Never mind the exact poetic lines Socrates addressed in this passage from Plato’s The Republic; consider, instead, the core of Socrates’ statement.
“We shall ask Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we delete these and all similar passages. They are poetic and pleasing to the majority of hearers, but the more poetic they are the less they should be heard by children and by men who must be free and fear slavery more than death. Most certainly” (57). *
So, simply said, seems Socrates censors some.
Are you surprised? One might think that censorship of any kind would be anathema to a philosopher, especially and ironically to one who ended his life as a censored voice condemned to death. Ah! Censorship. It can be both boon and bane, boon when it’s applied to others and bane when it’s applied to the censor.
Now consider the conclusions from a study published in PLOS ONE online by Hilke Brockmann, Wiebke Drews, and John Torpey. In “A class for itself? On the worldwide of the new tech elite” the authors define that “class” as a group of “middle-aged men from an economic superpower. Of the top 100, fully 94 are men…Their average age is 54…Half are Americans…The superstars of tech also share similar educational backgrounds….” ** Among three hypotheses that the researchers test in their study is this:
“The members of the tech elite have a contradictory relationship to democracy: they support democratic practices in general but undermine democracy by virtue of the political activities available to them on the basis of their tremendous wealth and influence.” Those “political activities” include censoring the non-elites with different political views.
So, simply said, Silicon censors selfishly.
Apparently, according to Brockmann et al., “members of the tech elite frequently fail to understand how their activities unavoidably (if inadvertently) undermine democratic equality.” See the problem here? If we all must play according to the rules of the few, the game is fixed, and there is no such thing as truly free democracy in action. And using Socrates’ terms, we might conclude that if we listen only to passages that are “poetic and pleasing to the majority of hearers,” we risk closing our minds to harsh realities that might affect us, including being censored by some self-righteous group of elites.
And what do we hear from most political leaders in a democratic republic as they stand on their platforms? Do we hear platitudes that please the masses and distract them from considering their loss of freedom under the new censors? And what is censored? Could these “elites” be out to suppress knowledge and gritty discussion about harsh realities or truths? In censoring in toto any group that threatens their status quo, do they imprison minds in slavish groupthink? Such a slavery is made all the more insidious by the public’s indifference to their own loss of privacy and the means of self-determination. As the researchers note, “the tech giants are now widely said to operate a novel ‘surveillance capitalism’” [34], scooping up enormous amounts of user data and using it to demonstrate to advertisers how effectively they achieve “user engagement” or selling it to third parties at a profit—but destroying “privacy” in the process.”
Intrusive surveillance is now part of the weaponry of the censors. Where does one go to spread contrary ideas or criticism that isn’t surveilled? Criticism of the ruling elites appears to flow through a weir of ever decreasing size. The opportunity to discuss freely and even contentiously the values of a democratic republic disappear behind a wall of filters imposed on speech by a few elites who deem themselves to be the arbiters of truth who can identify the who, where, and when of criticism.
That narrowing funnel outlet for free speech is being squeezed by the black hole of intolerance found not only in the censoring elite, but also in the censoring denizens of academia’s ivory towers. But should we be surprised? If even Socrates called for some censorship, there seems to be little hope for a truly free society. I’m reminded that there have been calls from those who walk the hallowed halls of Ivy League schools to censor and blacklist those with whom they disagree. Of course, it’s a myth to think that academia has been a fortress of free thinking. From the earliest universities through the ensuing centuries, academicians have sought to preserve what they adamantly held onto as truth even in the face of contradiction.
Censorship has long been a part of human interaction, even among those who are supposed to be the freest of thinkers. And censorship’s companion has been “acceptable and appropriate” thoughts and expressions. Wow! How Orwellian has our society become?
Wrong question. How Orwellian has society always been? That’s the question. From Socrates to today’s “elites,” censorship, appropriate speech and thought, surveillance, and blacklisting have interfered with any attempts to form a lasting democratic republic. The historic examples are far too numerous to mention. They are so numerous, in fact, that no one should be surprised by the current milieu of censorship.
*Plato’s Republic. Trans. by G. M. A. Grube. 1974. Indianapolis. Hackett Publishing Company,
Inc.
**https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244071 The [34] in the quotation is a reference to
Zuboff S. The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affair; 2019.
“We shall ask Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we delete these and all similar passages. They are poetic and pleasing to the majority of hearers, but the more poetic they are the less they should be heard by children and by men who must be free and fear slavery more than death. Most certainly” (57). *
So, simply said, seems Socrates censors some.
Are you surprised? One might think that censorship of any kind would be anathema to a philosopher, especially and ironically to one who ended his life as a censored voice condemned to death. Ah! Censorship. It can be both boon and bane, boon when it’s applied to others and bane when it’s applied to the censor.
Now consider the conclusions from a study published in PLOS ONE online by Hilke Brockmann, Wiebke Drews, and John Torpey. In “A class for itself? On the worldwide of the new tech elite” the authors define that “class” as a group of “middle-aged men from an economic superpower. Of the top 100, fully 94 are men…Their average age is 54…Half are Americans…The superstars of tech also share similar educational backgrounds….” ** Among three hypotheses that the researchers test in their study is this:
“The members of the tech elite have a contradictory relationship to democracy: they support democratic practices in general but undermine democracy by virtue of the political activities available to them on the basis of their tremendous wealth and influence.” Those “political activities” include censoring the non-elites with different political views.
So, simply said, Silicon censors selfishly.
Apparently, according to Brockmann et al., “members of the tech elite frequently fail to understand how their activities unavoidably (if inadvertently) undermine democratic equality.” See the problem here? If we all must play according to the rules of the few, the game is fixed, and there is no such thing as truly free democracy in action. And using Socrates’ terms, we might conclude that if we listen only to passages that are “poetic and pleasing to the majority of hearers,” we risk closing our minds to harsh realities that might affect us, including being censored by some self-righteous group of elites.
And what do we hear from most political leaders in a democratic republic as they stand on their platforms? Do we hear platitudes that please the masses and distract them from considering their loss of freedom under the new censors? And what is censored? Could these “elites” be out to suppress knowledge and gritty discussion about harsh realities or truths? In censoring in toto any group that threatens their status quo, do they imprison minds in slavish groupthink? Such a slavery is made all the more insidious by the public’s indifference to their own loss of privacy and the means of self-determination. As the researchers note, “the tech giants are now widely said to operate a novel ‘surveillance capitalism’” [34], scooping up enormous amounts of user data and using it to demonstrate to advertisers how effectively they achieve “user engagement” or selling it to third parties at a profit—but destroying “privacy” in the process.”
Intrusive surveillance is now part of the weaponry of the censors. Where does one go to spread contrary ideas or criticism that isn’t surveilled? Criticism of the ruling elites appears to flow through a weir of ever decreasing size. The opportunity to discuss freely and even contentiously the values of a democratic republic disappear behind a wall of filters imposed on speech by a few elites who deem themselves to be the arbiters of truth who can identify the who, where, and when of criticism.
That narrowing funnel outlet for free speech is being squeezed by the black hole of intolerance found not only in the censoring elite, but also in the censoring denizens of academia’s ivory towers. But should we be surprised? If even Socrates called for some censorship, there seems to be little hope for a truly free society. I’m reminded that there have been calls from those who walk the hallowed halls of Ivy League schools to censor and blacklist those with whom they disagree. Of course, it’s a myth to think that academia has been a fortress of free thinking. From the earliest universities through the ensuing centuries, academicians have sought to preserve what they adamantly held onto as truth even in the face of contradiction.
Censorship has long been a part of human interaction, even among those who are supposed to be the freest of thinkers. And censorship’s companion has been “acceptable and appropriate” thoughts and expressions. Wow! How Orwellian has our society become?
Wrong question. How Orwellian has society always been? That’s the question. From Socrates to today’s “elites,” censorship, appropriate speech and thought, surveillance, and blacklisting have interfered with any attempts to form a lasting democratic republic. The historic examples are far too numerous to mention. They are so numerous, in fact, that no one should be surprised by the current milieu of censorship.
*Plato’s Republic. Trans. by G. M. A. Grube. 1974. Indianapolis. Hackett Publishing Company,
Inc.
**https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244071 The [34] in the quotation is a reference to
Zuboff S. The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affair; 2019.
RSS Feed