Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

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

Dear Slow Readers of Plato’s Republic, After a hiatus of more than two years I am about to resume my slow reading of the Republic. Actually I have not been idle, since I have been conducting a slow reading of the Republic with a group of children, mostly

In the last section we saw that Polemarchus — with quiet encouragement from Socrates — has abandoned his father’s contractual view of justice while interpreting the maxim of Simonides to mean that justice entails a custodial obligation toward friends

At 331E, when Polemarchus responded to Socrates’ question about what Simonides had said about justice, Polemarchus said that, according to Simonides, “…it’s just to give what’s owed to each person…” And this formulation of the opinion of

At the end of the last section I promised next to look at another pair of “hooks” the first of which is the principle that Polemarchus cites from Simonides and the second being what Socrates says in response. And I said that the crucial question to ask

into question the general principle that it is supposed to illustrate. Lance On Jun 14, 2014, at 14:34 , Lancelot Fletcher < lrfletcher@^$1 > wrote: Dear Bob, About examples. I think there might be good reasons to question what Kant said about the use (or uselessness

Jun 8, 2014, at 18:04 , Robert Eldon Taylor philologos@^$1 [plato-republic] < plato-republic@^$2 > wrote: Lancelot Fletcher lrfletcher@^$3 [plato-republic] wrote: > (In the preface to the second edition of > his first Critique Kant says that examples are generally

I have been thinking of how to respond to Bernard’s expression of amazement — “Lance, how could you have Bloom as a teacher and not know this choice of him, which is a key option of his translation of the Republic,” (meaning Bloom’s practice of

Dear Bernard, Thanks for the correction, even if it is a bit embarrassing for me. And the truth is that I have always found Bloom's use of the word "fine" rather irritating. As Onno's comment to which I was responding makes clear, using fine instead of

rational argument I assume you mean universal, is that right? >> >> onno >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Lancelot Fletcher lrfletcher@^$5 >> [plato-republic] < plato-republic@^$6 > wrote: >> >>> I ended the last section by saying, “I think it is now time