I wrote this after my intro to philosophy class. We stared with some ... cheese covered intro book covering some thought experiments, which obviously I had mostly distaste of. The Republic of Plato however, a mind expanding example of what "timeless" or classical thought is. I am considering a critical thinking class. I call the tale ...

A Perfect Guardian?

Three men are holding a conversation. They are all part of an army. One of them is a general. The general's duties are within the war-tent, where he among those tittled as equal calculate battle plans and strategies. The war-tent itself is grand and near lavish. Many tools to fill the desires of generals can be found within. The second man is a new officer. His duties are to serve as the generals eyes, ears, and relate between them and the footmen. He is accustomed to the conditions of the generals' war-tent, and that of the guard-post of the footmen. The third and last of the three, a footman. His duties are extremely simple, to follow the commands of those above him, and with respect to seniority and rank.

The tree men are aligned in order of rank, standing next to a fire, with their backs their encampment and eyes toward the fire. The general announces his certainty for victory, due to rigorous calculations of performed by himself, and others with his rank. He asks the other men how they think the battle will fair. The footman speaks up and says, “I am sure we will win, but I must admit I expect a surprise from our enemy.” The general replies sharply, “There is no surprise when all things are accounted for.” The footman returns, “Is there no chance of error in calculation?”

The officer whom is most familiar with the mannerisms of both men, not due to them individually but the whole of their ranks, is quick to interject when he observes that both men have their brows turned down. “Fine calculations made with respect given to chance or possibility, as we have surely done here, make fine battle preparations. If we continue this tradition of honoring both, we will not only win this battle, but moreover the war.”

At this moment there is movement adjacent to them beyond the fire in the wreathe of shadows. As it moves toward them becoming more clear, it appears to be another general. The general of the three calls out a greeting, with the footman at the same time rendering salute. The officer steps out from the two quickly and shouts, “DUTY!” The approaching general is not yet fully visible do to the fire, and is unchanged in pace or voice. The officer draws his blade, making ready to strike him, and the general quickly reaches out grabbing his wrist. “What are you doing,” he shouts in sonorous tone, as he bids the footman to assist.

It is in this moment the general feels a sharp and terrible pain rip through his chest. Drawing back is the hand of the general approaching, and it reveals the handle of a finely crafted dagger. The officer has broken loose of the footman and brings a quick end to the shadowed figure. The general gasps for air and musters what he know will be his final words to his officer, “Tell me, have I failed in my calculation?” The officer speaks, “No, but you have failed to recognized what your calculations were. To train me to be your eyes, ears, hands, and to be ready to strike anyone down that does not know the password when challenged. “Ah, yes I should have placed my trust in you.” The footman leans in over his fallen commander and says, “the password is respect sir. I did not recognize it either."
-------------------
Now, after you have read it, place of the three (in order of their rank) put Socrates, Plato, and Glaucon. If one has ever read Plato.

I would offer this as well. In the depiction of the cave, the men that "think" the know what truth is, seem to come from the natural light "war-tents." But yet, all they really seem to be doing is playing with shadows of truth at the fire. This is where the "real" judgement, as I see it, is taking place in the analogy. From which group do the men causing the shadows come from? And if you compared it to the myth at the end, judgment takes place on earth, not in heaven nor hell, but the mid-point. The middle, much like the dividing line (the ship), the three types of couches, and the concept of true pleasure is where the process of judgement takes place. Now this is all opinion, but what is not ... truth? I think the book is more about seeking truth rather than seeking justice, truth is the noun, justice is the adjective. They sought the "true" definition of justice.