Within Aristotle’s ideal state “the true purpose of government is to enable its citizen to live the full and happy life,” (“The Man” 32), the best government for Aristotle is one that allows individualism among its citizens, rather than rule in favor of the majority. In Plato’s view “A just state […] is achieved in a situation in which everyone knows one’s own job, where... ... middle of paper ... ... educated to become the best in the state. Aristotle’s ideal state only consists of free men, who choose a government to suit the personalized state, however, Plato structures the ideal state down to the last detail. While both Aristotle and Plato have ideas about the ideal state, the fluidity of Aristotle ideal state is more attainable than the improbable perfection of Plato’s utopia. Plato’s ideal takes governing over people to the extreme of raising perfect leaders.
In the modern perspective, those who decide to participate do so because they have some interest in the proceedings of political decisions. Conversely, in the ancient ideal, citizens participated to remain included in the polity for fear of being excluded from not actively participating. The superiority of the modern ideal becomes apparent in this aspect because those who choose not to participate are not automatically excluded from modernized polity. Furthermore, the chaotic process that would ensue from a direct democracy becomes elimin... ... middle of paper ... ... own interest versus the interest as a whole will lead to the natural creation of the societies we live in today. It would be futile to deny someone their right to pursue wealth once it becomes the desire of the whole to do the same.
In Plato’s The Republic and Hobbes’ Leviathan they discuss sovereign power, sovereign power being the absolute power that a state is governed. They each discuss their opinion on the basis of sovereign power; in addition they found and justify the exercise of sovereign power. The ideas of two of the greatest philosophers of all time have many differences, but also have some similarities. In The Republic, Plato discusses how the formation of societies comes from the natural weakness of humans. Plato firmly believes in a hierarchal system within a state.
Plato’s ideals Arguably, in the history of ideas, Plato has planted the strongest and deepest seeds to the mind of humans and we have been pondering and trying to exercise them ever since. His “theory of forms” will be discussed, and somewhat hesitantly dismissed, in the context as he writes in the works of “The Republic”, because his theory is sound the same way math equations are sound and lead to undisputable answers, but problematic in how it can be proved and to whom it actually benefits will always vary. The definition of knowledge is too undetermined for Plato’s ideas to be necessary. Lastly his notion that philosopher kings must rule the ideal city will be decisively dismissed because the word “ideal” leaves room for creation and I argue that permanent procedures can be placed in the “ideal” society, which leaves open the position or positions of power for anyone to operate and the philosopher king no longer is needed for the “ideal” city to it run. The “Theory of forms” is taught in Plato’s “allegory of the cave”, a thought experiment which makes his point from a real world scenario.
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.
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.
Aristotle and Socrates and Plato’s beliefs have similarities mainly evident in their denouncement of democracy for the state. The views of Socrates expressed and written by his pupil Plato are vastly philosophical in nature and he promotes the idea of questioning life to achieve insight. The philosophers who possess the absolute truth are the best equipped to rule society according to Plato and his Allegory of the Cave. Conversely, Aristotle takes a more political science approach of discussing and analyzing various constitutions to determine the best form of government, where the rational beings in a society are the natural rulers. Aristotle promotes the idea of rule based on law rather than simple superiority.
The two main arguments that he illustrates in this novel are that a ruler cannot obtain more power than the state, and that a philosopher is best suited to rule a nation since he has the ability to maintain this balance. Also, Socrates claims that only the philosopher has traveled beyond the “cave” of worldly desires and temptations to discover what justice really is. Socrates’ first major argument is with Thrasymachus in Book I. The current debate lies on the pure definition of justice. Thrasymachus claims that there is only one principle of justice: the interest of the more dominant force.
In the book “The Republic,” by Plato, Socrates constructs a utopia of a pure aristocracy to channel his visions of what he constitutes to be a just city. Socrates’ ideal of justice, is of a virtue that can be developed out of reason and knowledge, and when tuned correctly can be the justified way of governing a city. Fundamentally, the rulers are driven by specific appetites and virtues, that develop a cycle of ruling between the stages of aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and eventually a tyranny. This structural chain, is significant in demonstrating the center of Plato’s argument, this it is always better to be just than unjust. Socrates’ main backbone to this fictional city is the importance of education.
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people.