Introduction to Political Philosophy Lecture 5 | Introduction to Political Philosophy
Chapter 1.
第一章。
Polemarchus [00:00:00] Professor Steven Smith : Today Republic , Act 2.
Polemarchus [00:00:00] Steven Smith 教授：《今日共和国》，第二幕。
And what I want to do is continue with the account of the various figures, various persons who populate, who inhabit this dialogue, and who they are, what they represent, and how they contribute to the argument and the structure of the work as a whole.
我想做的是继续描述不同的人物、不同的人，他们居住在这场对话中，他们是谁，他们代表什么，以及他们如何对整个作品的论点和结构做出贡献。
Last time, and I won't repeat this, last time we talked briefly at the end of class about Cephalus, and Socrates's treatment of Cephalus, the embodiment of convention, the embodiment of Athenian opinion in the way in which Socrates as it were chases Cephalus out of the dialogue, out of the conversation.
上次，我不会重复这一点，上次我们在课堂结束时简短地谈到了克法勒斯，以及苏格拉底对克法勒斯的处理，传统的体现，雅典舆论的体现，苏格拉底将克法勒斯从对话中驱逐出去。
We never hear from him again.
我们再也没有收到他的消息。
And the speakers are able, presumably, to pursue the audacious arguments that will appear in the rest of the book without the oversight of the head of the household, the embodiment of conventional opinion.
据推测，演讲者能够在没有户主（传统观点的体现）的监督下，提出本书其余部分中出现的大胆论点。
And Socrates next pursues this discussion with the son of Cephalus, Polemarchus, the man who first had Socrates approached on the Piraeus.
接下来，苏格拉底与克法洛斯的儿子波勒马库斯进行了讨论，波勒马库斯是第一个让苏格拉底在比雷埃夫斯海峡接近的人。
Polemarchus is described as the heir of the argument as well as the, to be sure, the heir of the family fortune.
波勒马库斯被描述为争论的继承人，当然，也是家族财富的继承人。
Polemarchus is what the Greeks would call a "gentlemen." Let us just say he is a person willing to stand up for and defend his family and friends.
Polemarchus 是希腊人所说的“绅士”。我们只能说他是一个愿意站出来捍卫家人和朋友的人。
I don't mean necessarily by a "gentlemen" somebody who holds the door for others, or so on, but somebody who stands up for his family and friends in the way that he does.
我所说的“绅士”不一定是指为他人开门等的人，而是指像他那样为家人和朋友挺身而出的人。
Unlike his father however, Polemarchus shows himself concerned not just with the needs of the body as Cephalus represented, but Polemarchus is concerned to defend the honor and safety of the polis .
然而，与他的父亲不同的是，波勒马库斯表现出自己不仅关心克法洛斯所代表的身体的需要，而且还关心捍卫城邦的荣誉和安全。
He accepts the view that justice is giving to each what is owed, but he interprets this to mean that justice means doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.
他接受正义就是给予每个人所欠的东西的观点，但他将此解释为正义意味着对你的朋友有利，对你的敌人有害。
Justice, we might say, is a kind of loyalty, it is a kind of loyalty that we feel to members of a family, to members of our team, to fellow students of a residential college, and the kind of loyalty we feel to a place like Yale as opposed to all other places.
我们可以说，正义是一种忠诚，是我们对家庭成员、团队成员、住宿学院同学的忠诚，也是我们对耶鲁这样的地方而不是其他地方的忠诚。
That is to say, Polemarchus understands justice as a kind of patriotic sentiment that citizens of one city or one polis feel for one another in opposition to all other places.
也就是说，波勒马库斯将正义理解为一种爱国情感，是一个城市或一个城邦的公民相互对立、反对所有其他地方的爱国情感。
Justice is devotion to one's own.
正义是对自己的奉献。
And one's own is the good for Polemarchus.
对波勒马库斯来说，自己的利益就是好的。
One's own is the just.
自己的才是正义的。
But Socrates challenges Polemarchus on the grounds that loyalty to a group, any group, cannot be a virtue in itself, and he trips Polemarchus up with a very, in many ways, familiar Socratic argument "Do we ever make mistakes?" he asks Polemarchus.
但苏格拉底挑战波勒马丘斯的理由是，对一个群体、任何群体的忠诚本身不可能是一种美德，他用一个在很多方面都非常熟悉的苏格拉底论点“我们犯过错误吗？”来绊倒波勒马丘斯。他问波勒马库斯。
"Isn't the distinction between friend and enemy based on a kind of knowledge, on a perception of who is your friend and who is your enemy?
“朋友和敌人的区别不是基于一种知识，基于对谁是你的朋友、谁是你的敌人的认知吗？
Have we ever mistaken a friend for enemy?" The answer seems to be, "Of course we have." We all know people who we thought to be our friends but we found out that they were talking behind our backs, or that they were operating to deceive us in some way or another.
我们有没有把朋友误认为敌人？”答案似乎是：“当然有。”我们都认识一些我们认为是朋友的人，但我们发现他们在背后议论我们，或者他们正在以某种方式欺骗我们。
Of course, it's happened to everyone.
当然，这发生在每个人身上。
"So how can we say that justice means helping friends and harming enemies," Socrates asks, "when we may not even be sure who our friends and our enemies really are?
苏格拉底问道：“那么，当我们甚至不确定我们的朋友和敌人到底是谁时，我们怎么能说正义意味着帮助朋友和伤害敌人呢？”
Why should citizens of one state, namely one's own have any moral priority over the citizens of another state when, again, we don't know them and we may well be mistaken in our assumption that they are enemies or friends?
为什么一个国家的公民（即本国公民）比另一个国家的公民拥有道德优先权，而我们又不了解他们，而且我们很可能错误地认为他们是敌人或朋友？
Isn't, in other words such an unreflective attachment to one's own bound to result in injustice to others?
换句话说，这种不加反思地执着于自己的束缚，难道不会导致对他人的不公正吗？
Socrates seems to be asking Polemarchus.
苏格拉底似乎在问波勒马库斯。
Once again, in many ways, we see Socrates dissolving the bonds of the familiar.
在很多方面，我们再次看到苏格拉底解除了熟悉的束缚。
At no other point in the Republic , I think, do we see so clearly the tension between philosophical reflectiveness on the one hand in the sense of camaraderie, mutuality and esprit de corps necessary for political life on the other.
我认为，在《理想国》中，我们从未如此清晰地看到，一方面是哲学反思，另一方面是政治生活所必需的友情、相互性和团队精神。
Socrates seems to dissolve those bonds of familiarity, loyalty and attachment that we all have by saying to Polemarchus, "How do we know, how do we really know the distinction between friend and enemy?"
苏格拉底似乎消除了我们所有人都拥有的那些熟悉、忠诚和依恋的纽带，他对波勒马库斯说：“我们如何知道，我们如何真正知道朋友和敌人之间的区别？”
But Polemarchus seems to believe that a city can survive only with a vivid sense of what it is.
但波勒马库斯似乎相信，一座城市只有对它的本质有清晰的认识才能生存。
Of what we might say, what it stands for, and an equally vivid sense of what it is not, and who are its enemies.
我们可以说什么，它代表什么，以及同样生动地了解它不是什么，以及谁是它的敌人。
Isn't this essential for the survival of any state, of any city?
这对于任何国家、任何城市的生存来说不是至关重要的吗？
To know who its friends and enemies are?
想知道谁是它的朋友和敌人吗？
Who its challenges are?
它的挑战是谁？
Socrates's disillusion of that very framework, challenges, it seems to me, the very possibility of political life by questioning the question or the distinction between friend and enemy.
在我看来，苏格拉底对这一框架的幻灭，通过质疑朋友和敌人之间的区别，挑战了政治生活的可能性。
Although Polemarchus, like his father, is reduced to silence, it is notable that his argument is not defeated.
尽管波勒马库斯像他的父亲一样陷入了沉默，但值得注意的是，他的论点并没有被击败。
Later in the Republic you will see, not that much later even, Socrates will argue that the best city may be characterized by peace and harmony at home, but this will never be so for relations between states.
在《理想国》的稍后部分，甚至不久之后，你会看到，苏格拉底会辩称，最好的城市可能以国内的和平与和谐为特征，但对于国家之间的关系来说却永远不会如此。
This is why even the best city, even Kallipolis will require, as he spends a great deal of time discussing, will require a warrior class, a class of what he calls "auxiliaries." War and the preparation for war is an intrinsic part of even the most just city.
这就是为什么即使是最好的城市，甚至卡利波利斯，正如他花费大量时间讨论的那样，也需要一个战士阶层，一个他称之为“辅助者”的阶层。即使是最公正的城市，战争和战争准备也是其固有的一部分。
Even the Platonic just city will have to cultivate warrior citizens who are prepared to risk life in battle for the sake of their own city.
即使是柏拉图式的正义城市也必须培养愿意为自己的城市冒生命危险的战士公民。
So in many ways, it seems that Polemarchus' argument, while apparently refuted in Book I, is rehabilitated and re-emerges in its own way later in the dialogue.
因此，从很多方面来看，波勒马库斯的论点虽然在第一卷中明显被驳斥，但在后面的对话中以自己的方式得到了恢复和重新出现。
And we might want to think about this because it is an argument that is very important to contemporary twentieth century--important twentieth- century political theorist by the name of Schmitt who made the distinction between what he called the friend and the enemy, you remember, are central to his understanding of politics.
我们可能想思考这一点，因为这是一个对当代二十世纪非常重要的论点——二十世纪重要的政治理论家施密特，你记得，他对他所谓的朋友和敌人的区分是他对政治理解的核心。
This is an argument that comes from Polemarchus in Book I of the Republic .
这是来自《共和国》第一卷中波勒马库斯的论点。
Polemarchus is dispatched in one way or another, and this creates the opportunity for the longest and in many ways most memorable exchange in Book I, and perhaps even the Republic as a whole, the exchange with Thrasymachus who represents a far more difficult challenge in his own way than either of the first two speakers.
波勒马库斯以这样或那样的方式被派遣，这为第一卷中最长且在许多方面最令人难忘的交流创造了机会，甚至可能是整个共和国，与色拉叙马库斯的交流，色拉叙马库斯以他自己的方式代表着比前两个发言者中的任何一个都更加困难的挑战。
In many ways, because Thrasymachus could be seen as Socrates's alter-ego in some way, his sort of evil twin.
在很多方面，因为色拉叙马科斯在某种程度上可以被视为苏格拉底的另一个自我，他的邪恶双胞胎。
He is, how to put it?
他是，怎么说呢？
He is the Doctor Moriarty to Socrates's Sherlock Holmes.
他是苏格拉底笔下的夏洛克·福尔摩斯的莫里亚蒂医生。
You know, the evil doppelganger in some way.
你知道，在某种程度上，邪恶的分身。
Thrasymachus' is a rival of Socrates in many respects; he also like Socrates is a teacher clearly.
色拉叙马科斯在很多方面都是苏格拉底的对手。他也像苏格拉底一样显然是一位老师。
He is an educator.
他是一位教育家。
He claims to have a certain kind of knowledge of what justice is, and claims to be able to teach it to others.
他声称自己对正义有一定的了解，并声称能够将其传授给其他人。
He is teaching a kind of, we will find out, a kind of hard-headed realism that expresses disgust at Polemarchus' talk about loyalty and friendship and the like.
我们将会发现，他正在教导一种冷静的现实主义，这种现实主义表达了对波勒马库斯关于忠诚和友谊之类的言论的厌恶。
"Justice," he asserts, "is the interest of the stronger." Every polity of which we know is based upon a distinction between the rulers and the ruled.
他断言：“正义是强者的利益。”我们所知道的每一种政体都是基于统治者和被统治者之间的区别。
Justice consists of the rules, that is to say, that are made by and for the benefits of the ruling class.
正义由规则组成，也就是说，规则是由统治阶级制定并为统治阶级的利益服务的。
Justice is nothing more or less right than what benefits the rulers, the rulers who determine the laws of justice.
正义无非就是有利于统治者，即决定正义法律的统治者。
Thrasymachus is, of course even for us today, a familiar kind of person.
当然，即使对于今天的我们来说，色拉叙马科斯也是一个熟悉的人。
He is the intellectual who enjoys bringing, you might say, the harsh and unremitting facts about human nature to light, who enjoys dispelling illusions and pretty beliefs.
你可能会说，他是一位知识分子，喜欢揭露有关人性的严酷而不懈的事实，喜欢消除幻想和美好的信念。
He's the one who probably would be the first to tell you there is no Santa Claus.
他可能是第一个告诉你圣诞老人不存在的人。
He is that kind of hard-boiled realist.
他是那种冷酷无情的现实主义者。
No matter how much we may dislike him in some ways, one has to admit also there maybe a grain, if not more than a grain of truth in what he seems to be saying.
无论我们在某些方面多么不喜欢他，我们都必须承认，他所说的话可能有一点点，甚至更多一点是真实的。
And what he seems to be saying is this: we are beings who are first and foremost dominated by a desire for power.
他似乎想说的是：我们首先是被权力欲望所支配的存在。
This is what distinguishes, you might say, the true man, the real man, the alpha male you might say, from the slave.
你可能会说，这就是真正的男人、真正的男人、你可能会说的雄性领袖与奴隶的区别。
Power and domination are all we truly care about.
权力和统治才是我们真正关心的。
And when we get later in this semester to Thomas Hobbes, remember Thrasymachus.
当我们在本学期晚些时候讨论托马斯·霍布斯时，请记住色拉西马科斯。
I'll just say that for now.
我暂时就这么说吧。
Remember Thrasymachus when we get to Hobbes.
当我们谈到霍布斯时，请记住色拉叙马科斯。
Power and domination are all we care about.
权力和统治是我们所关心的。
And what is true of individuals is also true for collective entities, collective nouns like states and cities.
对于个人来说如此，对于集体实体、集体名词（如州和城市）来说也是如此。
Every polity seeks its own advantage against others, making relations between states a condition of unremitting war of all against all.
每个政体都谋求自己对其他政体的优势，使国家之间的关系成为所有人对所有人进行不懈战争的条件。
In the language, if I can switch to the language of modern economics, one could say that for Thrasymachus politics is a zero-sum game.
在语言上，如果我可以换用现代经济学的语言，人们可以说，对于色拉叙马霍斯来说，政治是一场零和游戏。
There are winners and there are losers, and the more someone wins that means the more someone else will lose.
有赢家，也有输家，一个人赢的越多，意味着其他人输的越多。
And the rules of justice are simply the laws set up by the winners of the game to protect and to promote their own interests.
而正义规则只不过是游戏胜利者为了保护和促进自身利益而制定的法律。
It didn't take Karl Marx to invent, or to discover that insight, that the rules of justice are simply the rules of the ruling class.
正义规则只是统治阶级的规则，这并不是卡尔·马克思发明或发现的。
That comes straight out of Thrasymachus, Book I of the Republic .
这直接出自色拉叙马科斯《共和国第一卷》。
Well, how to respond?
那么，该如何回应呢？
And again, Socrates challenges Thrasymachus with a variation of the argument that he used against Polemarchus.
苏格拉底再次用他用来反对波勒马科斯的论证的变体向色拉叙马科斯发起挑战。
That is to say "Do we ever make mistakes?" That is to say, it is not self-evident, or it is not always intuitively obvious what our interests are.
这就是说“我们曾经犯过错误吗？”也就是说，它不是不言而喻的，或者说我们的兴趣是什么并不总是直观明显的。
If justice is truly in the interests of the stronger, doesn't that require some kind of knowledge, some kind of reflection on the part of those in power to know what is really and truly in their interest?
如果正义确实符合强者的利益，那难道不需要当权者有某种知识、某种反思才能知道什么才是真正符合他们利益的吗？
People make mistakes and it is very possible to make a mistake about your own interests.
人都会犯错，而且很可能会在自己的利益上犯错误。
And of course, Thrasymachus has to acknowledge this, of course the rulers make mistakes, and he tries to invent an argument that if a ruler makes a mistake, he's not really a true ruler.
当然，色拉叙马科斯必须承认这一点，统治者当然会犯错误，他试图发明一个论点，如果统治者犯了错误，他就不是真正的统治者。
The true ruler is the person who both acts on his own interest and of course knows what those interests are.
真正的统治者是既按照自己的利益行事，又当然知道这些利益是什么的人。
But the point that he admits is all, in a sense, that Socrates needs; justice is not power alone, justice requires knowledge.
但从某种意义上说，他所承认的观点正是苏格拉底所需要的。正义不仅仅是权力，正义还需要知识。
Justice requires reflection.
正义需要反思。
And that is of course at the core of the famous Socratic thesis, that all virtue is a form of knowledge, all the virtues require knowledge and reflection at their basis.
这当然是著名的苏格拉底论点的核心，即所有美德都是知识的一种形式，所有美德都需要知识和反思作为其基础。
But much of the exchange with Thrasymachus turns on the problem of what kind of knowledge justice involves, and justice is a kind of knowledge.
但与色拉叙马科斯的大部分交流都围绕着正义涉及何种知识的问题，而正义是一种知识。
If justice equals self-interest and self-interest requires knowledge, well what kind of knowledge is that?
如果正义等于自利，而自利需要知识，那么那是什么样的知识呢？
Thrasymachus contends that justice consists of the art of convincing people to obey the rules that are really in the interests of others, the interests of their rulers.
色拉叙马科斯认为，正义包括说服人们遵守真正符合他人利益、符合统治者利益的规则的艺术。
Justice, in other words, for Thrasymachus is a kind of sucker's game; obeying the rules that really benefit others largely because we fear the consequences of injustice.
换句话说，对于色拉叙马科斯来说，正义是一种傻瓜游戏。遵守真正有利于他人的规则很大程度上是因为我们担心不公正的后果。
Justice is really something only respected by the weak who are fearful of the consequences of injustice.
正义实际上是只有那些害怕不公正后果的弱者才会尊重的东西。
Again, the true ruler, in some ways, is one, Thrasymachus believes, who has the courage to act unjustly for his own interest.
色拉叙马科斯再次强调，在某些方面，真正的统治者是有勇气为了自己的利益而采取不公正行为的人。
"The true ruler," he says "is one who is like a shepherd with a flock, but he rules not for the benefit of the flock but, of course, for his own interests, the good of the shepherd." Justice, like all knowledge, is really a form, again, of self-interest.
他说：“真正的统治者就像牧羊人对待羊群，但他的统治不是为了羊群的利益，当然也是为了他自己的利益，为了牧羊人的利益。”正义，就像所有的知识一样，实际上也是一种自身利益的形式。
And so one can ask, "Is Thrasymachus wrong to believe this?" And I realize I'm moving over this very quickly, but is Thrasymachus wrong to believe that?
因此人们可以问：“色拉叙马科斯相信这一点是错误的吗？”我意识到我很快就解决了这个问题，但色拉叙马霍斯的相信是错误的吗？
Socrates wins the argument in Book I with a kind of, you might even say, sleight of hand.
苏格拉底在第一卷中凭借一种（你甚至可以说）技巧赢得了这场辩论。
Both he and Thrasymachus believe that justice is a virtue, but Socrates says, "What kind of virtue is it to deceive and fleece other people?" Thrasymachus is forced to admit that the just person is a fool, Thrasymachus believes, is a fool for obeying laws that are not beneficial to him.
他和色拉叙马科斯都认为正义是一种美德，但苏格拉底说：“欺骗和敲诈别人算什么美德呢？”色拉叙马科斯被迫承认正义的人是个傻瓜，色拉叙马科斯相信，他是一个遵守对他无益的法律的傻瓜。
But the best life, Thrasymachus believes, it doing maximum injustice to others, doing whatever you like.
但色拉叙马霍斯认为，最好的生活就是对他人最大限度地不公正，做自己喜欢做的事。
And with that realization, we see a very dramatic moment in Book I, even in the book as a whole.
有了这种认识，我们在第一本书中看到了一个非常戏剧性的时刻，甚至在整本书中也是如此。
Thrasymachus blushes.
色拉叙马科斯脸红了。
He blushes when he realized that he has been defending the claim not that justice is a virtue, but that justice is something that is really a form of weakness.
当他意识到自己一直在捍卫的主张不是正义是一种美德，而是正义实际上是一种弱点时，他脸红了。
Thrasymachus himself seems to be embarrassed by his defense of the tyrannical life, of the unjust life.
色拉叙马科斯本人似乎因捍卫暴虐生活、不公正生活而感到尴尬。
The suggestion Plato seems to be making by making Thrasymachus blush is, despite all of his tough talk, that he's not as tough as he appears to be, as he wants to think of himself to be.
柏拉图让色拉叙马科斯脸红似乎是在暗示，尽管他的言辞很强硬，但他并不像他看上去那么强硬，也不像他想像的那样强硬。
He's shamed by the fact that he has been defending injustice and the tyrannical way of life.
他为自己一直在捍卫不公正和暴虐的生活方式而感到羞耻。
And so it appears, the three conversations end, Book I ends with uncertainty about what justice is.
看来，这三个对话结束了，第一本书以对正义是什么的不确定性结束。
We have had three views of Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus.
我们对克法洛斯、波勒马科斯和色拉叙马科斯有过三种看法。
They have all been refuted, but no clear alternative seems to have emerged.
它们都被驳斥了，但似乎还没有出现明确的替代方案。
Certainly Socrates has not really proposed an alternative to Thrasymachus in his exchange with him; he has only, as it were, forced Thrasymachus to see that the logic of his ideas, the logic of his argument that justice is in the interest of the stronger, is a defense of tyranny, and is a defense of the unjust way of life.
当然，苏格拉底在与色拉叙马科斯的交流中并没有真正提出一个替代方案。可以说，他只是迫使色拉叙马科斯认识到，他的思想的逻辑，他的论点的逻辑，即正义符合强者的利益，是对暴政的辩护，是对不公正生活方式的辩护。
So all of Book I is really a kind of warm up for what follows in the rest of the book.
因此，第一本书的所有内容实际上都是对本书其余部分的热身。
We find out presumably what justice is.
我们大概会发现什么是正义。
Until that point, we have no reason to really give up on our current existing ideas about what justice is.
在那之前，我们没有理由真正放弃我们目前关于正义是什么的现有观念。
And this is where the two most important figures of the Republic begin to make their voices heard.
这就是共和国两位最重要人物开始发出声音的地方。
Those are Glaucon and Adeimantus.
他们是格劳孔和阿德曼图斯。
Glaucon tells Socrates that he is dissatisfied with the refutation of Thrasymachus, and so should we.
格劳孔告诉苏格拉底，他对色拉叙马霍斯的反驳不满意，我们也应该如此。
Thrasymachus has been shamed, he has been forced to see where the logic of his argument takes him, but that is not the same thing as being refuted.
色拉叙马科斯感到羞愧，他被迫看到他的论点的逻辑将他引向何方，但这与被反驳不是一回事。
Thrasymachus is really, as it turns out, a kind of girly-man who is ashamed to be seen defending the unjust life.
事实证明，色拉叙马科斯确实是一位以捍卫不公正生活为耻的少女男子。
"But why should we be ashamed to praise injustice?" Glaucon challenges Socrates.
“但我们为什么要羞于赞扬不公正呢？”格劳孔挑战苏格拉底。
"It's not enough to show that justice is wrong," Glaucon says.
“这不足以证明正义是错误的，”格劳孔说。
"What we need is to hear why justice is good," or more precisely to hear justice praised for itself.
“我们需要的是听到为什么正义是好的”，或者更准确地说是听到正义本身受到赞扬。
"Is there, in your opinion," Glaucon asks Socrates, "a kind of good that we would choose because we delight in it for its own sake?" 358A.
格劳孔问苏格拉底：“在你看来，有一种善是我们会选择的，因为我们因为它本身而喜欢它吗？” 358A。
Is there a kind of good that we delight in for its own sake?
有没有一种善事是我们为之而高兴的呢？
And this is where the rubber hits the road.
这就是橡胶上路的地方。
Who is Glaucon?
格劳孔是谁？
Glaucon and Adeimantus are the brothers of Plato, and other than their appearance in this book, there is no historical record left about them.
格劳孔和阿德曼图斯是柏拉图的兄弟，除了他们在本书中出现外，没有关于他们的历史记录。
But Plato has given us enough.
但柏拉图已经给了我们足够多的东西了。
In the first place, they are young aristocrats, and Glaucon's desire to hear justice praised for its own sake indicates something about his scale of values.
首先，他们都是年轻的贵族，格劳孔希望听到正义本身受到赞扬，这表明了他的价值观。
It would be vulgar, he believes, to speak of justice, or any virtue in terms of material rewards or consequences.
他认为，谈论正义或物质奖励或后果方面的任何美德都是粗俗的。
He does not need to hear justice praised for its benefit, he's indifferent to the consequences.
他不需要听到正义因其好处而受到赞扬，他对后果漠不关心。
Rather, he claims that he wants to hear justice defended the way that no one has ever defended it before.
相反，他声称他希望听到正义以前所未有的方式得到捍卫。
The brothers desire to hear justice praised for itself alone, and that seems to be expressive of their own freedom from mercenary motives and incentives.
兄弟俩希望听到正义本身受到赞扬，这似乎表达了他们自己摆脱了唯利是图的动机和激励。
It reveals to us something about their idealism and a certain kind of loftiness of soul.
它向我们揭示了他们的理想主义和某种崇高的灵魂。
And certainly the brothers, we find out, are not slouches.
我们发现，这些兄弟当然也不是无精打采的人。
They are not slouches at all.
他们一点也不懒散。
Although it is easy to remember that later in the dialogue most of their contribution seems to be of the form of "Yes Socrates, no Socrates," they seem to be rather passive interlocutors.
尽管很容易记住，在对话的后期，他们的大部分贡献似乎都是“是苏格拉底，不是苏格拉底”的形式，但他们似乎是相当被动的对话者。
Their early challenges to Socrates show them to be potential philosophers.
他们早期对苏格拉底的挑战表明他们是潜在的哲学家。
That is to say the kind of persons who might one day rule the city.
也就是说，有一天可能统治这座城市的人。
Of the two, Glaucon seems to be the superior.
两者之中，格劳孔似乎更胜一筹。
He is described as the most courageous, which in that context means the most manly, the most virile, and later Socrates admits that he has always been full of wonder at the nature of the two brothers.
他被描述为最勇敢的人，在这种情况下，这意味着最有男子气概、最有男子气概，后来苏格拉底承认，他一直对两兄弟的本性充满惊奇。
And at 368a, he cites a line of poetry, you'll remember, written about them for their distinction in battle, they have been in war, they have been tested in war obviously.
在 368a，他引用了一行诗，你会记得，是为了他们在战斗中的杰出表现而写的，他们已经在战争中，他们显然已经在战争中经受住了考验。
They are also, and we see this from their relationship between one another, and the way they speak to one another, they are also highly competitive, super achievers.
他们也是，我们从他们之间的关系以及他们彼此交谈的方式中看到了这一点，他们也是极具竞争力的超级成就者。
A little bit like some of you perhaps.
也许有点像你们中的一些人。
There is quite a bit of jousting between them that you need to be attentive too.
他们之间有相当多的争斗，你也需要小心。
And each proposes to Socrates a test that he will have to pass in order to prove the value of justice and the just life.
每个人都向苏格拉底提出了一个测试，他必须通过该测试才能证明正义和正义生活的价值。
Glaucon goes on to rehabilitate the argument of Thrasymachus in many ways, in a more vivid and a more expressive way than Thrasymachus did himself.
格劳孔继续以多种方式恢复色拉叙马科斯的论证，比色拉叙马科斯本人更生动、更具表现力。
Glaucon tells a story, you'll remember, a story that he modifies from the historian Herodotus, a story about a man named Gyges who possessed a magic ring that conferred on him the power of invisibility.
你可能还记得，格劳孔讲了一个故事，这个故事是他根据历史学家希罗多德改编的，讲述的是一个名叫盖格斯的人，他拥有一枚神奇的戒指，赋予了他隐形的力量。
Who has not wondered what we would do if we had this power, the power of invisibility?
谁不曾想过，如果我们拥有这种力量，即隐形的力量，我们会做什么？
Gyges, in Glaucon's retelling of the story, Gyges uses this ring to murder the king and to sleep with his wife, and to set himself up as king.
盖格斯，在格劳孔重述的故事中，盖格斯用这枚戒指谋杀了国王并睡了他的妻子，并自立为国王。
What would you do if you had this power, the power of this magic ring, where you could commit any crime, indulge any vice, commit any outrage and be sure you could always get away with it?
如果你拥有这种力量，这枚魔法戒指的力量，你可以犯下任何罪行，纵容任何恶行，犯下任何暴行，并确保你总能逃脱惩罚，你会做什么？
Why if you could do that would you wish to be just at the same time, or wish to be just instead of that?
如果你能做到这一点，为什么你会希望同时做到公正，或者希望做到公正而不是那样呢？
This is the challenge that Glaucon poses to Socrates.
这就是格劳孔向苏格拉底提出的挑战。
Why would someone with absolute power and complete immunity to punishment, why would they prefer justice to injustice?
为什么拥有绝对权力并且完全不受惩罚的人，为什么他们会选择正义而不是非正义？
"Tell me that Socrates," Glaucon asks.
“告诉我苏格拉底，”格劳孔问道。
"If justice truly is something praiseworthy for itself alone, then Socrates should be able to provide an answer that will satisfy Glaucon's retelling of the story of Gyges, that is certainly a very tall order.
“如果正义真的本身就值得称赞，那么苏格拉底应该能够提供一个满足格劳孔重述盖吉斯故事的答案，这当然是一个非常艰巨的任务。
And that is where the brother, Adeimantus, joins in.
这就是弟弟阿德曼图斯加入的地方。
Adeimantus has a somewhat different set of concerns.
阿德曼图斯有一些不同的担忧。
He has heard justice praised his whole life from parents and from poets and from other authorities, but for the most part, he has only heard justice praised again for the benefits justice confers both in this life and the next.
他一生都听到父母、诗人和其他权威人士对正义的赞扬，但大多数情况下，他只是因为正义给今生和来世带来的好处而再次听到正义的赞扬。
Honesty is the best policy, we've heard Cephalus being concerned about returning to others what you owe as a way of pleasing the gods in the afterlife, and Adeimantus rightly takes this kind of argument to mean that justice is simply a virtue for the weak, the lame and the unadventurous, if you were only concerned with the consequences.
诚实是最好的政策，我们听说克法洛斯关心将你欠下的东西归还给他人，以此来取悦来世的众神，而阿德曼图斯正确地认为这种论点意味着，如果你只关心后果，正义只是弱者、跛子和不喜欢冒险的人的美德。
A real man does not fear the consequences of injustice.
真正的男人不会害怕不公正的后果。
Rather, Adeimantus' concern, and he gives a very revealing image of what he takes justice to be, is with an image of self-guardianship, or self-control.
相反，阿德曼图斯所关心的是自我监护或自我控制的形象，他对他所认为的正义给出了一个非常具有启发性的形象。
He tells us at 367a that each would be his own god.
他在 367a 告诉我们，每个人都是他自己的神。
In other words, we should not care what people say about us, but we should be prepared to develop qualities of self-containment, autonomy and independence from the influence that others can exercise over us.
换句话说，我们不应该关心别人如何评价我们，但我们应该准备好培养自我包容、自主和独立的品质，不受他人对我们施加的影响。
"How can I develop those qualities of self-guardianship or self-control?" he asks Socrates.
“我怎样才能培养自我保护或自我控制的品质？”他问苏格拉底。
And who has not felt that way before?
谁以前没有过这种感觉呢？
The two brothers desire to hear justice praised for itself, Glaucon, and to live freely and independently, Adeimantus.
两兄弟渴望听到正义得到赞扬，格劳孔，以及自由和独立的生活，阿德曼图斯。
And that shows to some degree I think, their own sense of alienation from their own society.
我认为这在某种程度上表明了他们与自己的社会的疏离感。
Or if I can put the case for them slightly anachronistically, these are two sons of the upper bourgeois who feel degraded by the mendacity and hypocrisy of the world they see around them.
或者，如果我可以稍微不合时宜地为他们提供一个例子，那就是他们是上层资产阶级的两个儿子，他们因周围世界的谎言和虚伪而感到被贬低。
And anyway, what person with any sensitivity to greatness has not felt this way at one time or another?
不管怎样，哪个对伟大敏感的人不曾有过这样的感受呢？
The two are open to persuasion, to consider alternatives, perhaps even radical alternatives, to the society that has nurtured them.
两人愿意接受说服，考虑对养育他们的社会的替代方案，甚至可能是激进的替代方案。
They are, to put it another way perhaps, not only potential rulers and potential philosophers, they may also be potential revolutionaries, and the remainder of the book is addressed to them and of course people like them.
也许换句话说，他们不仅是潜在的统治者和潜在的哲学家，他们还可能是潜在的革命者，本书的其余部分是针对他们的，当然还有喜欢他们的人。
But the speeches of Glaucon and Adeimantus, you might say the circle around Socrates is effectively closed.
但是格劳孔和阿德曼图斯的演讲，你可能会说苏格拉底周围的圈子实际上是封闭的。
He knows he will not be returning to Athens that evening, and he proposes to the two brothers and those listening to the conversation a kind of thought experiment that he hopes will work magic on the two.
他知道那天晚上他不会返回雅典，他向两兄弟和那些听谈话的人提议进行一种思想实验，他希望这个实验能够对这两个人产生神奇的效果。
"Let us propose," he says, "to watch a city coming into being in speech." Let us create a city in speech.
“让我们提议，”他说，“观察一座城市在言语中的形成。”让我们创造一座言语之城。
"It is easier," he says, "not to view justice microscopically in an individual, but rather let's view justice as it were through a magnifying glass." Let's view justice in the large sense.
“更容易的是，”他说，“不要从微观角度看待个体的正义，而是让我们通过放大镜来看待正义。”让我们从广义上看待正义。
Let us view justice in a city in order to help us understand what it is in an individual.
让我们看看城市中的正义，以帮助我们理解个人中的正义。
And this idea that the city is essentially analogous to the soul, that the city is like the soul, is the central metaphor around which the entire Republic is constructed.
城市本质上类似于灵魂，城市就像灵魂，这一观念是整个共和国围绕其构建的中心隐喻。
It seems to be presented entirely innocuously, no one in the dialogue objects to it, yet everything else follows from this idea that the city, the polis , is in the central respect like an individual, like the soul of an individual.
它的呈现似乎完全无害，对话中没有人反对它，但其他一切都源于这一想法：城市、城邦在核心方面就像一个个体，就像一个个体的灵魂。
What is Socrates trying to do here, and what is that metaphor, that central metaphor, what function does it serve within the work?
苏格拉底在这里试图做什么，那个隐喻是什么，那个中心隐喻是什么，它在作品中起什么作用？
To state the obvious, Socrates introduces this analogy to help the brothers better understand what justice is for an individual soul.
为了说明显而易见的事实，苏格拉底引入这个类比是为了帮助兄弟们更好地理解正义对于个体灵魂来说是什么。
The governance of the soul, Adeimantus' standard of self-control, must be like the governance of a city in some decisive respects.
灵魂的治理，阿德曼图斯的自我控制标准，在某些决定性的方面必须像城市的治理一样。
But in what respects?
但具体体现在哪些方面呢？
How is a city like a soul and in what respect is self-governance, the control of one's passions and appetites, in what respect is self-control like the governance of a collective body?
城市如何像一个灵魂？在哪些方面是自治，对一个人的激情和欲望的控制，在哪些方面自我控制就像一个集体的治理？
Consider the following example: when we say that so and so is typically American, or typically Taiwanese for example, we mean that that person expresses certain traits of character and behavior that are broadly representative in some way of the cross section of their countrymen.
考虑下面的例子：当我们说某人是典型的美国人，或者典型的台湾人时，我们的意思是这个人表达了某些性格和行为特征，这些特征在某种程度上广泛代表了其同胞的横截面。
Is this a useful way to think?
这是一种有用的思考方式吗？
More specifically, what does it mean to say that an individual can be seen as magnified in his or her country, or that one's country is simply the collective expression of certain individual traits of character?
更具体地说，说一个人在他或她的国家可以被放大，或者一个人的国家只是某些个人性格特征的集体表达，这意味着什么？
That seems to be what Socrates is suggesting.
这似乎就是苏格拉底所暗示的。
Right, that's what he's getting at.
没错，这就是他的意思。
One way of thinking about the metaphor of city and soul together is to think of it as a particular kind of causal hypothesis, about the formation of both individual character and political institutions.
一起思考城市和灵魂隐喻的一种方法是将其视为一种特殊的因果假设，关于个体性格和政治制度的形成。
In this reading of the city/soul analogy as a kind of causal relation, maintains the view that as individuals we both shape and determine the character of our societies, and that those societies in term shape and determine individual character.
在将城市/灵魂类比解读为一种因果关系时，我们坚持这样的观点：作为个体，我们塑造并决定我们社会的特征，而这些社会在术语上塑造并决定个人特征。
The city and soul analogy could be seen then as an attempt to understand how societies reproduce themselves, and how they shape citizens who again in turn shape the societies in which they inhabit.
城市和灵魂的类比可以被视为理解社会如何自我复制，以及它们如何塑造公民，而公民又反过来塑造他们所居住的社会的一种尝试。
That seems to be one way of making sense of the city/soul hypothesis, but again it doesn't seem to answer the question in what way are cities and individuals alike.
这似乎是理解城市/灵魂假说的一种方式，但它似乎同样没有回答城市和个人在哪些方面是相似的问题。
To take the American case for example, does it mean that something like the presidency, the congress and the court can be discerned within the soul of every American citizen?
以美国为例，是否意味着每个美国公民的灵魂中都可以看到总统、国会、法院之类的东西？
That would be absurd to think that obviously.
显然，这样想是荒谬的。
I mean, I think that would be absurd.
我的意思是，我认为那是荒谬的。
Maybe you want to argue it and we could have a discussion, but it might mean that American democracy, or democracy of any kind, helps to produce a particular kind of democratic soul.
也许你想争论，我们可以进行讨论，但这可能意味着美国民主，或任何形式的民主，有助于产生一种特殊的民主灵魂。
Just like, you might say, the old regime in France, the old aristocratic society existing before the revolution, tended to produce a very different kind of soul, a very different kind of individual.
你可能会说，就像法国的旧政权，革命前存在的旧贵族社会，往往会产生一种非常不同的灵魂，一种非常不同的个人。
Every regime will produce a distinctive kind of individual, and this individual will come to embody the dominant character traits of the particular regime.
每个政权都会产生一种独特的个体，而这个个体将体现出特定政权的主要性格特征。
The remainder of the Republic is, again, devoted to crafting the regime that will produce a distinctive kind of human character, and that of course is why the book is a utopia.
《共和国》的其余部分再次致力于打造一个能够产生独特的人性的政权，这当然就是为什么这本书是一个乌托邦。
There has never been a regime in history that was so single-mindedly devoted to the end of producing that rarest and most difficult species of humanity called simply philosopher.
历史上从来没有一个政权如此一心一意地致力于培养最稀有、最困难的人类物种，即所谓的哲学家。
So, city and soul.
所以，城市和灵魂。
That leads to our next topic that I want to pursue for the remainder of the class, the reform of poetry and the arts.
这引出了我想在课堂上剩余时间讨论的下一个主题：诗歌和艺术的改革。
Socrates's city speech proceeds through several stages.
苏格拉底的城市演讲经历了几个阶段。
The first stage proposed by Adeimantus is the simple city, what he calls the city of utmost necessity.
阿德曼图斯提出的第一阶段是简单城市，他称之为最必要的城市。
That is a city limited to the satisfaction of certain basic needs.
这是一个仅限于满足某些基本需求的城市。
The primitive or simple city, the city of utmost necessity, again it expresses the nature of Adeimantus' own soul, there is a kind of noble simplicity in him that treats subjects as bodies or creatures of limited appetites.
原始或简单的城市，最必要的城市，再次表达了阿德曼图斯自己灵魂的本质，他身上有一种高贵的纯朴，将主体视为身体或食欲有限的生物。
The simple city is little more than a combination of households designed for the sake of securing one's existence.
简单的城市只不过是为了确保一个人的生存而设计的家庭组合。
And at this point, and you can hear his brother chastising him, at this point Glaucon retorts that it seems as if Adeimantus has created a city only fit for pigs, a city of pigs.
此时，你可以听到他的兄弟在责骂他，此时格劳孔反驳道，阿德曼图斯似乎创造了一座只适合猪居住的城市，一座猪的城市。
Are we only such that we want to feed at a common trough?
难道我们只是想同吃同住吗？
Is there nothing more to politics than that?
难道政治就没有比这更重要的事情了吗？
And Glaucon says, "Where are the luxuries?
格劳孔说：“奢侈品在哪里？
Where are the relishes," he asks.
美味在哪里？”他问道。
"Where are the things that make up a city?" And hereto Glaucon's city expresses his own tastes and his own soul.
“构成城市的东西在哪里？”格劳孔的城市表达了他自己的品味和灵魂。
The war-like Glaucon would preside over what Socrates calls a feverish city, one that institutionalizes honors, competitions and above all war.
好战的格劳孔将主持苏格拉底所说的一座狂热的城市，一座将荣誉、竞争，尤其是战争制度化的城市。
If Adeimantus, again, expresses the appetitive part of the soul, Glaucon represents the quality that Plato calls spiritedness, or thumos in Greek.
如果说阿德曼图斯再次表达了灵魂的欲望部分，那么格劳孔则代表了柏拉图所说的精神品质，即希腊语中的“thumos”。
Spiritedness is the central, psychological quality of the Republic .
精神是共和国的核心心理品质。
The entire thrust of the book is devoted to the taming of spiritedness, and to the control of spiritedness.
本书的全部主旨都致力于驯服精神和控制精神。
Spiritedness is that quality of soul that is most closely associated with the desires for honors, fame and prestige.
精神是与对荣誉、名誉和声望的渴望最密切相关的灵魂品质。
It is a higher order psychological quality.
这是一种更高阶的心理素质。
It seeks distinction, the desire to be first in the race of life and lead us to seek to dominate others.
它寻求与众不同，渴望在生命的竞赛中成为第一，并引导我们寻求统治他人。
We all know people of this sort, do we not?
我们都认识这样的人，不是吗？
And we all to some degree embody this quality in ourselves.
我们所有人都在某种程度上体现了这种品质。
It is the quality that we associate with being a kind of alpha personality.
我们将这种品质与阿尔法人格联系在一起。
This is the issue for Socrates, how to channel this wild and untamed passion of spirit or heart, how to channel this to some kind of common good.
这就是苏格拉底面临的问题，如何引导这种狂野的、无法抑制的精神或心灵的激情，如何将其引导到某种共同利益上。
Can it be done?
能做到吗？
How can we begin the domestication of the spirited Glaucon?
我们怎样才能开始驯化活泼的格劳孔呢？
The rest of the book is to some degree about taming, asking the question whether Glaucon can be tamed.
本书的其余部分在某种程度上是关于驯服的，提出了格劳孔是否可以被驯服的问题。
And it is here that Socrates turns to his first and perhaps even his most controversial proposal for the establishment of the just city.
正是在这里，苏格拉底提出了他的第一个、甚至可能是他最具争议的建立正义城市的建议。
"The creation of the just city can only begin," he says, "with the control of music, poetry and the arts." And this is where Plato's image as an educator drives.
“正义城市的创建只能从音乐、诗歌和艺术的控制开始，”他说。这就是柏拉图教育家形象的驱动力。
The first order of business for the founder of a city, any city, is the oversight of education.
对于一个城市（任何城市）的创建者来说，首要任务就是对教育进行监督。
And his proposals for the reform of poetry, especially Homeric poetry, represent clearly a radical departure from Greek educational practices and beliefs.
他对诗歌尤其是荷马诗歌改革的建议显然代表了对希腊教育实践和信仰的彻底背离。
Why is this so important for Socrates?
为什么这对苏格拉底如此重要？
Ask yourself, if you were founding a city, where would you begin?
问问自己，如果你要建立一座城市，你会从哪里开始？
Socrates's argument seems to be something like this: it is from the poets and I mean that in the broadest sense of the term, myth makers, storytellers, artist, musicians, today we might say film and television producers, it is from these people that we receive our earliest and most vivid impressions of heroes and villains, gods and the afterlife.
苏格拉底的论点似乎是这样的：它来自诗人，我的意思是，从最广泛的意义上来说，神话制造者、讲故事的人、艺术家、音乐家，今天我们可以说电影和电视制作人，正是从这些人那里，我们获得了对英雄和恶棍、神灵和来世的最早、最生动的印象。
These stories, the stories we hear from earliest childhood on, shape us in some very meaningful sense for the rest of our lives.
这些故事，我们从童年起就听到的故事，对我们的余生产生了某种非常有意义的影响。
And the Homeric epics were of course for the Greeks what the Bible was for us.
荷马史诗对于希腊人来说当然就像圣经对于我们一样。
Maybe even is in some communities.
也许甚至在某些社区也是如此。
The names of Achilles, Priam, Hector, Odysseus, Ajax, these would have been just as familiar and important to the contemporaries of Plato as the names of Abraham, Isaac, Joshua and Jesus are for us.
阿喀琉斯、普里阿摩斯、赫克托耳、奥德修斯、埃阿斯的名字对于柏拉图同时代的人来说就像亚伯拉罕、以撒、约书亚和耶稣的名字对于我们来说一样熟悉和重要。
Plato's critique of Homeric poetry in the Republic is two-fold; it is both theological and political.
柏拉图对《理想国》中荷马诗歌的批评有两个方面：它既是神学的，也是政治的。
Maybe you might even say following Spinoza, that this is the core of Plato's theological political treatise here.
也许你甚至可以追随斯宾诺莎的说法，这就是柏拉图神学政治论文的核心。
The theological critique is that Homer simply depicts the gods as false, as fickle, and inconstant.
神学批评认为，荷马只是将众神描绘成虚假的、善变的、反复无常的。
He presents them as beings who are unworthy of our worship.
他将他们描述为不值得我们崇拜的存在。
More importantly, the Homeric heroes are said to be bad role models for those who follow them, they are shown to be intemperate in sex, overly fond of money, into these vices Socrates adds cruelty and disregard for the dead bodies of one's opponents.
更重要的是，荷马英雄被认为是那些追随他们的人的坏榜样，他们在性方面无节制，过分喜欢金钱，苏格拉底在这些恶习中增添了残忍和对对手尸体的漠视。
The Homeric heroes are ignorant and passionate men full of blind anger and desire for retribution.
荷马英雄是无知而热情的人，充满盲目的愤怒和报复的欲望。
How could such figures possibly serve as good role models for citizens of a just city?
这样的人物怎么可能成为正义城市公民的好榜样呢？
And Socrates's answer is, of course, the predation of poetry and the arts in Books II and III.
苏格拉底的答案当然是第二卷和第三卷中对诗歌和艺术的掠夺。
He wants to deprive poets of their power to enchant, and something Socrates admits in the tenth book of the Republic , to which he himself has been highly susceptible to the enchantment of the poets.
他想剥夺诗人的迷惑力，苏格拉底在《理想国》第十本书中承认了这一点，他本人也很容易受到诗人迷惑的影响。
We need to deprive, again, the poets, the song makers, the lyricists, the musicians, the mythmakers, the storytellers, all of them, the power to enchant us.
我们需要再次剥夺诗人、歌曲创作者、作词家、音乐家、神话制造者、讲故事的人，所有这些人让我们着迷的力量。
And in place of the pedagogical power of poetry, Socrates proposes to install philosophy in its place.
苏格拉底提议用哲学来取代诗歌的教学力量。
As a result, the poets will have to be expelled from this city.
结果，诗人将不得不被驱逐出这座城市。
Imagine that.
想象一下。
Sophocles will be expelled from the just city that Socrates wants to create.
索福克勒斯将被驱逐出苏格拉底想要创建的正义之城。
This always raises the question that you will discuss in your section, whether or not Socrates's censorship of poetry and the arts is an indication of his totalitarian impulses.
这总是提出您将在您的部分中讨论的问题，苏格拉底对诗歌和艺术的审查是否表明了他的极权主义冲动。
This is the part of the Republic most likely to call up our own first amendment instincts.
这是共和国最有可能唤起我们自己的第一修正案本能的部分。
"Who are you, Socrates," we are inclined to ask, "to tell us what we can read here and listen to?" And furthermore, Socrates seems to be saying not that the Kallipolis will have no poetry and music, it will simply be Socratic poetry and music.
“苏格拉底，你是谁，”我们不禁会问，“来告诉我们在这里可以读什么、听什么？”此外，苏格拉底似乎并不是在说卡利波利斯不会有诗歌和音乐，而只是苏格拉底式的诗歌和音乐。
And there's another question which you would no doubt be concerned to discuss, namely what would such Socratically purified music and poetry look like?
还有另一个问题你无疑会关心讨论，即这种苏格拉底式纯净的音乐和诗歌会是什么样子？
What would it sound like?
听起来会是什么样子？
I don't know that I have an answer to this, but perhaps the Republic as a whole is itself a piece of this Socratic poetry that will substitute for the Homeric kind.
我不知道我对此有答案，但也许《理想国》作为一个整体本身就是苏格拉底式诗歌的一部分，它将取代荷马式的诗歌。
But it's important to remember that the question of education and the question of the reform and censorship and the control of poetry is introduced in the context of taming the war-like passions of Glaucon and others like him.
但重要的是要记住，教育问题、改革、审查和诗歌控制问题是在抑制格劳孔和其他像他这样的人的战争激情的背景下提出的。
The question of censorship and the telling of lies is introduced, in other words, as a question of military necessity, controlling the guards or the auxiliaries of the city, its warrior class.
换句话说，审查制度和说谎问题是作为军事必要性问题引入的，控制城市的守卫或辅助人员，即战士阶层。
Nothing is said here about the education of farmers, artisans, merchants, laborers, the economic class.
这里没有提及农民、工匠、商人、工人和经济阶层的教育。
Maybe, to speak bluntly, Socrates just doesn't care that much about them.
也许，说白了，苏格拉底只是不太关心他们。
It's okay what they listen too.
他们听什么也没关系。
Nor has anything really been said up to this point about the education of the philosopher.
到目前为止，还没有真正谈到过关于哲学家的教育。
His interest here is in the creation of a tight, and highly disciplined cadre of young warriors who will protect the city much as watchdogs protect their own home.
他的兴趣在于建立一支严密、纪律严明的年轻战士骨干队伍，他们将保护这座城市，就像看门狗保护自己的家园一样。
That is to say, recalling Polemarchus, those who are good to friends and bark and growl at strangers.
也就是说，回想起波勒马库斯，那些对朋友友善而对陌生人吠叫和咆哮的人。
Such individuals will subordinate their own desires and pleasures to the group, and live a life by a strict code of honor.
这些人会将自己的欲望和快乐服从于群体，并按照严格的荣誉准则生活。
We have to ask: are Socrates's proposals unrealistic?
我们不禁要问：苏格拉底的建议不切实际吗？
Are they undesirable?
他们不受欢迎吗？
Or are they desirable?
或者它们是可取的吗？
They are not undesirable if you believe as he does that even the best city must provide provisions for war, and therefore a warrior's life, a soldier's life, will require harsh privation in terms of material rewards and benefits as well as a willingness to sacrifice for others.
如果你像他一样相信，即使是最好的城市也必须为战争提供物资，因此，战士的生活，士兵的生活，将需要在物质奖励和利益方面以及为他人牺牲的意愿方面遭受严酷的匮乏，那么他们并不是不受欢迎的。
It would seem far from being unrealistic, Socrates engages what we might call maybe a kind of Socratic realism.
这似乎并非不切实际，苏格拉底所采用的是我们可能称之为苏格拉底式现实主义的东西。
Far more unrealistic would be the belief of those who argue, and I'm thinking here of names like Immanuel Kant and others from the eighteenth and nineteenth century, that one day we can abolish war altogether, and therefore abolish the passions that give rise to conflict and war.
更不切实际的是那些争论的人的信念，我在这里想到像伊曼努尔·康德和其他十八世纪和十九世纪的人，他们认为有一天我们可以完全废除战争，从而废除引起冲突和战争的激情。
So far Plato believes, is a passionate or spirited aspect of nature remains strong so long will be necessary to educate the warriors of society who defend it.
到目前为止，柏拉图认为，自然的热情或生气勃勃的一面仍然很强大，因此有必要教育捍卫它的社会战士。
So on that I'm going to end today and next time we will talk about justice, the philosophers and Plato's discovery of America.
今天我就到此结束，下次我们将讨论正义、哲学家和柏拉图对美洲的发现。