Why do academics get so hot and wet over Plato’s Republic but never say “boo” about Plato’s Laws? Look at any college and you will see that the Republic is FAR more likely to be taught than the Laws, but the Laws is a far superior work in the maturity, reasonability, and applicability of its political, social, and legal principles.
So why do academics love the Republic and despise the Laws, are they all just a bunch of closet fascists?
Nah, it’s just a feedback loop mostly. They’re taught it because college kids are expected to be familiar with the Republic because it’s well known, it’s well known because lots of college kids are taught it.
Moreover, it’s not generally taught (nor was it intended by Plato to be) as a serious political treatise. It’s used more as a jumping point for discussions about justice and the soul.
Basically, the two works ultimately deal with different things.
Whatever Plato’s intended use for the Republic, the reality is that it is essentially the first political “manifesto” that the majority of modern leaders in the USA are likely to be exposed to, and exposed to at an age in which they are most susceptable to indoctrination. It is a manual for totalitarianism, and it looks like it has become the theoretical framework of both the “left” and the “right” in the West.
Except it’s rarely taught as a political manifesto and the courses that use it likely also go into philosophers like Mills, Locke, Rousseau, etc. Not only that, but every course that involved the Republic that I heard about also criticized it’s hierarchical bent.
Frankly, there are several other works that have been more influential in the development of totalitarianism than the Republic. You are being hysterical over nothing.
I have to admit, when I was in college and we discussed The Republic (philosophy elective course…why engineers needed it I have no idea :)) it wasn’t taught as a ‘manifesto’…and the teacher was fairly critical of it. Now, I went to the University of Arizona, not exactly a hot bed of socialism by any stretch, but that was my experience with it. It was just another work we had to read, analyze and discuss…no special secret emphasis was placed on it in my class at least.
We didn’t discuss the Laws at all, though they WERE mentioned and we were encouraged to read them…it just wasn’t part of the class.
I believe part of the reason is that the Republic contains alot of metaphysics and psychology as well as politics, while the Laws is pretty much a straightforward political tract. The Republic tries to answer the question “What is Justice and why should I be just if I can get away with being unjust?” while the Laws just asks “How should we set up a viable state.” Also The Republic contains a lot of room for interpretation, thus providing work opportunities for academics, while the Laws is pretty clear.
And isn’t the Laws just as fascist as the Republic, though without the wierd communist overtones?