All the things she states are actually true and refer back to the “Republic.” Socrates states in various text that the guardians should have all these test and restrictions to makes the rulers the best and elite as possible. With Elitism, a lot of the things she states are in fact true, but while she does state the facts, she only applies the two social status to one certain class group. Plato brings up some valid points. When he mentions the rulers not being able to access such luxuries as the citizens are, it shows that there is a balance between the types of power the rulers and citizens are able to access. (188). One point that was brought up in “Republic” by Socrates that can be perceived as elitist is when he up how one should tell the whole city noble lies. The example he summons, they are going to make everyone in the city seem like they are from different parts from within the earth and mother nature put different metals in their souls. Rulers have gold in their soul, guardians silver, and produces possess bronze and iron. (Republic ???) This can be deemed elitist because there’s that instance where they need for everyone to believe that the people with gold and iron are superior to those who possess the
While she did identify the two as being present in the city, in one’s opinion that does not condemn the city for being unjust. For the use of paternalism and elitism does not possess injustice in Plato’s city. Some questions that can be brought up from this paper, is even though paternalism and elitism can be considered good and just, can it actually be the opposites in that case, and can it happen in the city Plato and Socrates have conjured up? What specific actions can be possessed if the city was to be deemed unjust because the paternalistic and elitist
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class.
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
As in other areas of “The Republic,” Plato carefully outlines the delineations which form the basis for the types of rulers to be installed in the state. “Rulers” (legislative and udicial), “Auxiliaries” (executive), and “Craftsmen” (productive and fficacious) are the titles of the categories and are based, not on birth or wealth, but on natural capacities and aspirations. Plato was convinced that children born into any class should still be moved up or down based on their merits regardless of their connections or heritage. He believes the citizens of the State will support and benefit from such a system and presents the idea in the form of an allegorical myth.
The underlying philosophy of the Republic was based on the community and not the individual. There are three classes in The Republic, one no more important than the other. They are the Rulers, Auxiliaries or soldiers, and the rest of the people, such as Merchants, Carpenters, and Laborers. What I especially like, is that the class one belongs to doesn't have to do with the class of your parents, but more with what your aptitudes are. This allows people to do what they are good at which usually translates into people being more productive for the community. To keep this ordered, Plato has set up the Myth of the Metals. The Myth of the Metals states that when people are created they have one of four different types of metals in them. A person who has gold in them is destined to become a Ruler, a person who has silver in them is destined to become an auxiliary, and a person who has iron or bronze in them is destined to become a farmer or another worker. It also adds though that just because one's parents are both made up of iron doesn't mean that their children will be made up of iron, they could turn out to be Rulers with gold in them. This myth is important in keeping the society organized because it gives everyone a role in society, keeps them in place in that role, and lays out the hierarchy of the society. Another way Plato has set up a more productive society, is to get every able bodied person to work, which includes woman. Woman are treated the same as men and go through the same education processes. Plato realizes that men and woman are the same except for a few different organs, so it makes perfectly good sense for them to be working also. Plato's plans for a more productive society go deeper then just getting more people to work, he wants to breed better citizens. To do this, Rulers o...
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Elitism is basically the belief that the rulers (elites) are see as more superior than the producers. When asked about how the kids should be raised, Plato describes his subclass of children, Which actually stems the argument between her and Plato. Plato’s subclass of children are the ones Munitz presumes as the elite. If one was to refer back to the book “Republic,” Socrates ideal city is where the rulers are allowed to tell lies as long as they see it fit as what is best for the people. When Plato mentions the zero-sum conflicts, which is a mathematical representation in a situation where someone’s loss is balanced by the losses or gains of some other. Munitz states that Plato’’s social setup is about zero sum, because all privileges are directed towards one group alone. In the book Munitiz states, “You lay out a program of enrichment for only your ruling class-your master race. as it were-as if the others. the merely average, do not concern you. since they are incapable of of achieving the life of the mind you hold up as the highest ideal” (Goldstein
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
He thought that the election of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him, aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
rulers, army, and workers. Now the base line is the workers, and they do not
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.