Ancient Greeks’ Guide to Rejecting Propaganda and Disinformation

[Dill]

(04-26-2024, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Edit: I read The Republic in college,(maybe high school) and I can’t swear I finished it so correct me if I’m wrong. The central question was “what is justice”.  That became 1000 pages of answers and the questioning the answer over and over in an attempt to discover the truth. And that is a very simplistic summary. To compare that to fact checkers, even completely honest ones, seems a bit ridiculous.

Well I'm impressed. I wished more people would read--and discuss--the Republic.

You are right. It follows the question of "what is justice" and whether the just man is happier than the unjust. It's is a long and (philosophically speaking) wonderful exploration of the topic, the longest part involving the construction of a Kallipolis or "beautiful city" in which justice emerges when people mind their business, each having a social role of job. But that's an oversimplification too. My favorite part is in Books VIII-IX where he describes the degeneration of constitutions and generation of tyranny from democracy. After that is the refutation in Book I of Thrasymachus' argument that Justice is whatever the strong say it is (the strong being whoever rules a city--tyrant, oligarchy, demos (the people, in a democracy)).

Probably nobody takes seriously Plato's ideas about how a state should be formed and ruled (by philosopher kings), and its doubtful anyone can get at some absolute "truth" via his dialectical method. But he has a serious insight into the relation between the form of a state and the form of a citizens "soul." E.g., his description of the soul of the tyrant is brilliant and predicts a lot of current scholarship on the subject.

The real value in reading him is that he teaches/models how to discuss politics. That's the part that is pertinent to my thread here. His characters begin an inquiry without already knowing "the truth" or where they will end. They all (except Thrasymachus in Book I) respect each other, make their arguments rest on clear definitions, tests, evidence and "proofs," and above all logical consistency.  In most of the Platonic dialogues, no one really arrives at a "truth" other than the realization they are ignorant. It's the journey that is important.

"Fact checking" alone wouldn't add up to this kind of dialogue. I'm wondering what the results might be if some serious time were spent in grades 9-12 inculcating this model in students, and applying it to contemporary politics. Would that make them less susceptible to disinformation and more capable of selecting competent leaders? Would it repair our broken civility, if people connected that to more than just "being nice"? Serious discussion and search for political options and policies really cannot go forward without it.