N. Bourbaki, Dr Chad Latino

no more epistemic mad libs

society has progressed beyond the need for epistemic mad libs

see also the episode with the lady of the green kirtle and puddleglum in ``the silver chair''

if you think that's fun just wait until i write my thread about how the chronicles of narnia are neoplatonic propaganda, And That's Good Actually

this is further supported by bvs, in which humanity (in the figure of bruce wayne) tries to kill superman because they see him as too dangerous or godlike, amd because of the question ``quis custodiet ipsos custodes?''

but that's a story for another thread

to sum up: on this theory, snyder's interpretation of superman is implicitly situated by the text and subtext of the movie to be a blending of the straussian reading of kallipolis and the allegory of the cave, as well as a subversion of the latter - the philosopher is not ruler but guardian

superman, by contrast, chooses the role of *philosopher-guardian*: protecting and serving earth both by use of his strength and abilities but also acting as symbolic leader or eidolon of humanity's best angels

so returning to the second question: why is zod's rebellion on krypton, which is portrayed as a kallipolic dystopia, a bad thing?

because he wants to preserve dystopia not by maintaining the extant caste system but by installing the guardians as rulers

kal-el, as clark kent, grows up among the inhabitants of the cave but by of the light of the sun is enabled to lead humanity to some form of enlightenment; he blends kal-el and clark kent to become superman, the alien who is more human than humans

this is resisted by both humanity and zod; humanity fears him greatly, and zod attempts to kill him and restore the dystopia of krypton

so the esoteric reading of ``man of steel'' suggests that krypton (and earth to some extent) is the cave, krypton specifically is a kallipolitical dystopia

the parallels with superman now become more explicit: kal-el escapes the cave (krypton), goes to a place where he gains abilities and powers under the light of earth's yellow sun, and tries to lead humanity, in jor-el's words, to ``join [him] in the sun''

the philosopher then returns, or ought to return, to the cave and try to lead his fellows into the true world, again under the light of the sun; but the prisoners, socrates suggests, will resist this and try to kill the philosopher rather than leave the cave

the philosopher, by contrast, escapes or is released from the cave and goes out into the true reality, under the light of the sun; this is socrates' (or rather plato's) analogy for turning from the world of sense to the world of the forms

the allegory of the cave (514a-520a or so, and to massively oversimplify), those who regard the world revealed by sense perception as the true reality are analogized to the captives in the cave who regard the shadows on the wall as the true reality

what about the second question? here i'm going to make a detour through the allegory of the cave and return to that question once that's done

krypton being portrayed as a dystopia is thus in line with an esoteric straussian interpretation of kallipolis, where the design is to critique a supposed utopia, not endorse it

take the first question first

there is a controversial tradition, going back in english at leadt to strauss, of (oversimplifying somewhat) reading republic not as endorsing kallipolis as a proposed utopia but as a subtle critique or ironic portrayal of something that seems on the surface like one

second, it seems plausible that we're meant to think zod's rebellion is negative in some way, so how does that gel with that the reading of krypton as dystopian kallipolis?

one might now ask the following two questions

first, krypton is pretty solidly portrayed not as a utopia but as something of a dystopia, so how does this gel with socrates' description? doesn't this count against a parallel?

in snyder's construal of krypton, we know that there is *at least* a warrior caste, which zod is part of; zod's rebellion is an effort of the warrior caste - that is, the guardians - to supplant the rulers

in kallipolis, children are ``shared in common'' and raised to be part of one of the three castes: producers (the name is self-explanatory), guardians (who guard and defend the polis) and rulers (again, self-explanatory)

first, krypton's rigid caste system suggests obvious comparisons to the (supposed; more on that presently) utopia described by socrates in republic, kallipolis (at 527c2, somewhat loosely translatable as ``noble city'')

a connection with plato is explicitly made in the text of the movie, so it's fair to ask: are there implicit connections?

one doesn't have to look far to find them

because snyder implicitly tells us this in the movie

in a flashback sequence, clark is shown being beaten up by some bullies while he's reading

what is he reading? look closely:

kal-el, as superman, derives his power, as we all know, from earth's yellow sun; he, alone of all kryptonians before zod and co arrive, has seen such a sun

much of this is standard for most extant origin stories for superman, so why think something esoteric and platonic is happening?

kal-el is the first natural born child on krypton in centuries; he is sent to earth by jor-el with the express purpose of helping humans achieve ``wonders''; ``in time,'' he says, ``they will join you in the sun''

krypton as envisioned by zack snyder is a specific kind of caste society: children are artificially conceived, gestated, and then programmed to serve specific roles in society

my most tinfoil movie take is that ``man of steel'' is a loose adaptation and critique of republic

new gettier case: guy who believes that epstein killed himself because a prison guard there that night told him so, and epstein did kill himself, but only because the guards gave epstein the option between suicide and death by torture

slowly morphing into a taller, dumber, hairier tom wolfe