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.
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.
Another one of Plato’s ideas that I disagree with is having assigned positions in society. This eliminates the free choice of the citizens, and they will not be as productive doing something that they are forced to do rather than something they choose.
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
Plato. The Republic. Trans. Sterling, Richard and Scott, William. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.
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 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]
In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.
Plato defends himself by explaining that he is thinking what is best for society, and not just for one specific group. If there is an exceptional good person, it is further exceptional for them to identify and further trained because it is what is best for the collective good, and of that exceptionally good must take justice into their own hands. (186). He argues that the guardians are always on the scent for truth, like dogs who are the most philosophical of all animals, so therefore they should rule because in a way they are like philosophers, and Plato believes the philosophers are titled to become rulers. (explain the corruption part on 188.) When Munitiz brings up the how Plato lays out only a program for the ruling class. He counteracts acts that statement and explains that he only wants a city where are the citizens are able to achieve their virtues leading them to their happiness, but for that to happen it requires rulers to be one with city and will never exploit it. He claims this would lead to not only a just city, but justice for
However, Plato now describes the Democracy that has been implemented by the lower classes with the aim of leading onto the democratic character. With new freedom and liberty, the average individual will arran...
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
Contrastingly, Plato's "Republic" gives little or no consideration to the individuals interests. Plato believes that the republic trumps all, and basic human interests such as the desire to improve one's station in life is disregarded as unnatural or even the desire not to be lied to are not even worthy of consideration.
“One of the best known and most influential philosophers of all time, Plato has been admired for thousands of years as a teacher, writer, and student. His works, thoughts, and theories have remained influential for more than 2000 years” (“Plato”). One of these great works by Plato that still remain an essential part of western philosophy today is, The Republic. Ten books are compiled to altogether make the dialog known as The Republic. The Republic consists of many major ideas and it becomes a dubious task to list and remember them all. Just alone in the first five books of the dialogue, many ideas begin to emerge and take shape. Three major ideas of The Republic; Books 1-5 by Plato, are: the question of what causes the inclination of a group,
The understanding of Plato's regime is one that involves both the self and the regime. Aristotle on the other hand shows that development of state can be achieved without being the most wise. He also looks upon the regime with a positive regard rather that the pessimistic view of Plato, that things will always get worse. Aristotle understands that the coming together of people with common interest will always yield a city, and then onto a regime. Plato takes the planned out way, making sure that everything is in order before the regime or city can be formed. Both ideals of a regime are ones that would yield strong frivolous and successful places of habitation, yet we have never had a chance to see them in today's world. If only now we could see how virtuous they could be?
Plato believed that everything had an ideal form, but Aristotle looked into the real world and studied that. Instead of inventing a system of government, Aristotle explored more of practical things that you can realistically put into effect. Aristotle’s main aim was to “consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable”. Meaning that he wanted everyone to be able to relate and adapt to his form of power. He wanted people to be servant to his laws because if the law were an order, it would make a good society. He ended up maintaining a government somewhat like a democracy, where the middle class is strong. Aristotle produced natural domination as one of his biggest theories. Aristotle believed that people were born into being a ruler or in slavery. He wanted people to accept what they are and do what they were born to do. It was the only way that he thought the world would be able to work and not come out with a lot of problems. This is way he believes that everyone is born with a color that tells you your placement in the world. Your placement is not genetic and can’t run in the
... 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.