Plato: The Republic

2nd Passage

In the second passage we were assigned to read, I find it interesting that the characters are discussing the problems between the rich and poor social classes. The idea that only a small precent of the population has a great majority of the wealth is still a pressing issue, especially recently with the occupy movement. I find it especially interesting that there are hints to the idea of shared wealth in the text. They are talking about democracy, yet there is an undertone of socialism. Democracy and socialism are two things that now a days, are never put next to each other.

The characters speak of true equality in government, and in life. This true life equality leads to the though of financial equality. Financial equality is something that still don't exist at all, yet it was though of so long ago (when financial equality is mentioned, many people call it socialism and dismiss it right away). The Republic also speaks of women's and children's rights. Women still are not completely equal in our "democracy", and children are not equal at all, especially not in the school system where time and time again court cases prove that children have limited rights in school.

3rd Passage

In this passage the characters discuss democracy not only as a form of government, but as a way of life. It is interesting how the characters go through an entire man's life, and point out all of his potential flaws and strong points. They even give reasons why each may exist. They mention bad parenting as a reason why many people end up flawed human beings. They essentially go on to describe how the principals in democracy can be applied to ones life, in order to make them better. This form of democracy is more then just government, it is a way of life. This once again is reminiscent of socialism. A way of life, true equality, government for the good of the people, people acting for the good of the whole. While that may be true, the most important thing is the sense of balance that is portrayed in the text. To much of anything is bad, and not just one thing will work. A balance of all ideals is imperative.

Question:

What context is this in? Is this a manuscript of actual meetings, or a story? What is the background info? It is hard to tell just reading excerpts.