4

It introduces khos into the dialogues and introduces another important theme: the art of literature. As didactic writers, Homer and Hesiod became life-guiding guides in Greece; interpretation and understanding of literature was of utmost importance in this respect, the Sophists attached extraordinary importance to this issue. In this context, the subject of literature, as a problematic area that needs to be emphasized, goes beyond the reference in Book I and goes beyond II., III. and extends to Book X. Thrasymachus makes a more important contribution to the text than Glaucon's. Because by defining the right (law) as the advantage of the strong, he touched on a very important and crucial problem in its time. This problematic, too, deserves a much broader discussion than in Book I. Plato brings a counter thesis to take this determination deeper and refute it: It is essential that state guards be educated so that justice, right, law, and the strong are not tools; because only in this case power (power) will be the supporter of a clean service to the whole (state/society). We see that we owe the image of the monster of injustice to Thrasymachus in the text, and it is only in Book X that we get the chance to recognize this monstrous, superior human type as an unhappy person. Just like in Eros, we arrive at the refutation of this determination from the negative assessment, and from there to the positive level. Of course, it is true that the claims made at the beginning are proven at the end for the thoughts of Socrates. While showing everything, every object, its duty and pointing out the ability required to fulfill this duty, Socrates also refers for the first time to the principle on which the basic definition of justice is based and that everyone must obey in order to fulfill his duty. While Socrates, in line with his delight in contradiction, put forward the claim that no good (no one) would voluntarily want to rule or rule, against Thrasymachus' understanding that the mighty (the strong) is happy, we realize that extensive explanations will follow after this claim. Because this is not an opinion that should be thrown out and left. And indeed, this idea encompasses the whole work like a bracket and puts before the philosophers the obligation to turn to government service after their search for knowledge. It is indeed an obligation; because philosophers do not spontaneously give up the beauty of their "theories" and the habit of "looking at Ideas" and turn to state affairs. In conclusion, after these long explanations we have made, we can easily claim that the text, far from exhibiting a scattered and disjointed structure, as the analysts of the last century put forward, forms a whole around the idea of ​​"justice", which constitutes the main axis, from the preface to the end. It should be noted that we have pointed to the integrity of the text by moving from the "content", the thematic relations. In addition, an analysis on the "formal" structure will prove the existence of such a unity; however, we think that we can move on to the subject of Politeia, leaving this analysis to academic studies, which may actually be interesting and will show that the formal structure of the text also creates a "construction style" that is well designed and supports the content.

A Unique Text

I will mention the axiom of choice, although it is not covered much in physical theory, as it has something to do with the mathematics underlying the behavior of the physical world.

For now, it would be prudent not to worry too much about this issue. If the axiom of choice can be resolved in one way or another by an appropriate form of unequivocal reasoning, then its truth is indeed entirely a matter, or belongs to the Platonic world.

On the other hand, if the axiom of choice is only a matter of opinion or arbitrary decision, then the Platonic world of absolute mathematical forms contains neither the axiom of choice nor its negation.

Claims that may belong to Plato's world are certainly true.

In fact, I used to see mathematical objectivity as what Platonism is really all about.

To say that the claim has existence is nothing but to say that it is objectively true.

A similar interpretation applies to concepts that have a Platonic existence because they are all objective concepts, such as the concept of the number 3 or the rule of multiplication of integers, or the idea that a set contains an infinite number of elements. In my way of thinking, Platonic existence is simply a matter of objectivity, and accordingly it certainly should not be seen as something mystical, although some people may see it that way.

However, as with the axiom of choice, questions about whether some proposition for an entity should be considered to have an objective existence can be sensitive and sometimes technical.

However, we certainly don't need to be mathematicians to appreciate the general robustness of the concepts. To construct the Mandelbrot set, we first square a complex number and then add a constant number to mark the new number in the plane.