Plato’s Political Philosophy: Collectivism & the Philosopher-King by Leonard Peikoff, part 12 of 50

History of Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff - Lesson 12 of 50

Building on Plato’s famous analogy between a city and an individual’s soul, Leonard Peikoff explains the essence of Plato’s political philosophy — a philosophy which, according to Peikoff, “has been the blueprint ever since for dictatorial totalitarian schemes of every variety.”

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

[alfiecollins]

I'm not an expert on Plato, although I've read most of his works a number of years ago. Assuming Leonard's interpretation in this lecture is accurate, then we can conclude that Plato's politics is totalitarian, elitist and discriminatory - in a word: terrifying.

[thefrenchareharlequins]

18:08 "The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends." - Ludwig von Mises

[goldenplayroblox]

6:20 - 6:55
Something interesting i heard from the video,

" By the time you get to politics the moral to draw as you cannot argue any philosophers, if you have accepted his conclusions and in metaphysics and epistemology by the time you get to politics he just takes you by the hand and leads you wherever he's going and you cannot open your mouth.​

the moral to draw being that it is hopeless to argue politics with someone unless you first argue metaphysics and epistemology.​

And once you argue metaphysics and epistemology you'd be amazed that political disagreements falls into place within minutes. "

I found this part interesting. As I go through the playlist.

[zardozcys]

Plato's Beef: It's what's for Dictators.

[raybarry]

I don't think we have to guess what would happen if we opened up governing to the ignorant masses. Do we A.O.C.???

[JP-eyws]

Nice lecture. Of course, it is expected that the interpretation would be read a bit tendentiously from a Randian lens and the critique suffers from a bit of presentism. For example, the slide citing Plato at 462c reads this passage as Plato's rejection of private property. In fact, this section is not about property at all but about "feelings." How should we "feel" if X happens in the community. Thus, it is about the privatization of feelings to which "mine" and "not mine" refers. In other words, Plato is asking, shouldn't we share similar concerns about the state of our community. Shouldn't we all care? Caring (at least for others) is not a particularly strong feature of objectivism.

[dyfrigshandy]

I think this interpretation is kinda misleading