Sunday, March 20, 2011
Do we have the power to let power go?
This week’s assignment consisted of reading Plato’s The Republic: Book II. During the text, Socrates’ companion, Glaucon, invokes the legend of the ring of Gyges to provoke a so-called “thought experiment”. I decided to do a little of my own research and further delve into the interesting tale of Gyges. Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia. One day while he was tending his flock, an earthquake struck and a massive whole opened in the ground nearby. Gyges was amazed at what had just happened and out of curiosity decided to descend into the opening. Upon descending, Gyges realized that he was in a tomb that contained a bronze horse that held a corpse. The dead body had nothing on but a golden ring that held the power of invisibility. Gyges kept the ring for himself. Shortly after, he crafted a plan and proceeded to get himself appointed emissary to the king. When he arrived at the king's palace, Gyges unjustly used the ring to seduce the queen, and with her help murder the king, consequentially becoming the king of Lydia himself. The legend of Gyges remains important to us today because it concerns what we can expect humans to do with power over others. For example, in politics, we give power to others, hoping that they will do what is right. If the meaning behind the ring of Gyges is correct, then we had better watch out. According to Socrates, anyone who gains power without accountability is liable to use it unjustly. Now imagine for a moment that you were in possession of such a ring. How would you use it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm still having difficulty in week 9 posting blogs to the blog, so I will posting in the comments. I had two issues with particular components of Book II in Plato's Republic. For one, Plato says that it's easier to describe justice in terms of creating a parallel of justice between the individual and the city, and goes to to further describe justice in the city. I understand that by creating the parallel it's suppose to make it easier to comprehend justice in the individual. However, I think it leaves it easier to misinterpret his conception of justice. We are suppose to know this because his ideal city is impossible, i.e. having philosopher kings rule society, making women and men equal, section people into different categories (philosopher-kings, auxillaries, and artisans), but isn't the point of ideal cities to explain a perfect society, which we know to be impossible? With that question posed, I think that Plato could have actually been describing an ideal city and not just creating a parallel for justice in the individual. Since this city is ideal and impossible, wouldn't that make justice impossible for the individual as well? My other issue I have with Plato is his complete separation of body and mind. Plato believes that the mind is a thing in itself completely separated from the body but, at the time, Plato is completely unaware of genetics and the components of the body, in particular hormones. I think in some regards women and men are equal but there is a fundamental difference in our hormones (our body), which complete controls our mind. Our minds are dictated by our brain which is also corporeal. I personally believe it is impossible for us to be complete separate from one another, which I discussed with Professor Layne in class.
ReplyDelete- Christopher Branchcomb