Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ring of Gyges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ring of Gyges

    I read this in The Republic of Plato. Thought it was interesting.

    -------Glaucon
    "Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.


    Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice."
    --------
    Do you agree with the argument, or not ? why?

  • #2
    Reading the Republic books viii-ix one can see a vivid description of the transition from the Weimar Republic to National Socialism.
    Achkerov kute.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just started, and I've read up to chap-VI- so far.

      Comment


      • #4
        Would ya' pleaseee answer my Hitler "justify" question?

        I need suggestions.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by spiral Would ya' pleaseee answer my Hitler "justify" question?

          I need suggestions.
          Huh? In English perhaps?
          Achkerov kute.

          Comment


          • #6
            ok...guess you didn't get the message.

            check it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by spiral ok...guess you didn't get the message.

              check it.
              Gee, apparently your mailbox is "full". I think you may need to delete some of those messages the other male forumers have sent hehe.

              Anyway this is what I said:

              "Basically the ends justify the means, and might makes right. We are prepared to sacrifice the few, for the many, the whole. Sacrificing the few, for the interests of the Volk, a.k.a the People, the German nation.

              Hmmm, I don't know...I'll try my best, stick to your thread "Question", we'll duke it out in there. "
              Achkerov kute.

              Comment


              • #8
                ahaha, sorry bout that...I had no idea that things gets full. Hadn't touched it for the past year. Everything just stayed..

                and thanks again!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hitler's racial views were actually quite in harmony with 19th century enlightenment way of thinking.

                  In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, Hitler was not the most notorious "racist". Voltaire was perhaps the biggest "anti-Semite" there ever was.

                  Basically Hitler's racial views were no different than Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, or even Churchill, yet these leaders we can positively talk about, but not Hitler.

                  Hitler was no traditional Christian. While he believed in God, he was not the religious type in fact criticized the Church. He was more in tune with early American framers and figures, in that he equated God with the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe. Thus one can argue from his perspective that national socialism was natural socialism.
                  Achkerov kute.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So then I can argue that what is "just" is relative to time and place?

                    I'm having trouble drifting to 'morality'

                    also, It would be safe to argue that "one man's hero, is another man's terrorist"...?


                    It seems like anyhting I come up with is just validation,or excuses. Nothing solid.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X