I have been intrigued into the importance of material possessions for sometime, and studying Plato's The Republic made me think about it even more. However, the reason this is my first blog, or article, is because today, while with my friend, I noticed his close attachment with a particular necklace. He has a fondness which I am not sure if I find odd - he wears it every day and will add charms to it. In fact 'The Pevalian Dynasty' has written a blog about it (http://liamrfindlay.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-necklace.html) which I will contend for he states firmly at the end that he would not "care if I don't die with it on- it's only material after all and I'd never get upset if I were to lose it". The reason he has mentioned this is almost certainly because he knew I had not written this, he knew what I wanted... Oh Liam...
Personally though, I would feel that "a metaphor for my soul" and something that gave me guidance was certainly important, and I would be very upset if I were to lose it. I think he is lying when he tells this. Therefore, I would like to take Liam, and a female, as contenders to Plato; oppose the views. The female loves statues, particularly a three foot Adonis one it may seem. She is mainly a hypothetical case because I have not (and will not) read this story.
Plato argued that the true guardians of the perfect state would not need worldly possessions; partly because they would because they would be a distraction to ultimate truth and knowledge about how the state should be run, but also because they would feel like they would not need them because they have knowledge of the Forms. However, in a strange turn of events, he allows the ordinary people possessions. This for obvious reasons when you think that they are not trying to run the state. And even if the Forms do not exist and his political theory is flawed and unethical, his point regarding the soul though is that to achieve balance we do not need the material possessions. However, is there no happiness with possessions?
Well, obviously if you would happily commit adultery with them. Clearly though, her tendencies are clearly a psychological issue, where as many would argue Liam's, and most people's, are healthy and stable. Perhaps if Plato was living now he would agree, for they are almost essential in modern life. They create social and cognitive stimulus, whether this is Countdown or TOWIE, University Challenge or Eastenders. Perhaps two of them do not offer much thought provoking, except possibly "how did he get that question wrong?"
I think though that no one is under the illusion that somethings could not be given up. Today I left my bike light somewhere and I merely thought it an inconvenience, though it could be argued that I do need them. Perhaps some jewellery, but then, somethings may have special importance, such as Liam's necklace and engagement rings. Although, this is gives us a completely different meaning to what possessions do to us. Instead of a social drive certain possession can act as complete psychotherapy, as if one has projected their themselves and how they feel onto something, closer it may be to psychoanalysis.
This is what Plato perhaps missed out on, perhaps now this is a lot more of a common occurrence than it was before. But, whatever Freud may say regarding the above females position, the psychodynamic model may have a lot ore to tell us about with what Liam and many others suffer with. I would like to be pointed toward research into this, it is a very interesting field, however, it is sure to show some benefits like the ones above, and though it may help with small talk, we may be more sociable if we had less things.
Personally though, I would feel that "a metaphor for my soul" and something that gave me guidance was certainly important, and I would be very upset if I were to lose it. I think he is lying when he tells this. Therefore, I would like to take Liam, and a female, as contenders to Plato; oppose the views. The female loves statues, particularly a three foot Adonis one it may seem. She is mainly a hypothetical case because I have not (and will not) read this story.
 | |||||||||
| from The Sun? |
Well, obviously if you would happily commit adultery with them. Clearly though, her tendencies are clearly a psychological issue, where as many would argue Liam's, and most people's, are healthy and stable. Perhaps if Plato was living now he would agree, for they are almost essential in modern life. They create social and cognitive stimulus, whether this is Countdown or TOWIE, University Challenge or Eastenders. Perhaps two of them do not offer much thought provoking, except possibly "how did he get that question wrong?"
I think though that no one is under the illusion that somethings could not be given up. Today I left my bike light somewhere and I merely thought it an inconvenience, though it could be argued that I do need them. Perhaps some jewellery, but then, somethings may have special importance, such as Liam's necklace and engagement rings. Although, this is gives us a completely different meaning to what possessions do to us. Instead of a social drive certain possession can act as complete psychotherapy, as if one has projected their themselves and how they feel onto something, closer it may be to psychoanalysis.
This is what Plato perhaps missed out on, perhaps now this is a lot more of a common occurrence than it was before. But, whatever Freud may say regarding the above females position, the psychodynamic model may have a lot ore to tell us about with what Liam and many others suffer with. I would like to be pointed toward research into this, it is a very interesting field, however, it is sure to show some benefits like the ones above, and though it may help with small talk, we may be more sociable if we had less things.
