1) Plato
1. Are human beings estranged in essence? According to the Athenian philosopher, human beings were not estranged in essence. This ideology is continuously backed by Plato’s own life choices as well as his teachings to his followers; by choosing death over exile, he declined a chance to live over the inability to see his family or friends had his he accepted the banishment that was offered to him rather than execution.
2. Who should rule? Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
…show more content…
Cicero believed humans to not be estranged in essence, he thought the contrary, all were connected through god and his divine law and plan. Through following god’s law, humans could achieve what was planned for humanity. The scholar asserted that through a uniting universal force, humans had a sense of togetherness in their essence and who they were. He asserted that a common good could be achieved if enough effort would be applied.
2. Who should rule? The lawyer and scholar believed that there should be one universal government ruling the people, this government would be a led by a mix of all three classes. He states how a monarchy would be the ideal rule, but is extremely unrealistic as all humans reason equally. By instating a mixed form of government, people would feel more of a connection with the laws and more of a personal responsibility to follow them if they had a part in creating them. Additionally, all people would be seen as equal before the law as all have equal capabilities and through effort, a common good can be achieved; the only thing differentiating humans is their variety of gifts, besides this, there is no variation. A person’s economic status by no means defines their ability to lead, by all groups participating in government, there are no idle citizens that are not a part of the
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.
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.
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 best way to create a strong society has been discussed in depth by each of these men at great length. Plato believed that philosophers should be the ones to lead since they were those who understood absolute truth. He believed that a philosopher-king would be the ultimate leader because he had the great knowledge combined with leadership qualities to govern the people. Therefore he could effectively rule a civilization with both his moral views and his intelligence of military and economic issues.
...ing so he also showed that there is such a thing a justice within a city as well as in an individual. Thus, Plato?s reply to the fool would be that indeed there is such a thing as justice. And justice is good because it benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave unjustly when he can, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, behaving justly will have the most rewards.
Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.
The notion of equality has been around for centuries. The Declaration of Independence even states, “all men are created equal”. However, a closer look into the various forms of government reveals that even though men may be created equal, in society, there is no such thing as equality. Both Plato and Tocqueville came to this realization, although in different ways. They both knew that individuals who are a part of the governing class must be educated in one way or another. However, they disagreed on whom exactly that ruling class should be. Plato believed that the ruling class should be made of a number of specially trained individuals, whose sole purpose was to rule; these individuals were referred to as the guardians. Tocqueville highlighted
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
Plato’s version of the involves a selective process where the government selects what job the people will have when they are children and groom them to only be able to do that said job. Keeping information away from certain people is Plato’s idea of keeping a just city-state. His belief could cause more harm than good because it creates large divides in the society, create unknowledgeable people to have all the power, and lead to problems with everyone within the government.
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.
Plato goes into detail about what is known as the five regimes. The five regimes can apply to both individuals and societies. The regimes go from orderliness to chaos in this order: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. On an individual level, a tyrant is someone who essentially grants themselves complete freedom to chase pleasure in abundance, no matter what measures they take to achieve it. This could be a pursuit of money, sex, power, or any other earthly possession that may fill the hole in a man’s heart. And though tyranny can function on a state level, “the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analyzed in the individual man” (Plato, location 80). On the other hand, an aristocratic individual is a philosopher, someone with extensive knowledge and selflessness. They are in full control of their desires and they question everything. Aristocrats realize that money, power, and fame are just shadows of the Good, and in order to find true happiness, one must look internally, rather than externally. They know that those ungodly wants just cover up for what they are truly searching for. These individuals with these traits can translate into societies with the same traits, an aristocracy being a society run by a philosopher. An
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.
He notes that “it is appropriate for the rational part to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul” (Plato, 117, 441e). An effective ruler, in Plato’s view, is someone whose reason governs over his or her appetite with the aid of spirit. Plato believes that the philosopher guardian class can achieve the balance, so only they are capable of ruling. It allows them to govern with reason, and make decisions for the good of the
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.