The Argument For Censorship (By Plato/Socrates)

Hello.

We are back on our Plato trend. We are now reading a bit in which Socrates (Plato) becomes an advocate of censorship. I think that this part of the republic in particular is hard to read, and agree with, as in a modern society like ours, censorship, though in many ways a part of our life, is generally looked down upon. Thus, this slightly radical line of thought is a bit hard to believe.

Following in my usual pattern, I choose not to answer any of the proffered questions, but instead create my own. My question is, “Can all literature be boiled down to three main categories: those in which there are only honorable men, no women, little or no representation, or dialogue, and no sound effects (such as that of an animal, or the rain), those in which there are some dishonorable men, some women, some dialogue and some sound effects, and those in which all of the above are prominent?”

I think that while it is true, and many forms of literature can be put into one of these categories (think back to the books you have read. Can they be put into at least ONE of these? Most likely.), that if you boil down things to this essential of a form, you are missing the point of the art.

Think. If I were to divide up the books I have read, I could put them into these categories, but the books that fell into the “suitable” (according to Socrates (Plato)) category would be few (VERY few, or perhaps none, for I can think of no books, off the top of my head, that have NO female characters), and certainly not my favorite books. Would that not be the case for you as well?

The books that we find enjoyable are the ones that best represent life. Life is not made up of only men, and only the “good” kind, dialogue-less “scenes” and utter silence to fill the gaps. Even now, as I type this, I can hear my dog, the wind, and the clacking of keys. All of these would be absent in the books that Socrates (Plato) suggests would be suitable. That doesn’t accurately represent the way we live, and would therefore be rather dry.

Also, I would like to talk, briefly, about these conditions that Socrates (Plato) has set. First, and perhaps this bothers me chiefly because of my gender, but why, why on earth, would Socrates want to exclude women from these ideal plays of his? What is wrong with women? If he means, as I think that he might, that we are a temptation to men, that is not chiefly our fault. No, the blame lies at the doors of men, themselves. It is their desires that cause trouble, just as much as it is that of the women. If he thinks that women are weak, as I might be led to believe from his passage on page 90, section e, “Far less can we permit representation of women in sickness or love,” he is wrong again. Men are just as susceptible to fall in love as women are, they are just as susceptible to sickness as well, and therefore, this, as well, is an unfair claim.

Next, Socrates (Plato) excludes the use of “bad men”. I think that this is a slightly odd condition as well, though I have to admit that I am nowhere near as outraged as I was about the comment about women. I think that “bad” men should be encouraged in literature in this society of Socrates’ (Plato’s). If a man or woman can learn from the mistakes of other men and women, they are less likely to make the mistake themselves. Also, I can think of no interesting story that I have read (ever, perhaps) that did not have some sort of villain in it. We, as a race, love to see the triumph of good over evil.

There are more problems I have with Socrates’ (Plato’s) qualifications, but they are a bit pickier and so I will refrain for boring you all.

Goodbye!