Talk:Myth of Er

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Essentially, Greek mythology of the day was the basis of religious beliefs of the time, but it was very often self-contradictory: humans were supposed to obey the gods, but at the same time the Greek gods were killing at will, sleeping with men's wives, etc. There was a general message in the religion surrounding Plato at the time of "do as the gods say, not as they do"."

"Greek mythology of the day"

In the first place, referring to the Greek religion of Socrates's time as 'mythology' does the author and whoever reads him a disservice. One would be well advised to ask this as a question rather than declaring it as an unsubstantiated statement. One would, moreover, be well-advised to ask it as a question about a particular character whose opinions can be investigated in text rather than making some vague assertion for the verification of which we would have to turn to the archaeologists, anthropologists, and alleged historians. When the author's opening statement is clarified in this manner, it becomes clear that he is asking:

'Did Socrates believe in the gods of his city?'

It becomes, clear, moreover, that he is tacitly answering this question in the negative. That is to say, he is tacitly assuming that Socrates was guilty of the first accusation leveled against him by the Athenians, namely, that he did not believe in the gods of his city. One would be well-advised not to assume one simple answer to this question, to which Plato and Xenophon, men of great wisdom, devoted thousands of pages.

"Greek mythology of the day...was very often self-contradictory"

Such a statement must not be made without textual citation and some sort of argument. The correct way to go about this would be, again, to take some particular story and compare it to some particular edict of the city. The author's failure to do this is particularly glaring in light of the fact that the better part of one whole book of the Republic is devoted to an example of how one would go about censoring Homer to make Homer's stories agree with the city's law about how one should think about the gods. This thread of Socrates's argument seems to be taken up later when Socrates insists that most poetry be banished from the city. The Myth of Er must be understood in light of and over against this thread. Socrates is not simply

"trying to introduce the concept that morally good people should be rewarded after death, and morally bad people should be punished after death"

he is making a myth. How ought the Myth to be understood? Should it be understood as a partial retraction of his earlier condemnation of poetry? Should it be understood as an example of how poetry might be used justly in the city that has been described in the Republic? Finally, what is Socrates's purpose in pronouncing precisely this myth to preceisely Glaucon, Adeimantus, and all the other boys listening to him? Why speak of reincarnation and urge the slow, patient consideration of Odysseus to precisely this group of young men?

I do not consider myself qualified to write such an article, but I hope that these sort of considerations will encourage whoever chooses to write it to take their task carefully and seriously.

Ross Hunt

Please feel free to email me if you would like to ask me anything about what I have written.

Orestes122484@hotmail.com

[edit] Reward and punishment?"

I admit it's been a while since I have read the Myth of Er, but it didn't seem that reward and punishment was the point of it. It's true, reward and punishment are mentioned, but are not given a lot of time in the story. It focuses more on what comes after. It seems more about accepting one's lot in life. If I remember, Agamemmnon had to draw last, because he had been great in life, and what is left for him is a lowly obscure next life. He then claims that this is the life he would have drawn even if he could have drawn first.--RLent 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

The articles "Er (Plato)" and "Myth of Er" should be merged into "Myth of Er." I might do it if I get excited about it. Jonathan Tweet 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

                                           The Myth of Er

In the tenth book of the Republic, Plato wrote a beautiful allegory entitled The Myth of Er. He writes about the freedom to choose one’s own destiny, and of the ever changing immortal soul. Written around 360 B.C.E., Plato tells the story of a warrior named Er, who had died and went to the afterlife. While here, he was able to see what happens to living creatures (both man and animal) after they die, and was allowed to return back to earth and tell the story.

When a soul leaves for the afterlife, it is first taken to a judgment proceeding. Here, the soul will receive it’s punishment for the next 1000 years. For every wrong one had committed, they should be punished ten fold. These people were sent down into the earth with their misdeeds written on their backs for all to see. When all dues had been paid, those beings would be allowed to go back up in to a heavenly place.

After 1000 years, those in heaven were allowed to come down and meet with those who had passed after them. Here, they were able to hear the story of their passing, and the incredible woe placed upon their loved ones. After a week long festival, the souls are allowed to make their journey to reincarnation.

Plato describes (with amazing accuracy) the system of the universe, and seems to be a precursor for later philosophies. “The largest (of fixed stars) is spangled, and the seventh (or sun) is brightest. . .the third (Venus) has the whitest light; the fourth (Mars) is reddish. . .” He then goes on to describe how the spindle of heaven (a bright light) holds them all together as Necessity—strangely like Aristotle’s unmoved mover—spins them all in the same direction. He explains how every whorl .had a siren that would produce a note, and when played together would produce a harmony—much like the “song of spheres” theory. All of these whorls are spun by the three fates.

After being taken to this place, the spirits (animals and tyrants among them) are given their choices for the next life. This does, however, coincide to some degree with their previous life “the good into gentle and the evil into savage.” One by one, the twenty souls on the journey are allowed to take their pick of what they will become. Based upon their past life, poor people may choose to be something wealthier, a person who was cast out by human society may choose to become an animal, or—in the case of Odysseus—one may choose to be a person with no worries. All people have the freedom to choose, and their happiness/destiny in the next life (or in this one) will be dependent solely on the wisdom of their own choices. This is the lesson that Plato strived to teach through the Myth of Er
.
The souls would then transform into the choice they had made, and would be taken to a place to drink of the river of Mindfulness. The water from this river causes all who drink of it to forget, or at least to the degree of which they drank. (A person who had the foresight to drink little would remember some from their past life as all is already known, according to Plato; an unwise person would drink their fill.) And so the same soul will continue on forever.

On the twelfth day of his death, Er would return back to life. Here he awoke with complete recollection, and was able to tell others of what lessons he had learned. Choose wisely on all of your decisions, as it is the freedom of your choices that will determine the destiny of your immortal soul.