Hi Karl,
-> HW>    Probably you are aware that Plato's Republic, "based on
-> wisdom,  not wealth" has been labeled 'totalitarian.' There's some
->  justification for that label, IMHO.
KS> I don't think I've ever heard that.  What's the justification?  I
-> managed to lose my copy many years ago, and it's one I want to
-> replace. I enjoyed Soc beating up on Thrasymachus (sp?).
   If you can find _The Republic of Plato_ tr. by F. Cornford,
{Oxford} 1945, it's a good read.  He's smoothed out things
and supplied commentary.
   The question is harder than it might appear.
But at first crack:  The philospher/guardians, at VI, 485,
are said to know the eternal truths and have "a hatred of falsehood
that will not tolerate untruth in any form."
   It can be argued such folk are dangerous, esp given total
control of everything from marriage to education.
   At VI, 500:  "So the philosopher, in constant companionship
with the divine order of the world, will reproduce that order in his
soul,  and so far as man may, become godlike;
   " ...Suppose then he should find himself compelled to mould other
character besides his own and to shape the pattern of public and
private life into conformity with his vision of the ideal, he will not
lack the skill to produce such counterparts of temperance, justice,
and all the virtures as can exist in the ordinary man. ...
     He will take society and human character as his canvas, and begin
by scraping it clean ....
     ...he will reproduce the complexion of true humanity, guided by the
divine patten whose likeness Homer saw in the men he called godlike.
     [etc.]  Tr. Cornford, p. 209  _Republic_ VI, 500.
     I think you can see the danger here.  This philospher fellow, so
admired, is sculpting humanity in accord with his right vision.
Perhaps Lenin was doing that also.
     Anyway, check it out.  Not all scholars agree with the
totalitarian characterization.
     Regards, Hal.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------