The quote, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” is attributed Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Second Virginia Convention. In good times and bad, Americans look to the founding fathers for help. They are often attributed to using the bible and Plato as influence for the constitution. What many people do not know is exactly what they pulled from Plato, and why the Republic was relevant then and today. Plato’s Republic is relevant today because of its views on government, specifically, the role of families, human rights, and education of religion in the system of government.
Socrates gives and interesting and radical stance on relationships to his audience; stating that women and children should be held in common. He says that the
…show more content…
With a history of abuse of so the called, “untouchables” it should come as no surprise that when Socrates offers a caste system that questions of freedom and human rights come to the fore front. Socrates explains the false origins saying, “But when god made you, he used a mixture of gold in the creation of those of you who were fit to be rulers … He used silver for those who were to be auxiliaries, and iron and bronze for the farmers and the rest of the skilled workers” (pg. 108 415a). Socrates has built this, what he calls a noble lie, to convince the people of predestination, however; it is not clear whether Socrates believes this claim, or if he just uses is as a vessel to control the population so they may become perfect. What is clear is that this system is impossible. No one is specifically designed for a single purpose, or a specific skill. As well as the idea that people will lie down and do whatever they are told by the law. This lie will come crashing down on Socrates and his perfect city. While explaining the lifestyle of the guardians Socrates explains how people will live in his city, stating, “… no one is to have any private property beyond what is absolutely essential” (pg. 110 416d). This limitation of wealth and status may seem to be just, however; the limitation of one’s personal freedom jeopardizes of the people. Thus, the city becomes unfair to its people. The role of government should be to help its people, and by limiting its people, it loses sight of its role. Socrates continues explaining the life of the guardians and its people saying, “… they should impose a levy on the rest of the citizens, and receive and annual payment for their role as guardians which leaves them with neither a surplus nor a deficiency” (pg. 110 416e). This further limits the freedoms of the population, without funds to purchase an excess of goods,
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
The beliefs and writings of our Founding Fathers’ answer the many issues and crises in our America today. Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech may have been intense and almost extreme; it personifies the struggle for one’s rights to self government and autonomy. Even though our country faces different challenges and obstacles, we should turn back to the ideas & principles given to us from our Founding Fathers.
Plato's Republic centers on a simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? The Republic sustains reflections on political questions, as well. Not that ethics and politics exhaust the concerns of the Republic.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
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
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.
In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon seeks to define what justice is and whether it could truly be considered an end in itself. He starts by asserting that there are three types of good. First there are goods that we choose out pure enjoyment and pleasure, these goods have no negative after effects. Second are the goods that are valued for what they are in and of themselves not just the good that comes from them. Thirdly there are the goods that an individual will only pursue because of what they believe they will acquire, not for what they are themselves.(36) Glaucon believes that justice should be placed in the second tier of goods where everything of intrinsic value is also placed. However he goes on to explain that the majority of people
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.
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.
Men and women should treat each other equally but we are created dissimilar for different reasons. Socrates argues that we have the same capacity to learn, and if we can learn the same thing then why do we have different occupations from one another. For example he says, “If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things.”
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.
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.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.