Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

[This is a short story I feel would be more at home in the Off Topic as it has nothing to do with warhammer. If I am incorrect I apologize. It is a parody of Plato's Republic.]

Plato's: The House

Scene: Glaucon's house. Glaucon's son Midon and his daughter Doras are standing near a broken vase in the entrance.

Enter: Socrates, Glaucon, and Polemarchus.

Glaucon: Your mother's favorite vase! Shame upon you children! Which of you did this?

Midon: neither of us!
Doras: no one did it!

Glaucon: Have I raised liars as well as miscreants? Get thee to mine room where there shalt be a reckoning!

[the children flee their father's wrathful presence]

Glaucon: It shames me to have you witness my children tell lies. Dear socrates, please forgive me.

Socrates: I shall indeed forgive thee, but not for having lying children.I shall instead forgive thee for too hastily condemning them.

Glaucon: What?! You doubt their guilt? Wherefore did they recourse to their defense but an impossibility?

Socrates: My dear Glaucon, let us take a step back in this matter. Your children have claimed something; namely, that no one broke, or caused to break, your vase. Now, what are the two possibilities for anything?

Polemarchus: That it be good or bad. For what could matter more to anything then whether it be of use or not?

Socrates: Ah, but are there not those things which are neither good nor bad? How then can you say good and bad are the only possibilities if one may be neither? This cannot be so.

Polemarchus: But cannot everything be said to be good or bad depending upon the situation?

Glaucon: Nay, Socrates speaks truth. For if I prevail upon myself to shoot thee with an arrow, how can you say that it be bad or good for you if the arrow be painted brown rather than green? I say the only two possibilities for anything are that they are or are not. For does that not include both all that is and is not?

Socrates: You make a good effort Glaucon but overlook the obvious. Are there not things which possess the condition of being upon certain circumstances and not others? For example, if I go to market and the seller has fresh meat, is there not a transaction? My money for his meat. But if the meat has gone bad, or I do not have sufficient money, the transaction cannot be. Therefore the state of existence for any transaction is dependent upon other circumstances. Thus some things may be or not be; which is not wisdom.

Glaucon: Then I am at a loss Socrates! Tell us, what are the two possibilities?

Socrates: Why Glaucon it is simplicity itself. All things are either that which must be or that which need not be.

Glaucon: But in that you make no mention of those things which must not be. There never can be a round rectange nor a square circle. So your theory is incomplete. You should have asked us what three possibilities there are for everything.

Socrates: That is not true. For all that must not be is contained within those things which need not be. Need there be a square circle? No.

Now, if this proposition be true, namely, there can be only two possibilities fro anything and they are either those things which must be or those things that need not be, let us consider your children's claim upon both the possibilities.

Firstly, we must realize that there is an equal chance for their claim to be one that must be true as one that need not be. For we have established that there are only two possible statements about anything. From two one and one are taken. This is our distinction. Now, supposing their claim is one that must be true.

Glaucon: If it must be true than it is true!

Socrates: Correct. There can be no more elementary knowledge then that. For if that which must be is not, how can anything else be? Those things that must be be because they must.

Glaucon: And the second possibility?

Socrates: The second possibility is this: the facts of their claim need not be. This does not mean it is not true. However, it may be that it is not. Among these possibilities there are only three: it is, but need not have been, is not, and need not have been, or is not and must not have been. So in this there is a third of a possibility that your children were telling the truth.

Now, combining the half chance that the conditions of their statement must be with the half chance that it need not be(containing in it the one thirds chance of being and two thirds of not being) we come up to what chance of their statement being true?

Glaucon: Why, four sixths, or two thirds!

Socrates: Polemarchus, would you beat your children on the one in a thirds chance they have told you a falsehood?

Polemarchus: I would beat them on one thousandth of one percent of a chance.

Socrates: Come then, would you gamble your horse on those odds?

Polemarchus: I would not.

Socrates: There! You see Glaucon? It is not right for you to punish your children for such a thing as a broken vase and the possibility that someone may have indeed been the cause of it.

Glaucon: Still, it seems strange to me.....

Socrates: I see your point at once! Calling a young man a child. I had thought it strange. I am glad that your mighty intellect caught the lie in that popular myth.

Glaucon: I thought nothing of the kind, oh wise Socrates. Pray enlighten us.

Socrates: Well, right now you say your son is a boy?

Glaucon: And so he is.

Socrates: Well... And you can tell me when he shall be a man?

Glaucon: In about eight years time.

Socrates: Neither seven nor nine? Only eight?

Glaucon: perhaps sooner or later. But I say eight years.

Socrates: Good. Now how many days would come to pass before those eight years had transpired?

Glaucon: 2922.

Socrates: And how many hours?

Glaucon: 70128.

Socrates: And seconds. How many of those must pass?

Glaucon: Faith! I do not know.

Socrates: Let us suppose that 2000000 seconds must pass before he becomes a man.

Glaucon: That seems not amiss.

Socrates: Now, upon that 2000000nd second he becomes a man?

Glaucon: I suppose so.

Socrates: What happened in that second? Can a boy a man become in a second?

Glaucon: That does not seem to be true.

Socrates: It is not. And if the second does not make the man, is it the hour? Your 70128 hour? Is it that hour that has made your boy a man?

Glaucon: No. How could it?

Socrates: Then it must follow that neither our day nor our year shall do better than our hour and second. For we have always had a man in your son. How could it be otherwise? And here we have been discussing whether we ought to beat him on the chances of his statement not actually being true! How foolish of us!

Glaucon: I do feel a fool.

Polemarchus: Come you two fools and let us enter further in upon good Glaucon's house. I smell a handsome meal in the making.

Glaucon: Yes, I agree. My wits are all about in shambles thanks to our wise Socrates.I must needs gather them together with broth and bread.

Polemarchus: Tell us Socrates, is Glaucon's house good enough to protect your head?

Glaucon: Yes, does it suit it's purpose?

Polemarchus: Perhaps you could tell us what would constitute the perfect house.

Socrates: That is an excellent question worthy Polemarchus, honorable Glaucon. Let us examine this question thoroughly, leaving no stone unturned, as a true philosopher is wont to do.

What resides in a house?

Polemarchus: Children, dogs, furniture, husbands and wives. Grandfathers, ill omens, and the infirm.

Socrates: The chief of these?

Glaucon: Is it not the husband?

Polemarchus: Ill omens.

Socrates: I mean, specifically, the general of the greatest?

Glaucon: Well, man then. Man is the chief resident of any house.

Polemarchus: That is debatable.

Glaucon: How say you this?

Polemarchus: Can there be any chiefer than grief? Ill omens care not whether the guardian of a house have spear or sword. It shall enter and work it's whim. How can any other lay claim to chief if he cannot keep any other from entering his home?

Socrates: You are mistaken on several accounts. First--and most relevant--is the inherent weakness of ill omens. How can any that is ill be chief over that which is not? We do not say the ill favor is greater than great favor. How can the ill oxen plow more than the strong oxen? It is an impossibility.

Glaucon: Well spoke!

Socrates: Well. And I am not finished. An ill omen can keep nothing from entering any house at it so chooses. It lies impotent against the smallest field mouse. I have undone your own argument worthy Polemarchus. What have you to say to that?

Polemarchus: Your first point I can scarce discredit, save only by the fact of degrees.

Glaucon: How so?

Polemarchus: Thusly. It is said--truly--that ill cannot be greater than well. But what of omen? Is it not stronger than a man? Binding him to his fate? In the same way we may say with confidence that an ill man may still overpower a strong mouse.

Glaucon: He speaks with cunning Socrates!

Socrates: Indeed. With cunning, but without wisdom. You do not yet realize, dear Polemarchus, that you yourself have given me the dagger with which to wound your theory. You say omens are powerful, good. You say also a strong omen is greater than an ill omen. Again, truth is known. But you forget that man is an omen.

Glaucon: How so?

Socrates: Man is an omen of what he may be. Consider the philosopher. Is he not an omen of wisdom and strength? And the knave. Surely it cannot be denied that he is an omen of mischief? There we have the proof that man is chief among the residents of any house because he is not, generally speaking, ill while the ill omen is bound to be ill by definition.

Glaucon: Ah, I see it now. Truly, Poemarchus, yee have been outmatched.

Polemarchus: Before I have finished my case? Surely not even the great Socrates can refute an argument without hearing it? Trusting in the truth of this, I shall continue.

You claimed an ill omen could not guard against anything else entering the house while the man could; giving as your example a field mouse. You are wrong on both counts wise Socrates. First, the mouse. Can a man really guard against him entering his house? He cannot. For the mouse is crafty and small. In the dead of night what is to stop him entering? Neither ill omen nor man shall bar his way. In this my ill omen and your man are equals.

Whereas, an ill omen will keep a man from entering a house, a man cannot and will not stay the ill omen. How say you now that the man is greater?

Socrates: Have you not been listening? The man is an omen. Any claim you may make i embrace as my own! Surely you do not doubt a man's ability to protect his own? Any man that fails to do so is no man. So your arguments fall short.

Now, considering man. Of what parts is he comprised?

Glaucon: Of the heart, the mind and the soul.

Socrates: Well said, honorable Glaucon. Do the parts of which he consists and the number of letters by which he is known agree?

Glaucon: They do. Three and three.

Socrates: Now a man and house. Are they the same? I mean, is there no difference between them?

Glaucon: Of course they are not the same. Meaning, there is a difference.

Socrates: And here is the difference and the similarity. A house is composed of five parts and not three. It's name is of a different number, five. So we see that the perfect house is similar to a man in that it has as many parts as it does letters in it's name but different in that there is a different number.

Glaucon: Why then, my house is indeed perfect! For of five parts does it consist.

Socrates: Well. But of what parts?

Glaucon: Only these: my room, the entrance room, my offspring's room, our kitchen, and our guest room.

Socrates: That is rather less than the perfect house my dear Glaucon.

Glaucon: Why?

Socrates: Your parts, they are incorrect.

Glaucon: How so?

Socrates: You are the head of the household, yes?

Glaucon: Indeed.

Socrates: How is it then that you are confined to possessing a room? The whole of the house ought to be yours.

Glaucon: I had not thought of it in that manner...

Socrates: Also consider you have not accounted for the roof or the walls in your five parts.

Glaucon: How then should the five parts of house be distributed?

Socrates: Tell me, would it be better to fill a house with noble things or base?

Glaucon: Noble things.

Socrates: And what is the most noble thing?

Glaucon: Philosophy. But how can one confine the search for wisdom to a dwelling place?

Socrates: You cannot. But the perfect house would have a remembrance of the great philosophers placed inside it.

Glaucon: Quite true!

Socrates: secondly, the perfect house must contain a roof. For what is a house if it has no roof?

Glaucon: So true.

Socrates: And now the walls.

Glaucon: But supposing we had four walls. That would be six parts. And you have said five was the perfect number for a house.

Socrates: That would be true, if I had suggested four walls. But come, let us search for truth together. What shape in geometry has the most strength. I mean, in what dimensions ought we to build?

Glaucon: Why the triangle is best for strength.

Socrates: And so it is for our perfect house. Three sides, one roof and a monument to philosophy. Is this not the perfect house?

Glaucon: Truly it is. But of what shall the monument consist?

Socrates: Of an imitation of the greatest philosopher; so that all may benefit from his example.

Glaucon: Why, but you are the greatest philosopher.

Socrates: This cannot be denied by any sane person.

Polemarchus: So then your idea of a perfect house is a contained copy of yourself?

Socrates: It is.

Polemarchus: Then truly you are the greatest philosopher ever!

Glaucon: Truly.

[They all enter into the kitchen and sup. Socrates continues to enlighten his good friends. No one is punished for the vase. The boy and the girl are given the work of adults.]

This week I have read Plato's Republic, Descarte's Meditations and Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge alongside drivvle by Bhaskar while trying to put together a presentation of Descarte's works. Last Sunday, I would've been in the mood to participate in this thread but right now I am all thought out. That's if I even exist.

I don't liek long texs...

And I thought the thread about the New Deal was dredging up the distant past. Sheesh!!!

I got halfway through. It's been 15 years since I read the Republic... I got nothing.

I'm not sure Socrates' philosophy makes very much sense.

The word "house" needs to have five parts because it has five letters? What?

This is fake. The Greeks didn't have a concept of seconds. There's also a bunch of stuff about negation theory which the Greeks did not know. Plus the word house, in ancient Greek, contains 7 letters not 5.

Yeah this isn't authentic. I guess I should have made that more clear? I did say it was a parody.

It amused me so I thought I would share it.

Why would you want your house to be built like a triangle?

Structural strength.

Best for falling sky scenario.

Wouldn't a cylinder still be the strongest?!


(Or, like, a hemisphere?)

Scrabb wrote:Yeah this isn't authentic. I guess I should have made that more clear? I did say it was a parody.

I didn't actually read the preface. That's a lesson for me.

Still, this didn't really remind me of The Republic.

Would you mind expanding on that? I would really like to know what The Republic is all about and what sort of writing would strike you as being similar in nature.

EDIT: aslo, would you mind explaining where the examples of negation theory are?

Socrates couldn't make the following statement without some knowledge of negation.

Socrates: That is not true. For all that must not be is contained within those things which need not be. Need there be a square circle? No.

Now, if this proposition be true, namely, there can be only two possibilities fro anything and they are either those things which must be or those things that need not be, let us consider your children's claim upon both the possibilities.

Firstly, we must realize that there is an equal chance for their claim to be one that must be true as one that need not be. For we have established that there are only two possible statements about anything. From two one and one are taken. This is our distinction. Now, supposing their claim is one that must be true.

In essence, he makes the argument that the two possible choices are 'yes' and 'not yes'. To draw a mathematical analogy: yes = 1, no = -1, not yes= -1 & 0. Plato did not have a firm understanding of zero, and would have regarded it as a rather silly idea.


As for your other question:

The writing style is certainly reminiscent of The Republic. I mean, I was fooled into thinking it was being passed off as Plato's work, so that's a pretty good indicator . But the arguments don't really touch on anything brought up in The Republic, and in that sense it doesn't seem like a parody. At least not of The Republic alone. I could certainly read it as a parody of Plato in general.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wouldn't a cylinder still be the strongest?!


(Or, like, a hemisphere?)

Yes, but harder to build with ancient Greek technology.

Thank you sir.