I really appreciate that. I have been studying Greek philosophy and its very intriguing. Have you looked into the Greek modes and how they were created/transferred to the Medieval modes? I am really into modality when I compose.
I already don’t buy the opening thesis that regime is fundamental to laws, so that if Plato begins with the laws outside of the regime that needs an explanation - I would need to see support and discussion of this question in the work itself before accepting that this is an issue organic to our reading of this work. Also, I’m puzzled when you say that the Laws does not offer a solution to the question of what role the sacred should play in the city - punishing atheists and sophists with exile or death / re-education seems to take a pretty stark position on what role the religion should play in the city and what attitude citizens should take towards it.
I wonder if it's a thesis in his presentation or a fault line he wants us to think about and which Plato wonders about. What is the nature of law? Is it extrinsic or intrinsic to human beings, and what does it have to do with reason? If law grows up out of the regime, is regime a starting point, and are laws ultimately an arbitrary use of power? But if the laws have their origin in the gods or some extrinsic principle, do we start from law? Does law threaten human flourishing as something extrinsic and alien to it? Is it coercive, should it be minimized, etc.?
Just a quick response to the statement at 2:50 (that the New Testament is in agreement with the Torah that the Mosaic Law is from God). This is a common misconception. Paul is quite clear on the following points: that the Law of Moses is human and not divine; that it was given to Moses by an angel and not by God; that it enslaves rater than liberates. Great video, though. Thanks.
Thanks for making this video. As somebody that was born in the sixties, have attempted to read The Catcher in the Rye but found it tortures after 100 pages and have never actually finished it, I am curious why you highlighted religion. Do you think that the zeitgeist will determine how we look back at this book in perpetuity OR Do you think the Nocturnal council as a parallel to the Supreme court/Senate, which implies The-laws was a framework for America, excluding the religious bit? I am sure in the late fifties Salinger looked at chapter VIII, as I am sure Monroe and Jefferson looked at chapter V when writing the constitution.
You're welcome! I can't speak to the influence of Plato's Laws on the American founders (or JD Salinger). But as to why I highlighted religion in the introduction, I was trying (as I always do) to follow the text. It begins with the word god and a question about the gods. It then ascends to a book-length discussion of impiety, in which the stranger attempts to prove the existence of the gods. Also, he proposes a law that would make only civic religion permissible--outlawing all private worship. In contrast, our regime tolerates only private worship and outlaws any established religion. So this focus seems, to me, demanded both by the text and by the difference from our own ways. Hope this helps.
Robert H Allen argues this wasn't an authentic Platonic dialogue but in fact a forgery made by Pythagoreans. I wish more people in Philosophy UA-cam would acknowledge the Homophobic nature of The Laws, people want to only talk about Symposium and ignore that Homophobia did exist in Ancient Greece. The Laws is ultimately not actually arguing that Laws come from God, rather the Athenian is all about claiming his Laws come from God because he knows no other way to get people to follow such a Dystopic law code.
If we treat it as authentic, and we take the Stranger's word for it that the law is an ordination of intellect (a sort of god?), then the law includes a prohibition of and penalties against homosexuality. That said, the law is rather mild; compare the actual penalties for homosexuality as they existed in Athens of Socrates' day--you can read some unpleasant descriptions in Aristophanes' plays.
"Regime" is a Latinate translation of the Greek word politeia, which is also translated as "republic." It's the title of Plato's other work of that name. While the word appears in the Laws it's much more the focus of the Republic. Contemporary American usage of the word reflects that the "regime" or constitution or way of life of a political community follows from the way of life, opinions, beliefs of those who rule in that community. A few rich rulers constitute an oligarchic regime. If the many, poor people rule the regime is democratic. One, strong rulers gives the regime a tyrannic character. Does that help?
❤
Thank you
You're welcome!
I’m wondering if u could cover the laws regarding what Plato said about music. I would be very interested !
I really appreciate that. I have been studying Greek philosophy and its very intriguing. Have you looked into the Greek modes and how they were created/transferred to the Medieval modes? I am really into modality when I compose.
Inbox.
Me too! 😉
I already don’t buy the opening thesis that regime is fundamental to laws, so that if Plato begins with the laws outside of the regime that needs an explanation - I would need to see support and discussion of this question in the work itself before accepting that this is an issue organic to our reading of this work.
Also, I’m puzzled when you say that the Laws does not offer a solution to the question of what role the sacred should play in the city - punishing atheists and sophists with exile or death / re-education seems to take a pretty stark position on what role the religion should play in the city and what attitude citizens should take towards it.
I wonder if it's a thesis in his presentation or a fault line he wants us to think about and which Plato wonders about. What is the nature of law? Is it extrinsic or intrinsic to human beings, and what does it have to do with reason? If law grows up out of the regime, is regime a starting point, and are laws ultimately an arbitrary use of power? But if the laws have their origin in the gods or some extrinsic principle, do we start from law? Does law threaten human flourishing as something extrinsic and alien to it? Is it coercive, should it be minimized, etc.?
Re-education like in the novel, "1984"?
0:59 God
Regime
The Republic - What is The Best Regime?
Laws - What is The Best Laws?
Thank you for this very good video.
Just a quick response to the statement at 2:50 (that the New Testament is in agreement with the Torah that the Mosaic Law is from God). This is a common misconception. Paul is quite clear on the following points: that the Law of Moses is human and not divine; that it was given to Moses by an angel and not by God; that it enslaves rater than liberates. Great video, though. Thanks.
The angel Gabriel? I think it was the angel Gabriel who told Mohammad what should be in the K'ran.
Very brief but profund analises.
Thank you!
Thank you for taking the time to make these. Spreading wisdom is the highest use of the internet.
Hear, hear!
Thanks for making this video. As somebody that was born in the sixties, have attempted to read The Catcher in the Rye but found it tortures after 100 pages and have never actually finished it, I am curious why you highlighted religion. Do you think that the zeitgeist will determine how we look back at this book in perpetuity OR Do you think the Nocturnal council as a parallel to the Supreme court/Senate, which implies The-laws was a framework for America, excluding the religious bit? I am sure in the late fifties Salinger looked at chapter VIII, as I am sure Monroe and Jefferson looked at chapter V when writing the constitution.
You're welcome! I can't speak to the influence of Plato's Laws on the American founders (or JD Salinger). But as to why I highlighted religion in the introduction, I was trying (as I always do) to follow the text. It begins with the word god and a question about the gods. It then ascends to a book-length discussion of impiety, in which the stranger attempts to prove the existence of the gods. Also, he proposes a law that would make only civic religion permissible--outlawing all private worship. In contrast, our regime tolerates only private worship and outlaws any established religion. So this focus seems, to me, demanded both by the text and by the difference from our own ways. Hope this helps.
Would you give a brief description of V?
The Nocturnal council sounds like a Freemason meeting. Why such a name?
Was the Civic Religion like one religion that everyone had to accept? Like in the novel, "1984"?
Robert H Allen argues this wasn't an authentic Platonic dialogue but in fact a forgery made by Pythagoreans.
I wish more people in Philosophy UA-cam would acknowledge the Homophobic nature of The Laws, people want to only talk about Symposium and ignore that Homophobia did exist in Ancient Greece.
The Laws is ultimately not actually arguing that Laws come from God, rather the Athenian is all about claiming his Laws come from God because he knows no other way to get people to follow such a Dystopic law code.
If we treat it as authentic, and we take the Stranger's word for it that the law is an ordination of intellect (a sort of god?), then the law includes a prohibition of and penalties against homosexuality. That said, the law is rather mild; compare the actual penalties for homosexuality as they existed in Athens of Socrates' day--you can read some unpleasant descriptions in Aristophanes' plays.
@@platosworld The Laws was the first to call for criminalizing all Sex outside Marriage.
@@Kuudere-Kun Clearly a dictate of the intellect.
Is the etymology of the word regime, as understood nowadays, stemming from the word regime that Plato used in the book, "The Laws"?
"Regime" is a Latinate translation of the Greek word politeia, which is also translated as "republic." It's the title of Plato's other work of that name. While the word appears in the Laws it's much more the focus of the Republic. Contemporary American usage of the word reflects that the "regime" or constitution or way of life of a political community follows from the way of life, opinions, beliefs of those who rule in that community. A few rich rulers constitute an oligarchic regime. If the many, poor people rule the regime is democratic. One, strong rulers gives the regime a tyrannic character. Does that help?
@@platosworld Yes. Thank you.😊 I'm going to have to think about that for a while now.
Thank you for the video!
This is good. Thank you
Thank you sir
You're very welcome