Daniel In Simonds response to the idea of the utopian society created by Socrates,
Simond argues that while some may find it difficult to believe that people would be
willing and let alone happy to live in such a miserable society, it is plausible that those
who grow up in this society without luxuries such free thought or individualism would
simply not know that another way of life exists. Essentially, Simond contends that indeed
ignorance is blisspeople cannot miss or want something they do not know of or
understand.
I chose to examine this entry because it is a strong point in contradiction to the
debate as to whether Socrates just city is truly that and unrealistic unlikely to ever occur.
Many argued that a society without family connections, without the freedom to have
unrestricted sex, without social mobility, could not prosper because people would not be
content living under such conditions. However, as Simond points out, if people never
knew of these freedoms in the first place, how could they miss it and be discontent?
Generations of individuals would follow the expectations of this structured and
controlling society because it would be difficult not to. Overall, I agree with this
argument and the ideas that bring forth the concept that under the right conditions, such a
society could exist.