This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest form--form of the good--in order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.
The Academy holds the truth of the past from the citizens to create a perfect society. The Academy relates to famous quote from George Orwell’s novel 1984 as a rational reason for their control, “[h]e who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” The citizens do not know the truth of Art; instead they know the “Myth of Adam”. The people who show an immense interest in Adam’s existence are watche... ... middle of paper ... ...hind Adam and Art were discovered, so the tutors must scavenge the Republic for all potential treats. It is not a place for the greats in society; it is a place for hypocrites that want to remain power.
Winston's individuality is the only hope for human nature for he questions the most basic principles of the regime, a thoughcrime. One doctrine Winston questions is the concept of freedom- "How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished?" Winston goes on to say there will be an end to thought. "Orthodoxy means not thinking..." "Orthodoxy is unconscienceness." The belief that humanity is progressing while they are really losing their individuality is actually halting human progress.
Plato vs. Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two very well known philosophers, by definition are knowledge lovers, who held different ways of thinking on that of creation, politics, and love, consequently the teacher of Aristotle, who was Plato, holds different views on all of those matters. Creation, the beginning process of life either given from God, or an actual “higher form” which was Plato’s idea, or passed through from evolution, from which Aristotle sided with is one example of their differences. Plato’s idea that the creator, was a God, the all powerful who created the Earth, the universe, ECT, Aristotle would not believe in such a thing, because in his way of thinking, he does not encourage something that isn’t visual to him. Substance, matter, substratum, plain black and white evidence of something in the only convincing barrier for Aristotle’s mind to handle, whereas Plato trusted quite the opposite. Politics for these two resembles night and day.
Cicero was unable to think on the level of Aristotle's logic. He quite simply used roman history as a mapping of the paths of the decay of states. In contrast, Aristotle understood the underlying forces and influences that transpired when a state degraded. Cicero quite frankly could not understand the forces which Aristotle so eloquently denoted. For Cicero, history offered the only possible paths of outcomes; the forces and behaviors played little part on the resulting state.2 A further point of philosophical belief which Cicero contradicted the stoic lifestyle, is religion.
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... ... middle of paper ... ...ion to the correct text itself there is also a rich and valuable essay as well as indexes and a glossary of terms, which will better enable the reader to approach the heart of Plato’s intention.
Plato comes up with the Kallipolis, his idea of a just society. In this society, he strives for perfection. However, he is definitely in contradiction. The problem with this "just" society that he fabricated is that many injustices occur while attempting to reach this level of perfection. In my opinion, justice cannot be reached by using injustices to do so.
He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func... ... middle of paper ... ...o self-preservation, and a lack of morals coupled with an inability to establish ownership of property will eventually lead to a state of war. This of course necessitates a ruling state to determine what is good and evil, and to enforce morality and justice. Again Locke claims the opposite, that due to the existence of natural law and an enlightened self-interest, human beings by nature are social and peaceful creatures capable of governing themselves. It is peculiar then, that both these theories –being almost perfect logical inversions of each other- have grown from two different answers to the same question: how would the interactions of completely equal, ungoverned people evolve over time? Reasoning deductively it is clear that Hobbes’ and Locke’s differing views on the nature of human beings is the core difference between their theories of societal evolution.
His conception of happiness differs vastly from most people. In Plato’s early works, his approach is largely negative: “Socratic questioning seems designed to undermine the traditional values rather than... ... middle of paper ... ...ough Plato believes he is creating a just society, he is not creating a free one. Without freedom of any kind, it is definite that at least several people will develop a defiant nature and revolt. A great flaw in Plato's republic is the absence of back up plans for a revolution from the people. I do not believe that Plato has created a just state with his method of three distinct social classes.
Winston is different from the rest of his society which is a civilization that does not approve of individuality of your true self. Being different in this world only means rebellion and that’s exactly what Winston sets out to do. He believes that although he must conform on the outside, that no one can take his individual thought away. Winston's individuality is the only hope for human nature for he questions the most basic principles of the regime, a thoughtcrime. One idea Winston questions about his society is the concept of freedom and why it doesn’t match its actual definition.