What is the historical background and significance of Plato’s three trips to Syracuse?

Plato made three trips to Sicily. He tried to put his political ideals into reality, but they all ended in failure.

The first time was when Plato arrived in Sicily in 387 BC and met the tyrant Dionysius I at the Syracuse palace. The result was an unhappy ending.

The second time was in 367 BC, when Plato was invited by Deion to go to Syracuse to serve as the teacher of the newly crowned Dionysius II.

The third time was when Dionysius II invited Plato to Syracuse in 361 BC, but the result was still unsuccessful and he returned disappointed. It is said that Plato was sold into slavery on his way back to his country. Fortunately, an acquaintance generously offered to redeem his life for twenty minenas.

Plato’s three trips to Syracuse are the most revealing scenes in the history of intellectuals encountering political puzzles. Thales, the first recorded philosopher in ancient Greece, along with the spread of his wisdom was the trivial fact that he was ridiculed by the public. The people of ancient Greece laughed at these people who specialized in learning, "When they can understand the things in the sky, they can no longer see what is before their feet." This is just a small rhetoric about the poverty and powerlessness of philosophers in political and social life. Later, the Pythagorean school suffered a bloody massacre in Croton, which burned the city. The reason was simply that when the doctrine of this school was extended to the political field, it would support aristocratic politics. Therefore, once the local democrats gain power, they are in great trouble.

The real intellectuals in ancient Greece were deeply mired in politics. They were both afraid and in love with this unavoidable field. It became a Minotaur-like maze, but they could not find it. Come to Leah Adne's Ball of Thread for guidance. The old Plato wrote the "Seventh Letter" to reflect on his three lines of Syracuse. For intellectual groups, they all study the "infinity" of the world and the "one" that is the foundation of all things in their respective fields. Political life, on the other hand, is "limited" and is a complex and complex "many", a collection of various forms. When intellectuals encounter political society, when they descend from the clouds of theory to the caves of human life, and use their inherent vision to touch the various differences and diversity, their words can still convey some of the true meaning of real social life. That is indeed debatable. The ancient wise men have long used their actions and writings to symbolize the great cause. Intellectuals have always used their own knowledge fields as the intermediary to shape and expand their own political fields. The public's confusion and worries are natural. If an intellectual first explores the political situation clearly and establishes a "politically correct" stance, he or she will face the problem of narrowing his own knowledge field from then on. This is the unsolvable paradox that intellectuals face in political society.

The entanglement between intellectuals and politics has been spreading. I don’t know why the mysterious territory of politics attracts intellectuals who are destined to fight here. In modern society, experts and scholars of all kinds speak generously. Who else believes in intellectuals? Is the role of intellectuals still recognized? We can indeed recall Heidegger, the greatest philosopher of the last century. When he shamefully supported the Nazis and served as the president of Heidelberg University, he returned to teaching in peacetime in 1954. A colleague asked him face to face: "Is this what you are doing?" "Syracuse?" It seems that we ordinary people have reason to remain hesitant about the temptation of Syracuse, and intellectuals do need to think about this "dilemma" forever.