![]() ![]() Again, a state is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men for similars do not constitute a state. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the state. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, ‘that the greater the unity of the state the better.’ Is it not obvious that a state may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state? since the nature of a state is to be a plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a state, it becomes a family, and from being a family, an individual for the family may be said to be more than the state, and the individual than the family. Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the state, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. ![]() And the principle on which Socrates rests the necessity of such an institution evidently is not established by his arguments. ![]() There are many difficulties in the community of women. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |