Book Three – Both Science and Narratives Imitate Past Truth and Move Men’s Souls

In Book Three of Plato’s Republic, they talk about how a narrative imitates actual events. They tell you what life was like at certain events. The author or the poet didn’t have to be there during the period of which they are portraying but there is still a power to what they are saying.

Isn’t it the same with science? Scientists use science to make claims about events that they weren’t really at. People will just initially accept it as truth. This gives science the ability to capture men’s souls the same way narratives do.

All of this freaks me out a bit with Al Gore’s new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. I have heard scientists on each side make a case for and against global warming. I have a feeling Al Gore will be able to bring a lot of people over to his side. He has the power of the narrative movie and the power of science on his side.

The Consequences of Justice

In Book 2, Glaucon wants Socrates to talk about how great justice is without mentioning its positive consequences.

Glaucon makes the argument that people only practice justice because they have to and that injustice is favorable. He only mentions the positive consequences of injustice.

Can you really make a rationale argument for injustice just because it is the right thing to do?

Ann Coulter and Book 2 of Plato’s Republic

A lot of you have probably heard about Ann Coulter’s new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. She claims that liberalism is working at sucking God out of American society. They want to promote the idea that “mankind is an inconsequential accident.”

For the sake of argument, lets just say that Ann Coulter is correct. We will accept her premise that liberalism is the Church of the Godless.

I have been reading Plato’s Republic Book Two. It asks the question, why should we be just. Are people only just because they are too weak? Are laws nothing but arbitrary rules setup by “the man” to keep down the weak?

If you ask the questions in light of Ann Coulter’s new book, liberalism seems really scary. Without God, laws would be arbitrary. What excuse do I have to not just go out and break the law? Laws would just be here to keep me down. If I don’t get caught for breaking the law, what is the punishment?

By getting rid of God aren’t we just going to give ourselves more of a culture of corruption?

Doesn’t humanity necessitate a divine? We follow natural and scientific laws. Dont’ wee need a law giver.

I dunno… I’m just thinking out loud.