At first, Socrates was challenged to find the reason and method to be moral. Socrates’ first step was to define the Just State. He initially examined in a broader spectrum by thinking about the state to understand the true nature of justice along with what makes the state moral. A key concept starts with the notion of an Ideal State. In the Ideal state, first, comes the idea of Division of labor. In a state, jobs are divided so that each person has one job. Compartmentalizing the job benefits to creating a thriving community. Initially, Socrates describes the agrarian community. In the agrarian society, each person fulfills there needs and nothing more, which creates an internal harmony among the citizens. Generally, in an agrarian community, people are not greedy, reducing the tendency to steal. Also, diversity, hierarchy, and government do not exist. Because the citizens don’t have excess of anything, the negative factors like gluttony are taken away, causing an immense benefit to the society. Therefore, we can call the agrarian community a just or moral state. Luxurious absence creates a not so ideal …show more content…
With the correct education of the Guardians and mostly division of labor, the state gains the Harmony of the elements. If the division of labor and each compartmentalized job works well, non-existence of Hubris, then Plato explains that the state will be harmonized and well-balanced. The strict education of the guardians is crucial to creating the Harmony of Elements. Thus, the harmony of the elements produces the just society. Additionally, the 4 virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and self-control existence is extremely significant in creating a just state. The state includes wise rulers, guardians without fear and self-discipline, and the moral courage of what’s right by the Guardians will overall compose a just, common good in
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
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.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
The Republic is Plato’s notion of an ideal state. Within the state, there is a hierarchal class system, which provides stability among the classes. Stability is achieved when each class performs their own duties and jobs, and does not interfere with the business of others. There are three hierarchal classes, the guardians and philosopher-kings, the auxiliaries, and the working class. With an increase in the power of the auxiliary class, a system was needed that would control the morals of the guardian class. The guardians are trained up through a strict curriculum which consists of music and gymnastics. Music is used to educate the soul, and gymnastics is used to train the body. They act on behalf of the good of the whole state, because through their education and their pursuit of knowledge, they have the moral capacity to seek “the good”.(505a)
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
Plato’s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death. In short, the ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice. Plato, nonetheless neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention it in the ideal state or ruler. However, the state and ruler was made up mainly to better understand the meaning of justice and was not made up so that it might be practiced.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
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.
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
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.
Plato's Vision Of The Ideal State As Presented In The Republic The concept of questioning meaning of life, the universe and everything has become debauched in modern society. But there is an exigency for and a value in the procedure of reasoning through aspects of our experience beginning with moral principles to existence. It can, for ordinary peoples as much as for professional philosophers, enlivening, vivid, and developmental. Plato is one of the most influential thinkers in human history. His philosophies have made a far-reaching impact on the human societies and have laid the foundation of many avenues of knowledge. While discussing several important virtues of an ideal society, Plato have very seriously considered the concept of democracy. Everybody has contrasted beliefs and their answers to these worldview questions are distinct. Plato considers as true that wisdom is achievable by human beings, even though there is some doubt whether or not Plato himself ever purported to have it. Plato, like his master Socrates, was essentially a seeker, a rationalistic thinker, rather than a system-builder who hypothesized that he had all the answers. It should be noted that Plato’s argument for the intrinsic weakness of democracy or the lack of an ideal state in The Republic should be elucidated as to what is meant by democracy in this context. By democracy in a state Plato is not referring to modern democracy, which he would have perceived as alien. Nor is he referring to the democracy of Athens in this argument. In this argument, Plato characterizes democracy as being the highest of popular liberty, where slaves both male and female have the same liberty as their owners and where there is comprehensive impartiality and liberty in t...
Plato widely a respected philosopher and is arguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. I knew nothing about him or what he stood for before taking this course and I found his theory on human nature very exciting. “Plato’s most fundamental contribution to philosophy was the distinction he drew between the changing physical objects we perceive with our senses and the under changing ideals we can know with our minds.” What Plato means is when we see something that we think is good or bad that there is good strong reasoning behind why we think the way we do. I find this very intriguing because, this it pertains to how I feel about everyday things and big Icons. For example, when hanging out at a friend’s house that is considerably richer
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.