‖? Brother Fei has something to say, focusing on the study, reading and life of college students.
Last time I explained the first volume to you, our Su Ge responded to four wrong views of justice prevailing in the society at that time, but he didn't really convince the people present. In the second volume, Glaucon and Aderman Toth stand up to challenge Socrates respectively.
Personally, I think Glaucon's challenge is wonderful, no matter from the ideological, logical or literary point of view. Let me focus on how he put forward his views:
1, Glaucon's Three Kindness
First of all, Glaucon divided three kinds of goodness (ethical terms, meaning beautiful things). He believes that the first kind of goodness is that we choose it because of its own goodness rather than its consequences. How to understand, such as going to a concert, we choose to listen to music because music itself is a kind of enjoyment, so we choose it.
The second kind of goodness is chosen because of its own goodness and its consequences. For example, knowledge and health belong to this kind of goodness.
The third kind of goodness is that we choose it because of its good result, not because of its own goodness. For example, in order to lose weight, we value the consequences of losing weight, not because losing weight is a pleasure.
Craig put forward three kinds of aftermath and asked Socrates: If justice is a kind of good, what kind of good is it? Sue made it clear that this is the second one. We choose justice because we want ourselves and results.
However, Geiger believes that people in society think it is the third kind, that is, the pursuit of justice is not because of justice itself, but because it can bring benefits, such as fame.
Then we saw Craig give a long speech about the third kind of goodness, which was very wonderful. Let's see what he means.
Ge's speech has three parts:
First, put forward the rudiment of social contract theory. Craig believes that to explain justice, we must understand its emergence. Since people are selfish, why are selfish people willing to accept a moral system and live in it? Why do rational people choose a just order instead of an unjust order that is more beneficial to them? (This is a bit the same as Rawls' analysis. Rawls also believes that justice is a kind of goodness. As long as the system violates this kind of goodness, no matter how perfect it is, it must be corrected. Rawls is the greatest contemporary political philosopher and ethicist? Greg believes that although injustice often brings benefits, because people's own ability is very limited, people can not only taste the sweetness brought by doing something wrong, but also taste the pain brought by others' injustice, and the pain is always much more than the sweetness. After experiencing these two consequences, people feel that it is necessary for us to conclude a contract or a law, so that we can benefit from justice instead of suffering injustice.
In this way, justice means obeying the law. Do you remember Marcus' point of view in the first volume of Salad? He believes that justice is the interest of power, and people benefit from obeying the law. But for Glaucon, obeying the law here is more manifested in the interests of the weak. Because only by obeying the law can people avoid the consequences of injustice.
Glaucon's social contract theory influenced Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and even Rawls to some extent. Therefore, the theory of social contract has always been a western tradition. I think the social contract theory has a great influence on western society. Compared with China, we have never had the content of social contract theory. So we won't ask how this society came into being and how this regime came into being. The final result only explains the natural monarchy, mystifies the regime, and even makes the "temple" untouchable. The result is just an authoritarian society. Westerners will ask about the origin of society and political power, and the final result will inevitably be a harmonious and democratic society. This is what I think is the greatest significance of social contract theory.
B, people with superhuman abilities are bound to do evil. Greg believes that if a society does injustice without being punished, there will be no justice. Therefore, people do justice because of its result, not justice itself. Then he told a story to illustrate this point.
He said: There is a shepherd named Gates. One day, he got a ring. This ring has great power. As long as the ring turns inward, people will be invisible. With this ring, Guy did many bad things because no one could punish him. He even killed the king and became king himself.
For Greg, when you have such a ring, whether you are just or unjust, you will do unjust things. Therefore, for people with super powers, whether it is good or bad, the result is evil, and morality is not binding.
C, justice is not attractive, people choose justice because of its results. Glaucon gave us a hypothesis that the consequences of doing justice and not doing justice have been eliminated, and then we will compare them. If the consequences are removed, then there is only one possibility for us to do justice, that is, justice itself is worth pursuing (desirable), but what we see is that an unjust person has done many bad things, and he will get the greatest benefit from doing justice regardless of the results, that is, he will never be caught. Therefore, only normal people will choose an unjust life. People choose justice not because it is attractive, but because of its result.
When Glaucon finished these three points, Aderman Toth added: The father told his son that one must be fair. But this warning is not to praise justice itself, but to gain a good reputation for justice. With a good reputation, you can get various benefits. Poets praise justice, and good and evil are rewarded, but people only see that the unjust person enjoys prosperity, and only by donating part of his money to charity can he have a good reputation.
Aderman thought Socrates was very clever, and he was the smartest man in Athens. Of course, he also gave him another answer: What is justice and injustice? What the hell did they do to people?
This question, no matter who it is, is difficult to answer. If it were you, what do you think you would say? So, for the smartest person at that time, let's see how Socrates answered.
Sugar didn't answer the question directly. He said: this problem is not easy to talk about and needs a keen eye. If it is difficult for us to observe a small object, let's observe the big one first. So Plato's pen immediately changed from individual justice to polis justice.
Sue first examined the justice of the polis, and then examined it on the individual. This is called seeing the big first and seeing the small first.
In the rest of the second volume, Socrates gives us a detailed analysis of the source of a city-state, that is, who is composed, and he focuses on the education of a guardian.
The reason why we want to build a city-state is because everyone can't achieve self-sufficiency on their own, and people have many needs in life. However, due to different human nature, everyone is only suitable for one job, so people must cooperate with each other, exchange with each other and live together. Thus, there is a division of labor between people (pay attention to the division of labor theory from here), businessmen, artists, guardians (soldiers) and so on. Soldiers must be carefully selected, brave and upright, and strictly trained. They are fierce to their enemies and kind to their friends like dogs. So what kind of education do soldiers need? Su believes that soldiers should first teach them music to cultivate a sense of justice, and then ask them to do gymnastics to cultivate their brave character. Treat literature, advocate that literature should be censored, eliminate the hypocrisy of literature and disrespect for God, so as not to poison the fine character of soldiers.
For Socrates' theory of division of labor (everyone is only suitable for one kind of work according to nature) and training, we can see some shadow of absolutism, but I don't think we should criticize the ancients with today's eyes. People in every era have historical limitations, even people as wise as Socrates. It's like we treat homosexuality inhumanely today and must be banned, but it's hard to say that in a hundred, two hundred or even a thousand years, people at that time may think homosexuality is a right, and they will criticize us with their eyes at that time. Will we feel wronged?
Ok, that's all for today's interpretation. I still suggest you read the original text carefully (especially the paragraph of Glaucon, even if it is read as a language, it is wonderful). Whether you are interested or not, there may be unexpected surprises after reading it. Good night to everyone!
Recent hot articles:
About mood, please see: take a nap.
Regarding work, please see: What if I can't find a job I like?
Regarding employment, please see: Should I take the civil service exam?
Regarding graduation, please see: some suggestions for college students who are about to graduate.
Regarding the choice, please see: Do you know why you want to take the postgraduate entrance examination?
Regarding persistence, please see: I finally know why some people can't persist.