Alan Bloom’s
reading becomes more disturbing the more that Plato’s Republic comes into focus. He calls the Republic a dramatic example of the “foundation of political science”,
and sees the pallid restrictions on human character within the thought
experiment as necessary for such a science.
Could the difficulties we have seen arise within Socrates' city-of-words been avoided? Are they essential ingredients of human society?
One
of the reasons he gives for this characterization is his reading of the
encounter at large: that Socrates is spending enough time with his conversants
to be unable to avoid his own biases/doctrines. While this is supported at
least on its face by other moments in Plato (the rehashing of the city or the
tripartite myth of the self in the Timaeus
or Phaedrus, the embittered tonal
shift Laws x, etc.), the problems
which arise in this reading seem to overdetermine its conjectural failings.
Even beyond the issue of Plato, are any points defended by Plato's Socrates his own (Socrates' own) beliefs? Do we believe this because of his defense of them or for some other reason (their subconscious recursion, their unchallenged nature as per chauvinism, etc.)?
I
will have to return to the Interpretive
Essay after completing the Republic,
as much of it has to do with (the dialogue as a Socratic apology)(the
place of poetry and myth within or against philosophy)(the characterization of
Glaucon and Adeimantus as tyrants-in-training or possible-tyrants) rather than
the political leanings of Plato. Not that these alternative points are
irrelevant to Alan Bloom’s political point within the Interpretive Essay, but rather that the relevancy of these arguments’
presuppositions to the political require both literal and interpretive
attention.