I ask you today, O men of /lit/, whom may be considered greater:

Why Socrates, those who topple it, of course. We're those in control the greater men, they should not lose it.

>>9358670
>O men of /lit
Did you just assume my gender?

>>9358670
>whom may be considered greater: Those who control a state, or those who topple it?
Neither. They amount to the same, if we accept the conceit of the state, as said here >>9358690

But there is no state, so it's a meaningless question.

Neither; it is the man who rules with Justice who is great.

>>9358690
But those who topple the state do not have to be state actors. It takes a strong will to enforce justice across an entire nation, and one who topples it is merely eschewing that justice. Would you say there is or there isn't virtue in toppling an ideal republic?

>>9358728
this whole post is btfo'd by Crito

unless the actors are non-citizens, in which case you have to infer what would have been in Critias and Hermocrates

>>9358752
How so?

>>9358773
>>9358752
And also we were getting to your second point

>>9358773
social contract theory- Socrates doesn't believe in a right of rebellion. if you have the ability to expatriate then you have the duty to submit to your state in everything so long as you remain.

it's unclear what if any 'duty' he assigns to slaves etc. but I assume he would take a view similar to Rousseau's.

Critias and Hermocrates were to concern a war between Ur-Athens (modeled on Republic) and Atlantis. Both are arguably 'ideal' states (although Atlantis starts to overstep its natural bounds). Because these dialogues were unfinished, we can only guess at what the takeaways would have been, but I assume it would have been along the lines of 'aggression cannot create a right'

>>9358728
>But those who topple the state do not have to be state actors
performative contradiction

>>9358728

Your implied definition of justice is fraught with problems.

Whose singular "will" is responsible for the "enforcement?"

>>9358670
It is much easier to destroy than to create.

>>9358940
Justice, quite simply, is the giving of that which is owed of one party to another.

File: orestes.jpg (252KB, 1280x1063px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1280x1063px

>>9358958
And who determines what is owed to whom?

File: themidocles.png (85KB, 165x211px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 165x211px

>>9358973
Why Socrates, that would be the Council in a democracy, or the Tyrant in a tyranny; in either case, an authority with power over the two parties.

>>9358988
How then, in either case, does justice constitute an act of individual will?

>>9358728
>But those who topple the state do not have to be state actors.
This is a non-sequiter, this has absolutely nothing to do with the point that you're responding to. You go from there to assert your assumptions about what it takes to enforce justice, again drawing no logical connection to enforcing justice and the state. Further, you make no attempt to connect your question about and ideal republic with your assertion about the requirement for the enforcement justice.

Regardless of how one answers your question, there is absolutely no connection to be seen between it and the question posed in OP. I'm not saying that there isn't a connection, just that you were entirely too lazy to make one. It is also entirely possible that, in given any state that is not an ideal republic, those controlling the state may lack justice regardless of whether or not they have a "strong will."

In any case, an ideal republic, such as it is described in Plato's Republic, would be completely untopple-able by the very nature of its perfect justice. It is also worth noting, however, that Plato himself makes it clear how impossible such a republic is, and is merely using it as an allegory for justice itself and human wisdom, and NOT AS A GODDAMN POLITICAL TREATISE, YA DUMB FUCK

>>9359046
Justice does not require the will of the individual. Imagine a thief who had stolen from a man. Imagine too, that he had convinced the victim that he was not actually being stolen from, perhaps through the art of voice and charisma. Surely it would be just to punish the thief and return the goods, even if the victim was ignorant of the crimes against himself?

>>9358670
I may as well be the one to point this out:

> whom
is incorrect here.

>>9359046
Justice does not require the will of the individual. Imagine a thief who had stolen from a man. Imagine too, that he had convinced the victim that he was not actually being stolen from, perhaps through the art of voice and charisma. Surely it would be just to punish the thief and return the goods, even if the victim was ignorant of the crimes against himself?

>>9358690
>fatalism
It's not like there is a moral question here.

>>9359108
Why do you copy my post >>9359105 ?

>>9358670
Because the topplers are also the founders of whatever comes next (if they succeed) the topplers. At least that would appear to be the opinion of History.

Those who build it

>>9358920
State-level actors, meaning a single person could topple a republic without themselves leading one.

>>9358670
Destruction is easier than maintenance

>>9358752
>>9358912
Did you even read what he said or did you just take that opportunity to go a pseudo intellectual rant?

File: when a ptōxós implies you can step into the same river twice.jpg (44KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 200x200px

>>9358693
>not knowing that "men" in Greek can refer to mixed groups

>>9358693
women can't read so yeah