What do people think of my extensive discussion of Dale Carnegie in chapters 4 and 6? To my surprise, no one has asked me about it yet. It makes perfect sense to me, but it's unusual, so I expected some push-back. Thoughts?
I'll just add one note - a change I'm contemplating. In chapters 4 and 6 I make the argument that Carnegie is more Socratic than you might think. But there's one point where I was thinking about making the opposite point, on pp. 291-2, then I ended up leaving it implicit. (We'll just test out the handy-dandy embed software here.)
Basically, Socrates says that justice amounts to winning friends (with yourself!) and influencing people-parts.
I think it's maybe worth playing up - just a little - how superficially Carnegiesque this famous passage is. What thinks you?
I would agree that it is worth playing up, with *where* you direct discussion being the key.
My two immediate thoughts on the matter pertain to the relation of the just man's soul to society:
1. The just man has no enemies.
2. The city is like the man (and vice versa).
These are standard, even pat observations for Platonic scholarship, but in a text with such ostensive (?) purposes their emphasis should be merited. Besides, that is just how you have to *read* Plato: a transvaluation of values (both Greek and Carnegiesque).
"Bring order to the internal world, not the external" -- or something of the sort.
Posted by: William Bruce | 06/05/2009 at 01:42 PM
I thought Dale Carnegie was brought forward because he is the Idea of the sophist, in contrast to Sokrates, who is the Idea of the philosopher? I thought it worked well...
But this requires that your readers have heard of Dale Carnegie. Perhaps "Dress for Success" or "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People"?
Posted by: Brad DeLong | 06/05/2009 at 11:18 PM