Republic 2 left me with a bit of hypothetical cynicism. Censorship becomes a main focal point in the chapter, and it leaves me wondering about the hypothetical’s that lie behind his decisions on censorship that effected education, religion, and government. Before delving into this idea, I would like to share my renewed fascination with the advanced intellect and culture of these thinkers; especially with regard to the time period. While imagining the historical profundity of 400 B.C. juxtaposed with these esteemed and venerable questions of public morality and upholding goodness within society, I had a vision of history as a cycle. I have heard this metaphor before, but I think I can now “see” it.

I wonder if it was ultimately detrimental to begin censorship at such an early and profound state. Plato, through rhetoric, comes to the conclusion that “god is not the cause of everything, but only of good” (Plato 19). He says that, “we must resist at all costs the notion that god, who is good, is the cause of evil; no one must be allowed to say this in our city if it is to be well governed, and no one… is to hear stories of this kind either in verse or prose” (Plato 19). These monumental decisions seem to set up the foundation for not only politics, but also religion. It seems that Plato’s intentions are good, but one wonders about the side-effects of such severe censorship and manipulation of the public. Perhaps this censorship led to conflict that the truth may have averted.

Plato’s Republic 2 is an excellent example of the use of rhetorical language. It’s structured in such a way that is logical and even mathematical. For example, if A=B, AND B=C, THEN A=C. The difference here is that we’re dealing with more abstract concepts such as good and evil, the gods, the heavens, and morality. Such subjects are far more abstract, and it is perhaps not appropriate to deal with them in such a logical fashion. Perhaps in dealing with these issues there is a spiritual and even mystical element that must be considered.
For example, Plato argues that the public must not believe that god changes shape, so he decides to omit critical writings from past texts. Plato contends that, “none of the poets must tell us that ‘The god in the guise of strangers from afar/ Assume all shapes and visit cities’” (Plato 21). To an extent, it seems that Plato has taken the liberty to invent, or re-invent religious ideologies that have lasting and significant effects. He seems to be doing so with society’s best interests in mind, but through this censorship, one wonders if more harm than good will ultimately come to pass.

In the final section, Plato continues in the same fashion with regard to falsehood and its relation between god and poets. Through a rhetorical argument, he states, “So there is no false poet in god,” and goes on, “So the spiritual and the divine are totally free from falsehood… God, then, is simple and true in deed and word. He does not change himself, no does he deceive others, awake or asleep, through visions or words or the sending of signs” (Plato 22). This rhetorical dialogue finally allows Plato to come to the conclusion that, “When someone speaks like this [badly] about the gods, we shall be angry and not allow his ply to be produced, nor shall we allow teachers to use such poetry in educating the young, if our guardians are going to be god-fearing and divine, in so far as that is possible for human beings.”

I admire Plato’s intentions and perspective with regard to censorship. I wonder if perhaps his vision was a bit too utopian in nature. From a historical perspective, in trying to censor poets, Plato’s good intentions may have gone askew.