Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
- This is the first perplexity I mentioned in my last message:At the beginning of Book 2, Glaucon distinguishes three kinds of good: (1) those things that we would choose for their own sake and not for their results, (2) those things that we would choose both for their own sake and for their results, and (3) those things that we would choose only for their results and not for their own sake. And then Glaucon asks Socrates to say in which of these three kinds he would locate justice.My question is this: Are there any antecedents in the Classical Greek literature for these distinctions? To put it another way, does Plato expect his readers to suppose that Glaucon has just invented these distinctions by himself, or does Plato expect his readers to see that Glaucon was giving voice to distinctions that were already commonplace in the intellectual discourse of his time?If I had to guess, I would suppose the latter, but I don’t know of any source. I would be grateful for help on this point.Lance
- Good to see you back again.I am not aware of such either but suppose if we read the pre-Socratic fragments creatively enough, we could find something that would suffice for us. I suspect the latter conclusion also since we know so much has been destroyed. I also suppose we could read Iliad and conclude that Menelaus might have held that the attack on Troy was just regardless of the outcome and Agamemnon might have held that victory was essential in a just war. Having proven that to our own satisfaction we could then conclude that the distinction was implicit in their differing views of just war.This conversation would have preceded the battle of Asculum so we cannot use it as evidence but the Greeks fought in so many wars it is improbable to believe that they never would have though about the cost of victory being so great that the war itself was inadvisable in terms of outcome. I doubt that this consideration would have deterred many conflicts although it would seem likely that it was discussed. In the couse of those discussions it does seem probable that the distinction would have been articulated in some form.
From: "Lancelot Fletcher lrfletcher@... [plato-republic]" <plato-republic@yahoogroups.com>
To: yahoogroups <plato-republic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:52 AM
Subject: [plato-republic] Are there classical sources for Glaucon's distinction of kinds of good?
This is the first perplexity I mentioned in my last message:At the beginning of Book 2, Glaucon distinguishes three kinds of good: (1) those things that we would choose for their own sake and not for their results, (2) those things that we would choose both for their own sake and for their results, and (3) those things that we would choose only for their results and not for their own sake. And then Glaucon asks Socrates to say in which of these three kinds he would locate justice.My question is this: Are there any antecedents in the Classical Greek literature for these distinctions? To put it another way, does Plato expect his readers to suppose that Glaucon has just invented these distinctions by himself, or does Plato expect his readers to see that Glaucon was giving voice to distinctions that were already commonplace in the intellectual discourse of his time?If I had to guess, I would suppose the latter, but I don’t know of any source. I would be grateful for help on this point.Lance