Endgame! Part V

Good evening.

Previously, we have examined the intricate relationships between Platonism and the movements that it later inspired, Marxism and feminism. In addition, we also noted that feminism and Marxism are also closely related in style and substance.

Before we move directly to the dialog as found in the Republic, I would like to present to you one last piece that applies Platonic theory to the Woman question.

This essay provides an excellent analysis of Plato's ideals regarding woman and State, and more importantly, why Plato was so hell bent on destroying the family unit.

According to Gender and Justice in Plato by Steve Forde:

…I find that Plato’s defense of gender equality is serious, but that the foundation and the consequences of that argument have not usually been well understood. Plato’s argument for gender rests on a distinctive view of human nature, and his elaboration of the consequences of pursuing gender equality reveal that a price would have to be paid for it that few are willing to accept. His argument should be considered by contemporary advocates of gender equality (p.657).”

And that price, as we shall see, is heavy indeed.

Furthermore, it is a price that the vast majority of humanity, male and female alike, would balk at paying, if only they understood the full ramifications of what certain "elities" are trying to cram down their throats!

Mr Forde continues:

“No part of Plato’s outline of the perfectly just society in the Republic has generated more controversy than its arrangements regarding the role of women and the family. Plato’s proposals in Book 5 of that work to confer equality on women and dissolve the family have been examined and debated, attacked and defended, from ancient times to the present… Modern feminism has been especially interested in these; but the dispute among feminist writers as to the meaning and significance of the proposals has been nearly as far ranging as that among other interpreters. Plato has been portrayed as a bold precursor to modern feminism, as a ruthless suppressor of women and the “female voice,” and as a complete ironist. There is no consensus on whether feminism can legitimately claim Plato as part of its heritage and, if so, which of its strains is actually foreshadowed by the radical arguments of the Republic (p. 657).”

“Susan Moller Okin (1979, 31, 42) has argued that Plato can properly be seen as a pioneer with his argument that women are equal, although in her view Plato sees equality as a political possibility only under conditions of complete communism such as those introduced in Book 5 of the Republic (p. 657)”…

“Allan Bloom (1968, 383) also argues that Plato does not believe women to be equal and that he treats them equally in the city of the Republic only for the political good. He contends that no women would likely be included in the highest class of the guardians on their merits and that they are placed there to allow for the reproduction of that class. They must share in the austere and relentlessly public life of the guardians precisely because the natural female tendency to the private and the particular would otherwise corrupt the guardians themselves (pp. 382-3) (p.657)…”

The author goes on to say that:

“Most of the revolutionary proposals of Book 5 are only the culmination of arguments developed earlier in the Republic. In retrospect, for example, it is clear that only the philosopher is equal to the tasks assigned to the rules in books 3 and 4. These tasks included the censorship of poetry, music, and even architecture, making them conform to the true models of human virtue in order to shape the souls of citizens in the best way possible (p. 658).”

Mr. Forde is being kind. I would call such a "re-education program" propaganda in the purest sense of the word.

The writer notes:

“The second wave, concerning the abolition of the family, is likewise implicit in the educational scheme of Book 3, a scheme that replaces parental control over education with public supervision of its every detail (cf. Nettleship 1951, 165; Barker 1961, 213). The rulers who supervise this education are to penetrate the soul of each child and place him or her at the proper position in the city, with exclusive attention to merit (p. 658)”

“Many modern feminists have concluded that gender equality requires “overcoming biology”; abstracting from the body in the Republic can be seen as a similar exercise. There, the bodily or nonrational part of human nature, which is the locus of gender difference (and doubtless of much else), must be discounted or circumvented in order to establish equality of men and women (p. 660).”

In my next post in this series, I will argue that this Platonic mind molding scheme is already firmly in place in schools throughout the West; and I will compare this indoctrination scheme with classical Communist schooling in order to drive the point home:

ELEMENTS IN OUR ELITE RULING CLASS ARE USING PLATO'S REPUBLIC AS A TEMPLATE IN BUILDING THE ULTIMATE TOTALITARIAN SUPERSTATE.

The evidence is quite clear, and undeniable.

With respect to "overcoming biology," my readers will note that we have already discussed how feminists seek to deny their own femininity in their misguided quest for autonomy. As Mr. Forde so accurately states, the feminist movement has taken a page out of the ol' Republic playbook in shaping their own philosophy and goals.

Mr. Forde writes:

“Socrates’s argument is that the abolition of the family is a necessary part of the perfect city because the family, with its private attachments and preferences, is unjust. It became tolerably clear in the discussion of education in Book 3 that the family is an obstacle to equal education and equal opportunity for all (p. 664) .”

Oh really??

This this sentiment in mind, we need to look no further than the Communist Manifesto to see the influence Platonism would eventually have in our modern world:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.

And, isn't your education, too, determined through society? Through the social circumstances, within whose scope (42) you educate, through the direct or indirect involvement of society, by means of the education system, etc.? The communists are not inventing the influence of society on education, they are only changing its character, they tear education away from the influence of the ruling class.

The common turns of speech about family and education, about the close relationships of parents and children become the more revolting the more as a result of burgeoning industrial development the family ties for the proletarian are torn apart and children are simply transformed into articles of trade and instruments of labour.

There can be no doubt that Marx himself took a page out of the Republic playbook in order to craft his Manifesto.

It has been argued by one of my readers that Classical Liberalism and Platonic Marxism are morally equivalent, since governments under the influence of both doctrines have committed horrible atrocities. Liberals stand accused of ugly terrors such as the Slave Trade, the genocide of Native American Indian tribes, Imperialism, among other horrors that occurred during Liberalism's watch.

A classic Leftist argument, one which I utterly reject.

Consider the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

There is no comparison.

While there were many evil acts committed under the Classical Liberal democracies, one conclusion is inescapable:

THE WRONGS COMMITTED VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND THE LAWS OF CLASSICAL LIBERAL STATEMENTS SUCH AS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE CITED ABOVE; WHEREAS PLATONISM HAS NONE OF THESE IMPEDIMENTS. NONE.

INDEED, ABUSES AND ATROCITIES ARE EXPECTED, AND ENCOURAGED UNDER THE PLATONIC REGIME. SUCH IS THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.

It is inconceivable then, to equate a Liberal Democracy, such as the United States, on the same footing as a totalitarian regime such as the former Soviet Union. The Founding Fathers, for all of their very human weaknesses, flaws, and imperfections, would never dare suggest, much less seek to implement, such a heartless regime that would seek the destruction of the family unit forever and ever.

Getting back to Gender and Justice, we read that:

In the second wave of Book 5, much of Socrates’s argument is devoted to showing how the abolition of the family results in a unified and seamless community. His postulate, a compelling one on the face of it, is that the perfectly just community would be bound together by the greatest solidarity among its citizens, the greatest degree of concern of each for the others, and thus the greatest dedication to the community as a whole. But more than the destruction of the family is required to bring about this good, for to leave it at saying that Socrates destroys the family in this section of Book 5 is to give an insufficient idea of the radical nature of his proposal (Forde, p. 664-665).

The next section of this work is invaluable in explaining what Platonism is all about. Please take note:

"Socrates’s argument for the equality of the sexes has two major premises. The first is that both genders share certain rational capacities or virtues. The second is that these are the essential human capacities, and that next to them other parts or aspects of human nature are insignificant.

Justice then requires that the latter be suppressed or subordinated, however legitimate their claims otherwise may be. On these grounds Socrates is able to argue that there is a single, genderless human virtue, and justice requires that it be developed and made use of wherever it is found. The first wave of argument makes it clear enough that this depends on neglecting the body, if not certain parts of the soul. One of the things the second wave does is show precisely what it means in practice to ”abstract from the body” in this way… it means restricting, regulating, and controlling these as much as possible and, in the end, suppressing many things that are ordinarily, and not wholly without justification, regarded as legitimate parts of human life. This is done in the name of liberating, of doing justice to, the more essential or higher-ranking parts of human nature, whose expression otherwise would be inhibited.

This train of thought provides a key to the logic connecting equality of gender and the abolition of the family and of erotic attachments generally. Whatever we may say in defense of the family, or of the private erotic attachments that spring up between men and women, they are rooted in those aspects of our nature which are distinctively male or female, aspects that are not ration and that distinguish the genders. These are precisely the aspects of nature that must be abstracted if the common, rational human nature is to exhibit itself fully. In this way, the progression from the first wave to the second suggests that the family must be done away with not only because it detracts from citizens’ devotion to the common good but also because it is based irredeemably on those parts of human nature that prevent the expression of rational perfection (p. 666).”

Get it?

The desire for family, property, children, liberty, and privacy are just a waste of time. A stumbling block on the road to enlightenment.

Evils such as these, claim the Leftists, must be stamped out if humanity is to rise to a state of true justice and wisdom.

All the while administered by the benevolent and wise Philosopher Kings,[w] but of course.

Alrighty then!!

Now that the preliminaries are over and done with, we can now move to examining Plato's words for ourselves.

See you next time!

Kumogakure 9000.