http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosop ... 6a_txt.htmThe Republic - avsnitt 493 wrote:Why, that all those mercenary individuals, whom the many call Sophists and whom they deem to be their adversaries, do, in fact, teach nothing but the opinion of the many, that is to say, the opinions of their assemblies; and this is their wisdom. I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him -- he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honorable and that dishonorable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights, and evil to be that which he dislikes; and he can give no other account of them except that the just and noble are the necessary, having never himself seen, and having no power of explaining to others, the nature of either, or the difference between them, which is immense. By heaven, would not such a one be a rare educator?
Indeed, he would.
And in what way does he who thinks that wisdom is the discernment of the tempers and tastes of the motley multitude, whether in painting or in music, or, finally, in politics, differ from him whom I have been describing?
Hvorvidt Frp-ere virkelig er slik som Sokrates/Platon fremstiller sofistene, er jeg ikke sikker på, men det er dette bildet de projiserer, og det er slik jeg oppfatter dem. De har kanskje noen oppfatninger om hva de mener er godt og riktig, men de forsøker å samle støtte for dette ikke ved å åpent og redelig pushe disse, men ved å fokusere på saker de vet at store deler av befolkninga synes er viktige - slik som alkoholavgifter, bensinpriser, og annen idioti. Deres "egentlige" agenda gjennomføres så etter at de har blitt stemt inn på det jeg vil kalle feilaktig grunnlag.
Spørsmålet om hvorvidt jeg gjør riktig i å støtte meg på Platon her - mennen som ville bygge idealstaten sin på en løgn for å opprettholde klasseskiller (dog fornuftige og mobile klasseskiller) - lar jeg elegant være å tenke på.
MERK: Dette er en høyst subjektiv analyse - den går ikke nødvendigvis på hvordan Frp er, men hvordan jeg oppfatter partiet. Dersom noen ikke fikk dette med seg da jeg nevnte det over...
EDIT: Beklager den elendige oversettelsen, men det er den beste jeg kunne finne...
