Plato was wrong. My mind has been working recently. On its own, you understand. At such times I don't seem to have any control over it. Plato said that if you can abolish office holding for your future rulers then a well governed city becomes a possibility. I am putting forward the thesis that he was wrong. It isn't office holding that is wrong but the associating of an office with the identity of the office holder. If I am, say, the mayor of Blog City (a fictitious place) then why do people have to know my name? What does it matter? I would be doing, in that capacity, only the things I am allowed to do by the definition of the office in the best way that I can. Again, if I am a Member of Parliament for Blog City, then why does anyone need to know who I am? Of course it matters if I am corrupt, but that would be outside the definition of the office and, as such, my own private personality would come into issue.
According to tv, they (the Greeks) also made the first computer. Not electric - mechanical. Your presently coloured text is ok, but excuse me if I don't reply if you should happen to put it on colours that I can't see. Do you put it on colors, or colours? (American or English?)
I think Plato would rather that the world was filled with good, honest, plain speaking people. What a pity his dream was never fulfilled.
I kinda just let my mind off the hook like that. So far it's brought me Oval Toilet Paper. I intend to patent that. :tired: And I also have no idea what you are talking about. But if nobody knows who the mayor is, you've got a problem. Shouldn't a mayor be an elected official, anyway?
Oval toilet paper is in fact, still square. The roll is oval. it keeps kids from taking too many sheets. It hits the side of the wall, so after you pull out about 5 sheets, it gets stuck and rips off. when you need more you just pull again, and the whole process repeats itself.
I guess I have to agree with Froggie on this one....If one has an official in power in an anonymous way...how does one know whether or not the person is corrupt...isn't that the reason for public disclosure of the person's name who holds that office? If you don't know who holds the job how can you ensure that he won't use nepotism in selecting the next job holder, etc.? As for oval toilet paper....well, if one has young children in the house...well, we could see the benefit of less paper costs and less plumber bills for unplugging the toilet from Junior flushing an entire roll down the system!! Unfortunately, my experience with my own little darlings, would tell me that they would figure out the whole rip and then re-rip option and there would go the benefit of the oval roll!
I disagree completely on this occasion, Bookworm42. If I am occupying an office then I am empowered by virtue of that office to do certain things, and only those things. The exact extent of my powers will depend on the office. It should be fairly easy to see whether I am observing the rules or breaking them. My name is irrelevant. If it is found that I am breaking them then my name may be revealed. You cannot tell whether an office holder will select a person to hold some position of power that, perhaps, he should not. That goes on all the time right now - when you know the name of the office holder. It will continue to go on as long as man lives, I think.
That's not what I meant, but it DOES have a point. What I am trying to say is that it would be kind of hard to do certain things with an annonymous office holder, such as an election. My feeble brain can't seem to see what is wrong with associating an office with the office holder. Does it matter if people know your name?
"If you can discover a better way of life than office holding for your future rulers, a well governed city becomes a possibility. For only in such a state will those rule who are truly rich, not only in gold, but in the wealth that makes happiness - a good and wise life" (Plato). I think that what he was saying is that by linking an office with a particular person there is a naturaly tendency to 'glorify' the person. He was saying that if the person did not hold an office - just did it - then he would not be 'glorified'. What I am saying is that he was wrong. What is wrong with the present set up is that the person's own personal identity is revealed and it is that that causes the trouble - not the office that he holds.
Well yeah, but an annonymous office holder may be more trouble than it's worth. Sure, it won't "glorify" the office holder, but how exactly would this work?
Doctors have it to a fine art. The doctor is automatically given a status in society, apart from his being a doctor, simply by calling him 'Doctor'. All it means is 'learned one', and there are plenty of other professions that could claim the same thing but do not attach a title to their job. It is a good example of mixing the office with the holder of that office. Plato was right in that it is wrong to mix the two, but I think he was wrong in the way that he wanted them to be split.
