Letters Directed to the Authors

Letters to Authors Smehra Letters to Authors Dear Plato, In "The Republic" you state: "We know that, when the bodily constitution is gone, life is no longer endurable, though pampered with all kinds of meats and drinks, and having all wealth and all power....the very essence of the vital principle is undermined and corrupted, life is still worth having to a man" (Republic, 18). A implore you, dear Plato reconsider your statement here because it is full of errors in logic and thinking.

Personally, I think society is full of examples that counteract your argument regarding 'bodily constitution' and an 'endurable life'. You are a logical and noble thinker, yet you have taken things at face value by associating the pleasures of life with bodily health. Do you not think that the physically, or mentally challenged are able to enjoy an endurable life? It is after all in your argument that an astute bodily constitution - in mind and physique - is correlated to virtues and justice.

Perhaps you have only been surrounded by two kinds of men - those that honor justice and virtue, and those that do not. It's possible, as a philosopher, of your particular stature that you have been unprivileged to witness the virtues of someone with a poor bodily constitution - least you forget Cheron was blind, yet he managed to teach the art of healing to Asclephius, and the secrets of the nomads to Achilles.

Was he least able to understand moral virtues and justice because he was blind? Was he only able to understand vices and injustices because his bodily constitution was below your Utopian ideal of human nature? A say, he was above that vision. Beyond being a teacher, philosopher and honorable being, Cheron had honed his senses to make up for the lack of one.

Does that not make him a far better being than you or I? Perhaps Plato, you should clarify what it is you mean in regards to body and mind when it comes to the subject of virtues and justice. You should elaborate on what is the foundation of a 'bodily constitution' and maybe then, there will be little room for misinterpretation, as I feel, this is the only justification of your argument in The Republic.

I find it hard to believe, in other words, that you would be biased towards those that are different to you. As always, your philosophical ideas and essays entice thought and discussion, and I imagine that was your initial intention. I look forward to your thoughts on my thoughts on "The Republic," and say hello to Socrates and Aristotle - no doubt they share the same corner of the stars as you do.

Deepest Respect and Salutations, Dear Aristotle, In "Politics" you remark that: "for that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule" (Book 1, Part V). You go on to clarify this through the relationship of 'master' and 'slave' and how it relates to the ruling politics of a country or city.

Aristotle, I am outraged at your expression! Is it so easy to classify the human being into two classes - master and slave? Do you not see the implications of stating that 'some are marked out from the hour of birth'? Allow me to bring light to them, for it is obvious you do not.

There is no doubt that there are some that have a knack of being a leader; as we say, they are "born leaders," and perhaps this is true as many great leaders from history showed a sense of leadership and responsibility from a young age. Nevertheless, you simplify by saying that there are also "born followers" or "slaves" within a society. A shall, at this point, remind you of "Free Will." Nobody is born to follow, and absurdly, nobody is born to be a slave.

To classify humans in this regard is denying them the right to change; to exert their Free Will and learn to become a leader. There are leaders that for no fault of their own are made leaders despite their lack of.