Socrates has already completed the main argument of the Republic, establishing justice and has proven to be valid. He turns to the question of poetry leads humans. Surprising move, banished poets from the city. He has three reasons to believe that poets unhealthy and dangerous. First, pretend to know all sorts of things, but really know nothing. It generally considered aware of what they write, but really do not. Things that treatment cannot be know: these images, far from what is real. Presenting such scenes of the truth of poets, evil souls, depart from the more real to say the least.
Worse still, the images do not imitate the poets present a good part of the soul. The rational soul is peaceful, stable, and it is difficult to imitate or understand. Poets imitate the worst parts, trends that make the characters easily excitable, and colorful. Poetry, of course, appeals to the worst parts of the soul awakens and nourishes and strengthens the basic elements of this new transform part of a sensible energy.
Poetry corrupts even the best minds. He deceives us into sympathy with those who weep too, as the desire to laugh at inappropriate things basic. It sticks well to feel these emotions base effects assistant. We believe there is no shame in engaging in these feelings because we deliver in conjunction with a fictional character and not in our own lives. But the joy we feel these sentiments to engage in the lives of others is transferred to our own lives. When these parts of ourselves have been nurtured and strengthened in the way they can flourish in us when we deal with our own lives. Suddenly, we became the grotesque kind of people we have seen on stage or heard in the epic poems.
The obvious dangers of poetry and Socrates’ sorry from banish poets. Sacrifice aesthetics feels sharp, and said he would be happy to help you return to the city if anyone can make an argument in their defense.
Socrates, the Commission will present a short proof of the immortality of the soul. In principle, the proof is this: X can be destroyed by what is bad for X. What is a poor soul is injustice and other vices. But the injustice and other vices apparently do not destroy the soul, or tyrants, and others are not able to survive for long. So nothing can destroy the soul and the soul is immortal.
When Socrates presented evidence that he can put his final argument in favor of justice. This argument, based on the myth of Er, to receive the reward come afterlife. According to legend, a warrior named is killed in battle, but not really die. He was sent to heaven and made to look all that happens for him to return to the earth and report what he saw. It is an eschatological system that rewards virtue, especially wisdom. For 1000 years, people are either rewarded or punished in heaven to hell for sins or good deeds in their lives. They are then assembled in a common space and forced to choose their next life, animal or human. Life they choose will determine if they are rewarded or punished in the next cycle. Only those who were philosophically in his lifetime, including Orpheus, who choose to be reborn as a swan about to catch the trick, how to choose just life. Everyone else hurtles between happiness and misery with every cycle.
Book X, then, Plato’s philosophy of education bumps based on a comparison of traditional poetry-based education. Plato justified in the philosophy and the philosopher, and now appears to them in relation to its competitors, people who are thinking of a sage and wise, poets.
The myth, with reward and punishment is an argument based on the motivations of the principles of Plato rejected. Glaucon and Adeimantus asked specifically to praise the law without resorting to these factors. Why is doing exactly that?
Allan Bloom suggests that the inclusion of this myth related to the philosophical distinction between virtue and civic virtue. Virtue is the kind of philosophical philosopher, virtue is and what kind of virtue distinguished from the effect of the normal citizen. So far, says Bloom, Plato has shown that under this philosophy is valid in itself. He has not shown that civic virtue is worthy. For Glaucon and Adeimantus, and countless others who are not capable of philosophical virtue, we must give them a reason to pursue their own form of virtue. The contrast between the philosophical and civic virtue in the mind, Plato describes the years thousands of cycles of reward and punishment is just and unjust lives.
However, our understanding of what makes all the useful virtue; their connection with the forms of Plato has sufficiently demonstrated the value of the two kinds of virtues. Under the philosophy may be more useful as it not only mimics the forms, but also directed at others and with them, but civic virtue is equally valid, since it involves making the shape of your life by establishing order and harmony in his soul. Bloom, however, has another plausible hypothesis to explain why Plato understands the myth of Er, and is consistent with our understanding of the value of justice. The myth of Err, Bloom explains, illustrates once again the need for philosophy. Civic virtues are not enough. Philosophers only life they know how to choose good news, because only they understand the soul and understand what makes a life good and bad. The others, who do not have this understanding, sometimes choose between good and evil at times.
Fluctuate back and forth between the lives of good and bad. Since each soul is responsible for choosing his own life, each person must take full responsibility to be fair or unfair. We have deliberately chosen to be unfair because of our ignorance of what makes a soul just or unjust. Ignorance, then, is the only real sin, and philosophy, the only remedy.