Plato’s ideal society is one that depends on the just actions of its people. In his utopia, all men and women are able to maximize their potential and in turn utilize their talents and skills for the good of all. Happy citizens form a happy society. This perfect society has been both praised and criticized on the basis of some radical elements it possesses:
The citizens of Plato’s ideal society are able to curb their self-interest, and because they are happy, or at least psychologically conditioned to believe that they are, these people choose to join in the collective effort and submit to the philosopher-king’s rule for the benefit of all. Philosopher-kings are in power by virtue of their wisdom which the whole community acknowledges as a requirement to rule effectively. Philosophers do not even desire to rule, but do so because the law commands them to. Education and employment are available to all, men and women alike. There is no concept of family, because women (in the context of child birth) and children are shared in common, and the rulers are responsible for a child’s upbringing. Private property is apportioned for the sole purpose of the producers’ need of it for the production of society’s needs. Everyone will live in harmony because each individual is satisfied, partly because one is compelled to adhere to the “noble lie” that promotes the idea that one must accept the inequality of classes but recognize one’s deep relevance to society.
The cultural and psycho-social reconditioning Socrates and Plato require of men and women in order for their perfect society to be built and sustained were controversial then as they are today. Citizens in his Republic, in their rejection of self-interest, are reduced to no more than...
... middle of paper ...
...s. Utopia, as a good-place, thrives on the existence of propriety that keeps the very delicate balance between its citizens’ individual self-interest and concern for the common good.
Societies are judged by how well they are able to satisfy the needs and wants of their members. Through the years, countless arrangements have been tested by different groups of people. Here enters the different types and forms of government. History books, documentaries, and internet articles offer a lot of information and analysis, but at the end of the day, what really matters is simple, guiltless, and meaningful contentment for all. Some societies have succeeded by current standards (i.e. democratic socialist Scandinavian countries with high Human Development Index ratings); others have failed (e.g. communism); and the rest are still trying to find their match.
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.
A world where people and things are integrated, purposeful, beautiful is a description of the Aristotelian epoch as written by Richard E. Rubenstein. Though this vision of an ideal society (where economic growth, political expansion, and cultural optimism contribute as characteristics of that epoch) is inspiring, they are not achievable, if not ever, not yet, at least. On the other hand, Platonic epoch was described like the contrary; where humans are still held back from the full potential of humanity, with vices like self-hatred, intolerance and fanaticism. This essay will support and give explanations about why the Platonic epoch seems to be more appropriate to describe the present time in the perspective of the writer.
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.
In the book Republic, Plato is on a quest to define Justice as he builds the ideal city. His city is ruled by philosopher kings, the true rulers. Philosophers, in Plato’s opinion, are best fit to rule and judge because of their love of knowledge and wisdom. When arguing philosophers have the experiences of all regimes Plato says, “The philosopher to have tasted the kind of pleasure that comes from the sight of things as they truly are. ‘so far as experiences goes, then,’ I said, ‘he is the one who is in the best position to judge” (325). Plato believes, that because philosophers have all the parts of the soul that other types of rulers contain, plus the ability to be able to see the world for what is, they then have
Socrates devotes a generous amount of The Republic to creating a Utopian society wherein philosophers rule. As he believes that philosophers ought to lead a city, Socrates first defines a guardian by unmasking elements belonging to philosophers. Above all, philosophers have a hunger for wisdom, and are individuals, “capable of comprehending what is eternal and unchanging,” (Sterling and Scott 174). Additionally, Socrates categorizes truth, pleasures in the soul, generosity, magnificence, courage, grace and temperance, (Sterling and Scott 174-177)...
Plato believed that change should start with government and then seep into the person. The government is more powerful and thus the people would obey the laws of the government. The problem with this thought is that governments do not last forever and societies are never stable. Once the government topples, the law is gone and the citizens have free reign to do whatever they would like. When the cat is gone, the mice come out to play. When the change is made within the person, the change lives m...
Plato states that as the just city (i.e. an aristocratic society) develops, it will inadvertently fall into depravity, because despite the excellent constitutions of its wise leaders, they are still fallible human beings. He outlines four distinct forms of government—of which he considers to be depraved—that the just city will transform into, with each one being worse than its predecessors. The four systems, which are ordered by their appearances in the line of succession, are: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. The focus of this essay will be on Plato’s criticisms of democracy. Since democracy is recognized and practiced by most of modern western societies, it is especially relevant and important to examine whether this model
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.
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
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In Plato’s Republic , Socrates states how a democracy could deteriorate and fall into lower regime. There are many characteristics when it comes to the kind of people that occupy a democratic regime. Although there are many downfalls, there are certain ways that a democracy and other regimes could be saved.
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.
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.
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.