>All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I was saying, will be forbidden to inter-marry. This, however, is not to be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters; if the lot favours them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Rules for Thee, Not for Me.
You see Plato came from a large family, 16 brothers and sisters. He had some very attractive sisters and throughout his adolescence his parents admonished him for regularly speaking about his attraction to his sisters. He internalized his parents ideas of not marrying siblings which they believed to be a counter productive norm of the times. He wanted to pass on his parents morality out of respect, but at the same time still wished he could marry his sister. He added a backdoor of sorts for men like him in the future to marry their sisters. Modern histo-philosophers call this the Platonian Loophole.
well in this case, the "brothers and sisters" aren't necessarily related by blood because they are the product of the philosopher king communes. He probably thought it would be better for these "siblings" to focus on studying instead of dating each other, but that in some cases it could be deemed acceptable.
This is accurate.
This is AI generated and a hallucination.
Complete drivel and unfounded information, stop trying to read into one of the most restrained and virtuous men your own erotic fantasies.
They must be blood related, that is the point. For his intention is to resolve the issue of contention of family and state, which obstructs social harmony and can potentially be a source of contention.
bro he was a greek. he wanted to frick young men just like socrates
proof?
You clearly don't know anything about Plato, go read about his attraction to his family members and even young men as he aged. You are clearly uneducated on the matter to further post about it.
>They must be blood related
Have you read Republic?
Here is a quote from Timaeus from the beginning when they are summarizing the contents of the Republic.
>Soc: And what about the procreation of children? Or rather not the proposal too singular to be forgotten? for all wives and children were to be in common, to the intent that no one should ever know his own child, but they were to imagine that they were all one family; those who were within a suitable limit of age were to be brothers and sisters, those who were of an elder generation parents and grandparents, and those of a younger children and grandchildren.
It says quite clearly that the entire guardian class is considered a whole family. And I'm embarrassed I didn't notice this earlier, but frankly the quote in the OP is quite different than the one I have from Allan Bloom's, which quite frankly affirms marriage between siblings,
>Thus, as we were just saying, they won't touch one another. The law will grant that brothers and sisters live together if the lot falls out that way and the Pythia concurs. (Book V, 461 e)
For context, the "they" is referring to the distinction made between classes of grandparents, parents, siblings, children, and grandchildren. That none of the classes will intermingle, but within the classes if there is sanction (pythia and the lot), and they are in the optimal age for healthy breeding, then procreation is allowed. As stated in 461 C.
From this, we can observe that only within these certain age-groups, such that everyone within it is considered a sibling, that copulation can occur.
And as for whether or not they are blood related, do you not observe it being common occurrence among closed primitive societies how everyone look very much similar due to their being closely related by blood? And how in such a society, incest becomes unavoidable. With Plato's Republic being primarily a closed society with little concern with dominating the outside world, and having a great skepticism for foreigners and foreign ideas. It must share the same characteristics of these societies, and therefore relationships must be blood related, no matter what if given time, despite how "diverse" the original makeup of the state could have been.
That sounds like the all too typical degenerate revisionisms of the modern academy, if you ask me. I wouldn't put any stock in it.
First of all, the context is Plato's attempt at trying to unify the differing forces of the desire to have what's best for the state and the desire to have what's best for one's family. By combining the two, which makes it so that an entire generation of Guardians are all siblings and another fathers and another sons/daughters. By organizing the state in this way, the state and family are unified as a whole, which is essential for the guardian class. And do we not see a common accusation against nobility in general by the modern viewpoint of them being incestuous? Not to the point of marrying their own siblings, but to the point of marrying their own uncles and cousins.
Anyways, this isn't the first time Plato addressed this moral dilemma of choosing the good of one's own family vs choosing the good of the state. After all, the dialogue Euthyphro is very much centered around this issue, as Euthyphro himself is accusing his own father of murder out of an objective reading of the laws based on the principle of following in the likeness of Zeus accusing his father Kronos of injustice. And keep in mind that the myths are deeply related to the legitimacy of the state in Athens, so appealing to the myths to find basis for just actions is perfectly coherent. So, Euthyphro finds in this myth a justification to accuse his father, which means that Euthyphro believes that it is more just to choose the sacred laws of the state and the gods over the duty of preserving one's own family. However, beyond the falsity of the Kronos myth itself (as that escapes the scope of this discussion, and is further discussed previously in the republic),the key issue is that people like Euthyphro bring up a crucial issue of the dilemma of good of the state being contrary to the good of the family and vice versa. Which, may appear at first sight to be fundamentally distinct principles that will be in perpetual tension no matter the society. However, Plato continues his project of synthesizing apparent opposites (platonic forms synthesizing parmenidean One and heraclitean Many) by uniting family and state, and thereby overcoming this dilemma altogether in an elegant manner. By advocating that the good of the state truly can be in harmony and unity with the good of the family.
Speaking of Euthyphro, my headcanon was that Socrates immediately felt disgusted by Euthyphro once he realized how disproportionate his response to settling the dispute with his father was.
I used to have the same reading, but the more I look at it now, the more it strikes me that Socrates is almost indifferent to the actual circumstances of Euthyphro's case, and more interested in the way Euthyphro's piety is informed by his moralism instead of the expected other way around.
Why not both? It's clear that Euthyphro's conception of piety falls short of the good, and Socrates was unsuccessful in teasing out the good as a unity from interrogating Euthyphro about what the gods all share. It's never about the essence common to the gods, but rather what Euthyphro can get from the gods, especially Zeus, to support his own revenge against the father.
He just wants to avoid workplace sexual relationship among his guardians by putting this kind of relationship on the same level of taboo as incest. However, he then realizes that sex is necessary for reproduction. So he introduces the oracle as a way for the state to ensure reproductive sex in the most eugenic way. Based af.
Yup. But then the problem becomes that the class of guardians turns into a biological race of sorts. And once there's a tiny bit of corruption, they begin the slow descent into tyranny by viewing everybody else in the city as an "other." There is no natural unity in the Kallipolis that is not maintained without strict adherence to the measure, a strict adherence that is susceptible to random fluctuations and thus will eventually flounder and result in the devolution of the regime.
Athens, Alabama
Plato was an earlier adopter of the sibling fetish we see so often in porn these days. He was ahead of his time.
You do realize you only see that fetish because the corruptors (Freemasons) control the entertainment industries, especially pornography, yes?
Incestuous marriage is forbidden, excepting under special circumstances.