[kempje]

The Open Society and Its Enemies is an important and interesting anti-authoritarian book. Unfortunately, from a purely Plato-scholarship/interpretation perspective, it's trash.

Just read the Republic and see for yourself. Kallipolis is, first and foremost, simply meant to be a metaphor for the organization of an individual's soul. Second, the suggestion that the city should be led by a caste of authoritarian Philosopher Kings is given inside of a conditional---the condition being: those leaders must be True Philosophers; where True Philosophers know the Good and thus know (in a nearly omniscient-like way) what is best for everyone (and act accordingly). It is left wide open whether such True Philosophers even exist, thus it is left wide open whether such a social organization would ever work in reality.

Plato's other political dialogues, like Statesman and The Laws, are much much less utopian and "authoritarian" and deal with very practical political issues. It would be weird to be an authoritarian utopist and then go and write dialogues like those.

[dcre]

Comment approved by my wife, who is a Plato scholar. Your point that whether True Philosophers even exist is left open is the kind of problem she points out all the time in dogmatic interpretations. It sounds basic, but it's so important to keep in mind that just because a character says something (even if that character is Socrates), that doesn't mean it's the "view" of the dialogue. And you have to be careful to pin down exactly what is being claimed, as you point out with the conditional. Plato is a master (surely one of the greatest of all time) of creating a dynamic space to think in without settling the questions raised.

[card_zero]

Saying Plato is "just asking questions" seems like a cop-out, he's responsible for what he implies, whatever character he makes say it. How about the allegory of the cave? The roots of fallibilism could be traced to that allegory - except for the part about philosophers, who are the ones who have escaped the cave and have seen the sun, implying that they gain access to the absolute truth.

[soulofmischief]

Is every author who wishes to convey certain messages to their audience through narrative also responsible for every single thing his characters say? Character-driven narrative would seem to be at odds with such a view.

[card_zero]

I was wondering about that too. But what I mean by "responsibility" is that the ideas presented have a definite form and don't get to evade criticism by being mercurial and shape-shifting. Not sure about art, like fiction. I'm not seeking to prevent authors from being ambiguously provocative, but it's a crappy way to reason.

[jjmarr]

Yes, that's why modern literature and media dealing with diverse opinions are terrible now.

You are expected to caricature and refute people saying "bad" opinions in the work itself since otherwise the reader could believe in those opinions. Leaving something open to interpretation is tantamount to endorsement.

[dcre]

There is obviously a lot of space between the two extremes "every opinion is the author's" and "we shouldn't take seriously anything authors write".

[dcre]

If two characters express contradictory ideas, which side is Plato's? And even when there is not a clear contradiction it is not at all straightforward to decide what is being claimed. It's not an encyclopedia. It is written to be interpreted.

[card_zero]

It doesn't matter which side is Plato's, blame isn't interesting, and I don't care much about the specific featherless biped behind the ideas. But you can't debate against a "dynamic space to think in". If there are opposing ideas presented with apparent perfect chin-stroking balance then it's fair to attack whichever one you like least, as if it was being given credibility, because it is.

[ragall]

Even assuming that what you believe that the author implied is really true, the readers still have the responsibility of their own actions, so the author's responsibility is close to none.

[laichzeit0]

In The Laws you find: strict supervision of marriage age, mandatory procreation windows, state monitoring of reproduction, penalties for bachelors, public scrutiny of household conduct, drinking regulation, limits on wealth and inheritance, formal theology enforced by law, criminal penalties for impiety, special prisons for “atheists”, etc. it goes on and on. The Laws makes The Republic look like Disneyland to be honest.

[gweinberg]

Not sure how that's possible. Laws may have a lot of strict marriage laws, but in Republic there is no marriage, the state assigns you sex partners in a rigged lottery, and requires the participants to be wearing masks so they can't form anything like an emotional bond. Really.