Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's impact on human nature
Plato's impact on human nature
Plato's ideal society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato's impact on human nature
Elites: Elites not masses, govern all societies, but in whose interests do they serve.
Elites are inevitable in all societies
According to both Madison and Plato, factions will inevitably occur within society, the way to address this is viewed in two different ways by Plato and Madison.
Plato sees within society an inherent flaw of two cities, a city of the rich and a city of the poor. He rejects oligarchy, the rule of few over many, because he believes that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and rejects democracy for the incompetence within the system because it lacks people properly schooled in the Plutonian tradition and sees the violence inherent in the system, for: existent in all forms of government exist the extreme violence and selfishness of party struggles for factions within society.
Plato would remove the causes of factions, choosing to give up further liberties to protect the good of the people. His theory is similar to the state of nature, believing that societies are formed to meet the needs of the people. Because of the inherent yearning for power within a few elites, Plato would remove these feelings of selfishness, with his own form of Communism.
Plato’s communism would take two main forms which meet in the abolition of the family. The first of the two forms would be to set up a new form of hierarchy: Philosopher king, who would rule by merit of vision and capacity to realize that vision in reality. Guardians, who would serve as the military/ruling class of society, merchant class which serves as a middle class, a buffer between the poor and the rulers. This sunders in two the idea of a city of rich/ city of poor. However the main thing to note is that the rulers must give up certain freedoms in order to attain their position of power. The rulers must give up the right to own property, effectively removing self-interest. Anyone can be a ruler as long as they MERIT the position. Also, the must live in common barracks style living and eat at a common table, facilitating discussion and equality amongst them. Also they all must be schooled in the Plutonian Tradition.
The second form of communism would be the abolition of a permanent monogamous sexual relationship. This removes loyalty to family/lover. Lovemaking would be more like livestock breeding and would occur at the behest of the ruler.
Plato believed that if the unity of the state is to be preserved and marriage and property stand in the way than they must be abolished.
Therefore, their ideal systems of government have little in common in regards to how they operate. Although, one similarity that the two political theories do have is the critical need for some type of organization of the state. Both writers clearly recognize that society cannot exist without any government at all. (both realize that without a hierarchy for plato…. And for hobbes…. )
Plato believes that can only be achieved in this utopian society, Kallipolis. This is because he is under the impression that a democracy will teach one to desire the wrong things. The “good” in a democracy is freedom, and he thinks that, ” For extreme freedom probably cannot lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether in a private individual or a city” (564a3). He is assuming that freedom will lead to extreme freedom, whatever that is, and that will actually lead to slavery. In his assumption freedom becomes a terrible thing that will return to what it was trying to protect against, slavery. I feel that wanting freedom is not a bad thing at all, but a way to let everyone be who they want to be. Our whole society is based off the idea of freedom, and not everyone living here is unlawful and a horrible person. There are many good people who live in a
...blic, Plato goes on to recognize education as one of the most vital features of a well-run state. He understood the importance of having intellectual, sensible beings running a successful state. Our rational is what directs us towards logical decisions in your life, as well as maintaining us a distance away from corruption. Though Plato is completely correct in recognizing the importance of knowledge in state, I can’t fully agree with his belief that only intellectual individuals are ever capable of fully comprehending the Forms of justice and good. What he wanted was an “intellectual oligarchy” and even though oligarchies may prove effective in the transformations of a state, there is also a huge fault within such system. That flaw being that only the privileged few have a say, where more often than not, the needs and wants of the common people are not thought of.
Socrates evaluates four city constitutions that evolve from aristocracy: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As a result that these four types of cities exist, four additional types of individuals who inhabit them also exist. Although these city constitutions evolve from aristocracy, Socrates deems aristocracy to be the most efficient, therefore the most just, of the constitutions because the individuals within it are ruled by the rational part of the soul.
The reason that unreasonable restrictions on the individual's interests cannot be entirely ignored is that human nature doesn't allow for such selflessness. Since that is so, citizens will not allow for common good to exist in a society if it as the expense of their interests. However, small restrictions can be readily accepted it they believe that such impositions actually affords them the safety and opportunity to nurture their interests. For example, the property owner will gladly pay taxes to the government for the common good if they believe that the government will protect them those who would steal their land. In Aristotle's critic of Plato, Aristotle points out that humans cannot learn what the common good and what their proper role in society is without having individual interests. For example, Aristotle pokes holes in Plato's position that philosophers should not possess personal property as irrational as it does not take into consideration that property ownership "contributes to the overall rational structure of society and thus to people's happiness," which is a requirement before the common good can be realized. Aristotle's criticism of Plato hinges on the presupposition that personal happiness must exist before civic virtue can. Accordingly, family, friendship, and personal property are "needed in order to enable individuals to feel that their lives have value, and both are necessary dimensions of a well-organized polis that secures a sense of communal solidarity among diverse people" (DeLue 54).
In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as the rule of the most strong, wise and intelligent. In his system people are robbed of their basic rights to live as a primitive human being. People had no right to choose what they want to be after they are born; their occupation is chosen for them by the "philosopher king." He chooses one's job after assessing one's talent in a variety of areas. ...
Marra, James L., Zelnick, Stephen C., and Mattson, Mark T. IH 51 Source Book: Plato, The Republic, pp. 77-106. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 1998.
Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained .This contradicts Plato’s theory of one ruling class controlling the political power and all decisions that affect the entire society. Plato and Aristotle alike were two men who had ideas on ways to improve existing
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
Plato. The Republic. Trans. Sterling, Richard and Scott, William. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
Plato disagreed and thought that dividing power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life. Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equality of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others.
In Book V of Plato’s Republic, he details his view of an idealistic society. His main arguments include a platonic view of marriage which is comparable to animal breeding. He also shows a strong belief in communal family. In addition, he explains why he believes that philosophers should rule.
In conclusion, Plato draws all the elements of his perfect city-state and started it by the kings. Those kings have to understand the good, because all the achievements of society will rely on them. Therefore all the evidence and Plato’s information of philosopher king will be useful for uniting people.
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.