Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Self and City
At the end of yesterday's class we briefly discussed the idea of group suffering. In The Republic the idea that all suffering and happiness should be experienced by everyone in the city. What causes and constitutes individual suffering or happiness if all emotion and self is tied to the city already. Maybe Socrates is just reinforcing this idea that life is in function of the city since I do not see there being any real individual suffering or happiness as the people would have little self to begin with. Is the idea of a giant family where everyone experiences emotions as one being possible? Even with the people one loves most, it is hard to always share in their pain and joy because it is not possible to feel someone else's emotions exactly as he or she is. When the family is expanded to the whole city, this seems even more doubtful. It would present problems in this society described. It would mean that at points in time the whole city is depressed or the whole city is happy, which sounds dangerous as no one would be serving their function or everyone would be serving their function. The two extremes would disrupt the balance and justness that is supposed to be present in the city. Do you think this idea of group suffering and group happiness is possible/ makes sense in the society described or in our own?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From what we've read in class from The Republic, I'd have to go ahead and agree with you on your points about a disruption occurring. Group happiness wouldn't be possible and is something that seems more like an abstract idea that a tangible concept. With it comes, like you mentioned in your post, either them being happy or depressed and no in-between considering everyone feels the exact same way. For a city to thrive, it needs to have a balance of people in different stages, leaving the extremes behind because of the dangers they pose to the city as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of group suffering would never work in our society. Although, by the looks of it it may seem ideal but like you stated in your blog it would not work because it iis impossible to know how someone else feels. Hypothetically, if this idea of group suffering were implemented into society it would cause even more harm because happiness would be impossible to achieve.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree that a society with communal happiness and suffering is intangible and unrealistic, as is the ideal city. In the ideal city, "justice" occurs when everyone is in their own techne and doing the job they love. As long as they are in this techne, they are considered happy. I think that this view fails to consider the personal emotions that may exist, which make the entire concept of communal happiness and suffering unrealistic. Furthermore, the thought of an ideal society is very optimistic and unrealistic in itself in the fact that it would be nearly impossible to transform any type of society in Plato's ideal city, unless the city was birthed under the thought of communal suffering and happiness. Even so, there will always be those to rebel and go against the flow of society.
ReplyDeleteAmy Shih
This idea is not fictional. There are countries that have a collectivist culture. But, they are not as extreme. I agree that this kind of idea presented in The Republic has its failings. People would easily succumb to depression and a fear of rejection. There should be a balance between individualism and communal identity.
ReplyDelete