Talk:Myth of Er

doubt

This article says: "The tale introduces the idea that moral people are rewarded and immoral people punished after death."

If one reads the articles "hell" and "sheol" one will have confirmations of the previous affirmation, for it talks about Hades and Sheol being an afterlife place where everyone goes independently of one's moral conduct during life.

However, the article "Greek underworld" says that the Homeric Hymns introduced the idea of the paradisical realm... So I ask myself, it was Homer or Plato that introduced the idea that moral people are rewarded and immoral people punished after death? In the article "Hades" we will find affirmations that confirm what is in the article "Greek underworld" and that are not coeherent with what one finds in the articles "hell" and "sheol", for it says that in Hades there was Tartarus, a deep, gloomy part of hades used as a dungeon of torment and suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.199.161 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Several comments

"Essentially, Greek mythology of the day was the basis of religious beliefs of the time, but it was very often self-contradictory: humans were supposed to obey the gods, but at the same time the Greek gods were killing at will, sleeping with men's wives, etc. There was a general message in the religion surrounding Plato at the time of "do as the gods say, not as they do"."

"Greek mythology of the day"

In the first place, referring to the Greek religion of Socrates's time as 'mythology' does the author and whoever reads him a disservice. One would be well advised to ask this as a question rather than declaring it as an unsubstantiated statement. One would, moreover, be well-advised to ask it as a question about a particular character whose opinions can be investigated in text rather than making some vague assertion for the verification of which we would have to turn to the archaeologists, anthropologists, and alleged historians. When the author's opening statement is clarified in this manner, it becomes clear that he is asking:

'Did Socrates believe in the gods of his city?'

It becomes, clear, moreover, that he is tacitly answering this question in the negative. That is to say, he is tacitly assuming that Socrates was guilty of the first accusation leveled against him by the Athenians, namely, that he did not believe in the gods of his city. One would be well-advised not to assume one simple answer to this question, to which Plato and Xenophon, men of great wisdom, devoted thousands of pages.

"Greek mythology of the day...was very often self-contradictory"

Such a statement must not be made without textual citation and some sort of argument. The correct way to go about this would be, again, to take some particular story and compare it to some particular edict of the city. The author's failure to do this is particularly glaring in light of the fact that the better part of one whole book of the Republic is devoted to an example of how one would go about censoring Homer to make Homer's stories agree with the city's law about how one should think about the gods. This thread of Socrates's argument seems to be taken up later when Socrates insists that most poetry be banished from the city. The Myth of Er must be understood in light of and over against this thread. Socrates is not simply

"trying to introduce the concept that morally good people should be rewarded after death, and morally bad people should be punished after death"

he is making a myth. How ought the Myth to be understood? Should it be understood as a partial retraction of his earlier condemnation of poetry? Should it be understood as an example of how poetry might be used justly in the city that has been described in the Republic? Finally, what is Socrates's purpose in pronouncing precisely this myth to preceisely Glaucon, Adeimantus, and all the other boys listening to him? Why speak of reincarnation and urge the slow, patient consideration of Odysseus to precisely this group of young men?

I do not consider myself qualified to write such an article, but I hope that these sort of considerations will encourage whoever chooses to write it to take their task carefully and seriously.

Ross Hunt

Please feel free to email me if you would like to ask me anything about what I have written.

Orestes122484@hotmail.com

Reward and punishment?"

I admit it's been a while since I have read the Myth of Er, but it didn't seem that reward and punishment was the point of it. It's true, reward and punishment are mentioned, but are not given a lot of time in the story. It focuses more on what comes after. It seems more about accepting one's lot in life. If I remember, Agamemmnon had to draw last, because he had been great in life, and what is left for him is a lowly obscure next life. He then claims that this is the life he would have drawn even if he could have drawn first.--RLent 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

merge

 Done The articles "Er (Plato)" and "Myth of Er" should be merged into "Myth of Er." I might do it if I get excited about it. Jonathan Tweet 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, this was DONE. Finell (Talk) 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The story

In the tenth book of the Republic, Plato wrote a beautiful allegory entitled The Myth of Er. He writes about the freedom to choose one’s own destiny, and of the ever changing immortal soul. Written around 360 B.C.E., Plato tells the story of a warrior named Er, who had died and went to the afterlife. While here, he was able to see what happens to living creatures (both man and animal) after they die, and was allowed to return back to earth and tell the story.

When a soul leaves for the afterlife, it is first taken to a judgment proceeding. Here, the soul will receive it’s punishment for the next 1000 years. For every wrong one had committed, they should be punished ten fold. These people were sent down into the earth with their misdeeds written on their backs for all to see. When all dues had been paid, those beings would be allowed to go back up in to a heavenly place.

After 1000 years, those in heaven were allowed to come down and meet with those who had passed after them. Here, they were able to hear the story of their passing, and the incredible woe placed upon their loved ones. After a week long festival, the souls are allowed to make their journey to reincarnation.

Plato describes (with amazing accuracy) the system of the universe, and seems to be a precursor for later philosophies. “The largest (of fixed stars) is spangled, and the seventh (or sun) is brightest. . .the third (Venus) has the whitest light; the fourth (Mars) is reddish. . .” He then goes on to describe how the spindle of heaven (a bright light) holds them all together as Necessity—strangely like Aristotle’s unmoved mover—spins them all in the same direction. He explains how every whorl .had a siren that would produce a note, and when played together would produce a harmony—much like the “song of spheres” theory. All of these whorls are spun by the three fates.

After being taken to this place, the spirits (animals and tyrants among them) are given their choices for the next life. This does, however, coincide to some degree with their previous life “the good into gentle and the evil into savage.” One by one, the twenty souls on the journey are allowed to take their pick of what they will become. Based upon their past life, poor people may choose to be something wealthier, a person who was cast out by human society may choose to become an animal, or—in the case of Odysseus—one may choose to be a person with no worries. All people have the freedom to choose, and their happiness/destiny in the next life (or in this one) will be dependent solely on the wisdom of their own choices. This is the lesson that Plato strived to teach through the Myth of Er
.
The souls would then transform into the choice they had made, and would be taken to a place to drink of the river of Mindfulness. The water from this river causes all who drink of it to forget, or at least to the degree of which they drank. (A person who had the foresight to drink little would remember some from their past life as all is already known, according to Plato; an unwise person would drink their fill.) And so the same soul will continue on forever.

On the twelfth day of his death, Er would return back to life. Here he awoke with complete recollection, and was able to tell others of what lessons he had learned. Choose wisely on all of your decisions, as it is the freedom of your choices that will determine the destiny of your immortal soul.

lede

this piece dwells upon the moral of the story before delivering the story even in outline. in essence the myth of er is the legend of a person who visited the otherworld and on reviving gave an account of it (including fate, reincarnation by free will and the astrological cosmos). Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

observation

Before anything I precise that I'm french, so please excuse my english. I had a french book of The Republic by Plato and it is sayed, here in the notes concerning the extract about the Myth of Er, that Clement of Alexandria says that Er is in reality no other than Zoroaster (the first well-known prophet of the history(what I think)). Maybe this information could be sayed in the article. Of course, I don't know wether if Er is in reality Zarathoustra or not, but the thing I'm sure and certain (you can trust and believe me for these kind of things) is that in this book it was wrote that Clement of Alexandria say that Er is Zoroaster. I don't have the book, I don't know where he is, but I remember a little, and go to find you the referencies of this particular (french?) edition of The Republic. Thanks! Y.W(Real initials) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.45.240 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Redheylin (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this? 174.4.163.53 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about 10.614-10.621

In the lead, to what does "(10.614-10.621)" refer? Finell (Talk) 18:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The location of the myth in Plato's Republic. Book ten, sections 614 to 621. 2.25.142.23 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Honorific → Latin

Necessitas seems a more judicious choice for en.wiki . Lycurgus (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myth of Er. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174236/http://www.ldysinger.com/MONS_423/01A_Vis1_Pla_Cic/03_Myth_Er.htm to http://www.ldysinger.com/MONS_423/01A_Vis1_Pla_Cic/03_Myth_Er.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)