Blogs

Cicero, the forgotten Roman hero back in First Century BCE mentioned six mistakes we as a man make everyday. It surprises me to the fact that we haven't worked to avoid these mistakes even though it has been evident for more than 2000 years.

The six mistakes we all make, according to the Roman Stateman Cicero are:

1. Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others:
   • Cicero's warning strikes a chord within me as I witness the pervasive belief that personal success can only be achieved at the expense of others. However, the pursuit of such gain through the oppression of fellow beings ultimately leads to our own moral and spiritual impoverishment.
2. Worrying about things beyond our control:
   • Anxiety grips us as we obsess over matters that lie beyond our power to change or correct. Cicero advises us to free ourselves from the burden of unnecessary worry, redirecting our energy toward constructive endeavors within our sphere of influence.
3. Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it:
   • Cicero's perspective challenges the self-imposed limitations we place upon ourselves. Instead of dismissing something as impossible based solely on our perceived inadequacies, he inspires us to cultivate a mindset of resilience and determination, transcending the barriers we create within our own minds.
4. Refusing to set aside trivial preferences:
   • Human nature inclines us to attach undue importance to inconsequential matters. Cicero emphasizes the folly of investing time and energy in trivial preferences, urging us to prioritize what truly matters in the pursuit of a more meaningful existence.
5. Neglecting the development and refinement of the mind:
   • Cicero recognizes the immense value of intellectual growth and refinement. Yet, we often succumb to the temptations of ego and laziness, depriving ourselves of the intellectual nourishment necessary for personal and societal progress.
6. Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do:
   • The desire to control and impose our beliefs upon others is a pervasive error that Cicero astutely identifies. Recognizing the inherent diversity of human experiences, he urges us to embrace tolerance and respect for differing perspectives.

There are lots of lesson we can learn from this forgotten Roman hero. But these strike me as it's common to all of us we all make these mistakes all the time. Greed has been the character of the modern day man and the modern day capitalism. We even argue that Greed is Good. But is it? Cicero says crushing others will not result in personal gains. Also, one of the most common cause of anxiety is worrying. We worry a lot about future, present day situation, health, death and even success. It does not makes sense to worry of the thing that are not in our control. We cannot change what is not in our control. So worrying about the thing we cannot change makes no sense. But we do it all the time.

One of the common cause of failure is giving up on things thinking its impossible. But Cicero insists that it is a mistake to believe a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it and it's hard to disagree. Human, I believe are the only animal who give lots of preferences on trivial things. We worry and care about lots of things that do not even matter (like other people perception, opinions, judgements, and so on). It's hard for human to refuse it and its a huge mistake we do all the time.

The another mistake we all make is neglecting growth; our mental growth whether it might be because of ego or laziness, we do this all the time. Human have the tendency to control other and want others to live, act and behave as they want. But cannot compel other to do this. But we all do this all the time. Its a mistake.

The tragedy lies in witnessing these six mistakes perpetuated in the 21st century, even though they were identified centuries ago. Let us rise above the limitations of the past, learn from our shared missteps, and forge a future guided by Cicero's invaluable lessons

Progress destabilizes as often as failure does.

When things accelerate, reflection slows. When recognition increases, restraint weakens. Success has a way of amplifying noise — more opportunity, more expectation, more pressure to sustain velocity. What once required discipline begins to feel automatic. And in that automation, stability erodes.

Momentum is seductive because it disguises imbalance as growth. The pace quickens. The mind projects forward. Identity begins to attach itself to performance. But equilibrium is not maintained by speed. It is maintained by rhythm.

Composure under momentum requires internal limits. It demands pauses even when nothing appears broken. It asks for perspective in moments when pride would be easier. The danger is not expansion; the danger is expansion without grounding.

The same principles that stabilize hardship must stabilize success. Attention must remain deliberate. Expectation must remain proportionate. Ambition must remain aligned rather than inflated. Growth without steadiness becomes volatility.

To move forward without losing center is a discipline.

Balance is not tested only when things fall apart. It is tested when things begin to work.

Just finished reading Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground for the second time. It’s astonishing—and it reveals a dark reality about all of us and much of human history. Using the Underground Man as an anti-hero, Dostoevsky explores desire, human nature, and rationality as a critique of radical ideology.

On the power to make our own decisions

“All man needs is independent volition, whatever that independent volition might cost and whatever it might lead.”

“The reason why we sometimes desire pure nonsense is that in our stupidity we see in that nonsense the easiest route to achieving some kind of previously assumed advantage… Faced with the crystal palace of reason, man will deliberately desire the absurd, simply to prove that his will cannot be predicted.”

Human beings do not always do what is best for their own interests. Sometimes we risk comfort, success, and even dignity just to assert our right to choose. We choose nonsense not because we misunderstand advantage, but because we resent being reduced to advantage. If reason promises a perfectly engineered life, rebellion becomes a way of preserving authorship over it.

---

On consciousness as a disease

“I assure you, gentlemen, that to be excessively conscious is a disease, a real, full-blown disease. The normal man is spontaneous, active, and untroubled by endless reflection. It is precisely this spontaneous man whom I consider the real, normal person.”

“For the spontaneous man, twice two makes four and that is the end of it. But the excessively conscious man will insist that twice two makes five, not because he believes it, but because he wishes to assert himself against the tyranny of logic.”

Dostoevsky suggests that too much awareness can become paralysis. Overthinking fractures action; reflection turns into self-doubt; intelligence becomes self-sabotage. The spontaneous person accepts reality and moves forward. The overly conscious person feels trapped by what is obvious and resents the finality of facts. Denying the obvious becomes a strange proof of freedom.

---

On the reality of human nature

“I have a friend… he explains clearly how he must act in accordance with reason and truth. He passionately defends the true interests of man. And within a quarter of an hour, without any external cause, he acts in direct opposition to everything he has just said.”

“It seems there must exist something dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages—something more advantageous than all other advantages—for the sake of which he is ready to act in opposition to reason, honour, peace, and prosperity.”

This is not simple hypocrisy; it is a divided nature. We are capable of understanding what is right, beneficial, and rational—yet something inside us resists compliance. Pride, resentment, boredom, or the desire not to be “managed” can overpower our own interests. We sabotage ourselves not because we are ignorant, but because obedience—even to truth—can feel like surrender.

---

On the world and civilization

“In short, anything can be said of world history… There is only one thing that you can’t say—that it had anything to do with reason. Civilization develops the many-sidedness of sensation, and through that development man may even find pleasure in bloodshed.”

Civilization does not eliminate chaos; it refines it. It deepens imagination, multiplies desire, and expands the range of what humans can feel—including cruelty. History is not a smooth arc of rational improvement. It is driven by passion, pride, insecurity, ambition, and fear. Reason often arrives afterward, explaining what impulse already decided.

---

On reason and the ingratitude of man

“Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness… give him prosperity so that he has nothing left to desire. And even then, out of sheer ingratitude, man would play you some nasty trick. He would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, simply to introduce his fantastic element and prove he is not a piano key.”

“Even if it were proved to him by science and mathematics that he is nothing but a key in a grand mechanism, he would purposely do something perverse—simply to gain his point and convince himself that he is still a man.”

Dostoevsky’s claim is ruthless: people do not want only happiness—they want volition. If a system offers comfort but threatens to make them predictable, they will destroy the comfort just to restore unpredictability. Freedom, even irrational freedom, can feel more essential than prosperity.

---

On love of suffering

“And why are you so firmly convinced that only what is conducive to welfare is advantageous? Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being? Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering. Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering—and that is a fact.”

Human beings are creative animals, consciously striving toward goals. Yet we are also drawn to self-destruction and chaos. Suffering can become proof of depth, intensity, and individuality. It sharpens consciousness. And once suffering becomes part of identity, we may protect it—even while claiming we want relief.

---

On the process and the end

“Man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves the process of the game, not the end of it. Perhaps the only goal toward which mankind strives lies in the incessant process of attaining—in life itself—and not in the thing attained. For such positiveness as twice two makes four is not life, gentlemen, but the beginning of death.”

Dostoevsky suggests that the final answer feels lifeless. Arrival feels static. Striving preserves possibility; certainty closes it. The Underground Man resents “twice two makes four” not because it is false, but because it feels finished. And a finished life, perfectly explained and perfectly optimized, begins to resemble death more than freedom.

The nature of human is to resist change while the nature of the universe is to embrace change. Because of risk of losing the comfort, we resist change. This is our biggest tragedy. This tragedy is the reason why we can't achieve true potential. I came to understand that comfort is disease; a really dangerous disease. It not only prevents us from improving but also kills our potential. It stands in our way to growth.

We all know that human are insatiable animal and desire something that we don't posses. We are moving towards something that we don't have. . Ironically, I came into realization that even though we are never satisfied with the present we do not strive for change; instead we fall sleep to comfort. Most of us have a goal of doing something of our own (something really big, something that matches our potential) but as soon as we get some decent job (say 9-5 job) that fulfils our present need, we forget about our aim. This is the trap of the comfort which is a disease; a really dangerous disease.

We don't want to come out of that comfort zone because we fear change. Why risk of being jobless while having a decent job? Why make change to a career which is paying well? Comfort give rise to laziness and slothfulness preventing us from doing the things we are capable of doing. Like New York Times put it, “ If you’re too comfortable, you’re not productive. And if you’re too uncomfortable, you’re not productive. Like Goldilocks, we can’t be too hot or too cold.”

One of the root causes of anxiety is also being in a comfort zone. Because of the fear of change, we do not take the leap of courage to step out of comfort and we just dwell with it. Until it's too late, we do not understand the dangerous side of comfort and makes us anxious.

I am really inspired by the greatest stoic Cato the Younger, who was a senator in the Roman Republic and led an opposition to Julius Caesar. Nobody has practiced the level for discomfort that Cato practiced. He walked around Rome in unusual clothing with the goal of getting people to laugh at him and went barefoot and bareheaded in heat and rain. He learned how to endure sickness in perfect silence. It is an example where the discomfort is being tested.

Another Stoic philosopher who come into my mind is Seneca, who was one of the richest men in ancient Rome in his time. He practiced being uncomfortable by practicing poverty, by walking bare foot, wearing cheap clothes, and eating cheap foods. He said,

“Set aside a certain number of days, during which you shall be content with the scantiest and cheapest fare, with coarse and rough dress, saying to yourself the while: “Is this the condition that I feared?” It is precisely in times of immunity from care that the soul should toughen itself beforehand for occasions of greater stress, and it is while Fortune is kind that it should fortify itself against her violence. In days of peace the soldier performs maneuvers, throws up earthworks with no enemy in sight, and wearies himself by gratuitous toil, in order that he may be equal to unavoidable toil. If you would not have a man flinch when the crisis comes, train him before it comes.”

In the time of good or comfort, we must practice the discomfort to prepare for the bad times ahead. Epictetus once said, “But neither a bull nor a noble-spirited man comes to be what he is all at once; he must undertake hard winter training, and prepare himself, and not propel himself rashly into what is not appropriate to him.”

It is said that preparedness for war is the best guarantee for peace. Same works between discomfort and the success. There is a good story about Wild Boar and a Fox which goes:

A Wild Boar was sharpening his tusks busily against the stump of a tree, when a Fox happened by. Now the Fox was always looking for a chance to make fun of his neighbors. So he made a great show of looking anxiously about, as if in fear of some hidden enemy. But the Boar kept right on with his work. “Why are you doing that?” asked the Fox at last with a grin. “There isn’t any danger that I can see.” “True enough,” replied the Boar, “but when danger does come there will not be time for such work as this. My weapons will have to be ready for use then, or I shall suffer for it.”

This story pretty much explains what Seneca and Epictetus had to say.

I came to know that being in love with comfort does not serve in our way but instead harms us; it is a disease. It does not prepare us for the tougher times ahead. Its blunts our knowledge, shunts our potential, inhibits our growth and it stimulates laziness. However, practicing discomfort helps us to be prepare for the future, challenges our potential, and stimulate growth.

Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, (95 BC - 46 BC.), grandson of Cato the Elder (234 B.C. - 149 B.C.) is considered as the model of Virtue. He was the senator who led the opposition to Julius Caesar in the last years of the Roman Republic, then killed himself rather than live under a dictator. In his own day, he was a soldier and an aristocrat, a senator and a Stoic. .

George Washington is known to have a great respect for Cato. He even put on a play about Cato in the bitter winter at Valley Forge.

"In doing nothing men learn to do evil." - Cato the Younger

Cato didn’t have Caesar’s military skill, or Cicero’s eloquence, or Pompey’s boyish good looks, but he had something even more formidable: a determination to hold himself, and those around him, to an insanely high standard. He asked to be measured by a standard higher than winning and losing in Roman politics, and that’s why he still matters long after ancient Rome went to ruins.

When Cato's son asked him to give up, he refused:

"I, who grew up in freedom with the right to speak freely, cannot change in the autumn of age and learn to be a slave," he explained, according to the author Dio Cassius.

The same night, Cato the Younger took his sword and stabbed himself in the stomach, but he didn't die at once. When his relatives found him, they called for a doctor who stitched together the wound. As soon as Cato regained consciousness, he tore up the wound again with his last strength and died. Cato ending his life became the solemnly revered and much imitated model of the heroic Stoic suicide.

Why does he matter today? Because at a time of crisis and calamity in Rome, Cato’s mission was to live life on his own terms, even when those terms put him at odds with everyone around him.  He reminds us that there’s a thin line between visionaries and fools–a lesson important to entrepreneurs, authors, creative, or really anyone doing work that goes against the grain.

The two important lessons from Cato are:

1. Use pain as a teacher:

Cato walked around ancient Rome in unusual clothing—with a goal of getting people to laugh at him. He learned to eat a poor man’s bread and live without luxuries—even though he was a Roman aristocrat. He would walk bareheaded in the rain, shoe-less in the cold.

He believed pain and difficulty could build endurance and self-control. Cato was drilling himself to become indifferent to all things outside the magic circle of the conscience. He could be ridiculed, starving, poor, cold, hot, sick—and none of it would matter. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught: “Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will.” Once a fight was broken up and he refused to accept a apology from an offender by replying: “I don’t remember being hit”.

2. Fear Nothing:

On an election day during a consequential race, Cato and his brother-in-law rose before dawn and set off for the polls. They were ambushed. The torchbearer at the head of Cato’s party collapsed with a groan—stabbed to death.

The assailants wounded each member of the party until all had fled but Cato and his brother-in-law held their ground. And Cato being wounded as blood poured from his arm. For Cato, the ambush was a reminder that if the front-runners were willing to perpetrate such crimes on the way to power, then one could only imagine what they would do once they arrived. It was all the more important that he stand in front of the Roman people, show off his wounds, and announce that he would stand for liberty as long as he had life in him.

Cato, meanwhile, walked unguarded and alone to the polls. Fear can only enter the mind with our consent, Cato had been taught. Choose not to be afraid, and fear simply vanishes.

Growth is not only accumulation. It is subtraction. The habits that once protected you, the beliefs that once made sense, the environments that once fit—you eventually outgrow them. And when you do, it feels unfamiliar. Not because you are lost, but because you are changing.

Outgrowing yourself can feel like betrayal. You may no longer resonate with the conversations, the ambitions, or even the version of you that once felt solid. But staying attached to an old identity just because it is familiar will quietly limit who you can become.

Becoming asks for courage—not to add more, but to release what no longer fits. Growth is not about becoming someone else. It is about refusing to stay who you used to be.

First Century BCE, it was the time when the great Rome had forgotten the honor, virtue and character that were in the blood of Roman lives for some centuries. It was the time when Rome was rife with corruption, lust of power, conspiracy, and attacks by the enemies to the Roman Republic. It was the era of the leading political figures like Julius Caesar, Pompey, Marc Antony and Octavian, all with the lust to rule the Roman state. During this trifling era, lived one of the greatest orators of the Roman Republic, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC), who became the youngest citizen to attain the highest rank of consul without coming from a political family.

Cicero's Life and Works

As Rome's most famous orator, Cicero prosecuted crooked politicians and defended the attacks on Roman Republic. Amidst a violent age, Cicero was a man of peace. He refused to build a personal army like other leading Roman politicians, and he spoke out against violence. Amidst the tyranny, Cicero became famous as a brilliant, hard-working attorney who won difficult cases. One of his popular and greatest achievement was his powerful orations attacking Catiline, who was making conspiracy to attack Rome, which made senate go against the Cataline who was killed later. The great orator mesmerized the Senate with these opening lines and the blistering indictment that followed:

How long, O Catiline, will you abuse our patience? And for how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?

In 60 BCE, Julius Caesar wanted Cicero to join a powerful partnership that became known as the First Triumvirate, but Cicero didn't accept the offer and took the side of Pompey.  But Caesar triumphed over Pompey, and then cowed the Senate into naming him dictator for life. A month later, Caesar was assassinated in the Senate by pro-republican forces. This was the time when Cicero was the highest ranking politician in the Roman Republic making him more able to defend the Rome. The wake of Caesar’s death left Cicero and Mark Antony standing as the two main powers in Rome. Cicero had the backing of the Senate, but Antony had the power of Caesar’s legacy. When Antony, the general of Caesar attempted to succeed Caesar as dictator, Cicero spearheaded the republican cause once again and delivered speeches denouncing him as a public enemy.

Cicero's Death

In 43 BCE, Antony, Octavian and Lepidus allied to form the second Triumvirate and Cicero's fate was settled. Devastated that the republican cause was now lost, Cicero withdrew from Rome. Antony and his fellow conspirators named Cicero an enemy of the state and sent soldiers to assassinate Cicero. They murdered Cicero and cut his right hand and beheaded him and sent it to Antony. According to historian, before his murder Cicero said: "There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.”

In the orders of Antony, Cicero’s hands were severed and nailed along with his head to the speaker’s platform in the Roman Forum. Antony’s wife personally pulled out Cicero’s tongue, and in a rage against his oratory, stabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin. This shows how he was vehemently hated by this enemies. Century after his death, the Roman writer Quintilian declared that Cicero was “the name not of a man but of eloquence itself.”

Cicero's Legacy

Cicero, the greatest orators of the Roman Republic, urged reason, decency, peace, and liberty, was the man behind the foundation of modern world. United States of America, one of the world's greatest modern day Republic, was founded on the acts of Cicero's life and teachings. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were impressed and inspired by Cicero as his words echoes in the Declaration of independence. The Roman Republic inspired America's founding members to organize three part government: Legislative, Judicial and Executive all operating under the rule of law. Even the title given to George Washington "the father of our country" was a translation of "Pater Patriae," the title given to Cicero.

Thirteen centuries later, when the printing press was invented, the first book it produced was the "Gutenberg Bible", but the second was Cicero’s "De Officiis" (On duties). Inspired by Cicero's life and works, Thomas Jefferson called Cicero “the first master of the world.” And John Adams proclaimed, “All the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher” than Marcus Tullius Cicero. In "De Officiis," he wrote:

"The chief purpose in the establishment of states and constitutional orders was that individual property rights might be secured . . . it is the peculiar function of state and city to guarantee to every man the free and undisturbed control of his own property. Again: The men who administer public affairs must first of all see that everyone holds onto what is his, and that private men are never deprived of their goods by public men."

Cicero, De Officiis

How can we forget the greatness and the legacy of this man in this modern world where the public right has been threatened and world is dealing with the wars and political rivalry between nations? It is during this time we have to remember this forgotten Roman hero, from whom the modern world was founded. Even you have never heard of him, we all have probably heard his word: Ægroto dum anima est, spes est. which translates, where there is life, there is hope. Cicero, who once discovered the forgotten tomb of the great Archimedes knew the importance of remembering the past. "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born, he said, "is to remain forever a child,"

Here are some important Lessons from Cicero.

The notion that "Greed is Good" dates back to Adam Smith's time when he described an economic system is based on self-interest in his book "The Wealth of Nations."

Today's mainstream try to portray that capitalism is based on empathy not on Greed which in cases makes sense (here). They try to explain that the Capitalist understand the market and the needs of costumer and have to do that in order to be success. And whoever puts their self-interest first in place of customers' need will no longer be able to be in a market in a long run.

In his book, The Future of Capitalism, the British economist Paul Collier makes a number of suggestions for reforming capitalism. He criticizes the “moral deficit” of “modern capitalism.” He also claims that the maxim of modern capitalism is “greed is good,” Gordon Gecko’s famous line from the film Wall Street, and that the system therefore urgently needs an ethical course correction.

This notion of putting customers' needs first is true, but the core ideology or the core purpose is still to be dominant in the market. The focus is on customers' need in anyway possible and greed is always in their way. Its not only the nature of the Capitalism; but it is, in fact, the nature of human being.

For Marx, however, greed is an "abstract hedonism". It's worth quoting this idea from "Grundrisse":

"Greed as such, as a particular form of drive, i.e., as distinct from a craving for a particular form of wealth, e.g. for clothes, weapons, jewels, women, wine is possible only when general wealth.... has become individualized in a particular thing... money. Money is therefore not only the object but the fountainhead of greed. The mania of possession is possible without money; but greed itself is the product of particular social development, not natural, as opposed to historical... Hedonism in its genral form and miserliness are two particular form of monetary greed. Hedonism is the abstract presupposed an object which possesses all pleasures in potentiality. Asbtract hedonism realizes that function of money in which it is the material representation of wealth... In order to maintain it as such, it must sacrifice all relationship to the objects of particular needs, must abstain, in order to satisfy the need of greed for money as such.. (Marx 1973)

Today's capitalism might have shifted but greed in still in the core. It might not be revealed in their product or services but it exists within. The modern world runs under capitalism and it is worth having capitalistic view on this to survive in the modern world. Its is worth noting and knowing the driving force of capitalism.

I recently read "The Republic" , one of the masterpiece of 4th Century BC. It is basically written by Plato and is a series of conversations between of Socrates (Plato's mentor and his teacher) and his students. Throughout the entire dialogue, Socrates talks about Justice, Goodness, Ignorance, Knowledge, Virtues and many other human affairs. I am not going to get into that. But I am going to talk about the politics and the Ideal City described by Socrates.

Ideal City

Plato envisions the ideal city, or polis, as a society founded upon justice and human virtue. It represents a social and political structure where individuals can actualize their potential, serve their fellow citizens, and align their lives with universal laws and truths. Plato outlines three distinct classes within this ideal city: The Rulers, The Soldiers, and The Common Man.

According to Socrates, The Rulers are characterized by the virtue of wisdom, embodying the philosophical nature with a soul of gold. The Soldiers possess the virtue of courage, exemplifying bravery and strength with a soul of silver. Lastly, The Common Man, driven by desires and pleasures, exhibits the virtue of self-discipline with a soul of bronze. The harmonious coexistence and collaboration among these classes give rise to justice. While Plato also discusses the traits of the Philosopher Ruler and their education, I won't delve further into this topic at the moment.

Plato: On Theory of Art

One intriguing aspect of "The Republic" is Plato's critique of poets and artists. Within his ideal city, there is no place for these creative individuals. Plato argues that poets and artists lack true knowledge of what they imitate. Their creations are seen as mere reflections and illusions, divorced from reality according to Plato. He believes that poetry and art are mere shadows, which, when experienced, influence individuals with the emotions they portray. If you are an artist, it's worth delving into Book IX and X of "The Republic" to ponder the questions Plato poses.

To Plato, poetry occupies a lower realm concerning existence and knowledge. He perceives it as illusory, devoid of truth, much like the world we perceive. Art and poetry appeal to and represent the more irrational aspects of our nature. Here are some of Plato's thoughts on art and poetry:

"While art may seem captivating, it ultimately falls short when it comes to the realm of true being and knowledge. It appears that poetry, like an illusion, lacks inherent truth, just as the world of appearances lacks true reality. Art and poetry engage with the lower, less rational dimensions of our human nature."

By exploring Plato's insights on politics and art, we can gain a deeper understanding of his vision for an ideal society and his reservations about artistic representation. "The Republic" remains a timeless work that invites us to reflect on the nature of justice, virtue, and the role of creativity in our lives.

Excerpt from The Republic, Plato:

You know, 'I said, ' among all those excellent features of our ideal state, there is none I rank higher that its treatment of poetry.'

'Why exactly?'

Because it excluded all dramatic representation. Now that we have distinguished the various elements in the mind, we can see even more clearly how essential it is to exclude it.'

'What do you mean?'

'Between ourselves - and you mustn't give me away to the tragedians and other writers of the kind - such representations definitely harm the mind of their audiences, unless they are inoculated against them by knowing their real nature.'

'What exactly have you in mind?'

'I must tell you, i suppose; yet the love and respect I've always had from a boy for Homer makes me hesitate - for I think he's the original master and guide of all great tragic poets. But one must not respect individual more than the truth, and so, as I say, I must tell you.'

Then, I said, we must put a question to Homer; not about medicine, or any of the arts to which his poems only incidentally refer: we are not going to ask him, or any other poet, whether he has cured patients like Asclepius, or left behind him a school of medicine such as the Asclepiads were, or whether he only talks about medicine and other arts at second hand; but we have a right to know respecting military tactics, politics, education, which are the chiefest and noblest subjects of his poems, and we may fairly ask him about them. 'Friend Homer,' then we say to him, 'if you are only in the second remove from truth in what you say of virtue, and not in the third --not an image maker or imitator --and if you are able to discern what pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life, tell us what State was ever better governed by your help? The good order of Lacedaemon is due to Lycurgus, and many other cities great and small have been similarly benefited by others; but who says that you have been a good legislator to them and have done them any good? Italy and Sicily boast of Charondas, and there is Solon who is renowned among us; but what city has anything to say about you?' Is there any city which he might name?

I think not, said Glaucon; not even the Homerids themselves pretend that he was a legislator.

Well, but is there any war on record which was carried on successfully by him, or aided by his counsels, when he was alive?

There is not.
Or is there any invention of his, applicable to the arts or to human life, such as Thales the Milesian or Anacharsis the Scythian, and other ingenious men have conceived, which is attributed to him?

There is absolutely nothing of the kind.
But, if Homer never did any public service, was he privately a guide or teacher of any? Had he in his lifetime friends who loved to associate with him, and who handed down to posterity an Homeric way of life, such as was established by Pythagoras who was so greatly beloved for his wisdom, and whose followers are to this day quite celebrated for the order which was named after him?

Nothing of the kind is recorded of him. For surely, Socrates, Creophylus, the companion of Homer, that child of flesh, whose name always makes us laugh, might be more justly ridiculed for his stupidity, if, as is said, Homer was greatly neglected by him and others in his own day when he was alive?

Yes, I replied, that is the tradition. But can you imagine, Glaucon, that if Homer had really been able to educate and improve mankind --if he had possessed knowledge and not been a mere imitator --can you imagine, I say, that he would not have had many followers, and been honoured and loved by them? Protagoras of Abdera, and Prodicus of Ceos, and a host of others, have only to whisper to their contemporaries: 'You will never be able to manage either your own house or your own State until you appoint us to be your ministers of education' --and this ingenious device of theirs has such an effect in making them love them that their companions all but carry them about on their shoulders. And is it conceivable that the contemporaries of Homer, or again of Hesiod, would have allowed either of them to go about as rhapsodists, if they had really been able to make mankind virtuous? Would they not have been as unwilling to part with them as with gold, and have compelled them to stay at home with them? Or, if the master would not stay, then the disciples would have followed him about everywhere, until they had got education enough?

Yes, Socrates, that, I think, is quite true.
Then must we not infer that all these poetical individuals, beginning with Homer, are only imitators; they copy images of virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach? The poet is like a painter who, as we have already observed, will make a likeness of a cobbler though he understands nothing of cobbling; and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does, and judge only by colours and figures.

Quite so.
In like manner the poet with his words and phrases may be said to lay on the colours of the several arts, himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them; and other people, who are as ignorant as he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaks of cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else, in metre and harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well --such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have. And I think that you must have observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales of poets make when stripped of the colours which music puts upon them, and recited in simple prose.

Yes, he said.
They are like faces which were never really beautiful, but only blooming; and now the bloom of youth has passed away from them?

Exactly.
Here is another point: The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only. Am I not right?

Yes.
Then let us have a clear understanding, and not be satisfied with half an explanation

Recently, I came into Anaxagoras who is a Pre-Socratic philosopher who lived in Greek during 5th Century BCE. He was the first philosopher introduced the term "nous" (which means mind) to the western world for the first time.

Anaxagoras wrote, " All things were together unlimited both in amount and in smallness, for the small, too, was unlimited. And because all things were together, nothing was evident and account of smallness." What he meant by that is there is no such thing as smallest and no such thing as largest. Something smaller or the larger is always there. This makes me think of the "String Theory",- so called the theory of everything. Does this mean the inception of "String Theory" began during his time? Was he way ahead of time? So is there anything smaller than the string that would overtake "String Theory"?

Everything-in-Everything Principle:

One of the most intriguing words from Anaxagoras is his everything-in-everything principle. This literally means everything exists in everything. In everything there is a mixture of all the ingredients that there are: every ingredient is everywhere at all times. He claimed not only everything are together but also everything is in everything all the time which suggest everything is connected.

The question then arises: If everything exists in everything, how is it possible to have different things in the world? And it looks like he has the answer to it too. Each thing has its unique characteristics and it exists in higher concentration than another. This means a diamond has everything that exists in the world(like air, water, fire, gold, flesh, blood, etc.) but it has higher concentration of diamond. He said:

"Nothing is like anything else, but those things are and were plainly each thing of which there are most of it."

He introduced the mind saying it's eternal and pure without any mixture. "In everything there is a share of everything, except, "nous" (which means mind), but there are some things in which "nous", too, is present. The other things have a share of everything, but "nous" is unlimited and self-ruling and has been mixed with no-thing, but is alone itself by itself", he said. He further claims that if nous were just another ingredient it could neither know nor rule in the way that it does.