Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: plato criticism
Socrates' ideal city is described through Plato in his work The Republic, some questions pondered through the text could be; How is this an "ideal" city formed, and is justice in the city relative to that of the human soul? I believe Socrates found the true meaning of justice in the larger atmosphere of the city and applied that concept to the human soul. Socrates describes his idea of an "ideal city" as one that has all the necessary parts to function and to show that justice is truly the harmony between the three stages of the city and soul in the human body.
Plato introduces the idea of the happiness. Socrates says, "…in establishing our city, we aren’t aiming to make any one group outstanding happy but to make the whole city so, as far as possible " (Plato 420b). I agree that in order to examine one thing that is difficult to comprehend, it is wise to look on a larger scale. In this case, Socrates had to examine the difference of a whole city and other concepts of cities in order to determine justice in the world and inner soul.
In order to develop the perfect city Socrates had to develop the other ideas that contribute to the "ideal city", the City of Need, and the City of Luxury in order to develop the Perfect City. I believe Socrates in-depth discovery process for the perfect city is a great philosophical look into the idea of justice. Socrates brought up a subject many men at that time would never have thought about and Plato believed that the idea of justice was worthy of writing a literary work to pass his philosophy on to future generations. Since the crucial elements of justice may be easier to observe on the larger scale like a city than on one individual. The focus for Socrates is a perfect city, because the city will represent human soul, Socrates says; "we'll go on to consider it in the individuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler?"(Plato 369a). Plato's "ideal city" is really the search for the truth of justice, if Socrates were able to find the relationship between the soul and city in his "ideal city" then he would have the true meaning of justice. We saw from the reading how he came about braking down the city's parts and also that of the soul in order to see the reaction between three different regions which Plato and Socrates descri...
... middle of paper ...
...It is fine if you are the upper class, but the guys at the bottom want to achieve success and rise to the top. That is a reason for the American Revolution and all other revolutions that have spurred from the lower class. No one wants to be content with being at the bottom; everyone wants to be at the top. Plato's ideal city would work if people were content with their god given positions. If there is harmony between the groups, then there is happiness, as we see in the soul and city throughout The Republic. However, in real life people find harmony with themselves when they achieve their goals and live a good life. I agree with that philosophy because I also want to achieve more and I am happy when I achieve my goals. No one is truly happy though because people will always want more. I agree that Plato's idea was great and a well-devised plan which provided the basis for many cities that have flourished in the past. However how could one totally agree with a proposal that is from so long ago, it is simply outdated in practice but not theory. We can still strive for inner harmony and harmony within a community and society but we must find that harmony through trials of our own.
He talks about what the ideal city would entail asking questions such as, who would rule, who would raise the children, would you favor music or fitness, what justice means and finally what type of government would the state have and who would rule? Some of the answers Socrates discusses seem to contradict his beliefs in earlier works, specifically The Apology and The Crito. One of the largest discrepancies that I see between this work and The Apology is his view on examining life. In The Apology, he says that he would never be able to be alive and not continue to question what he sees and other people, because the unexamined life is not worth living. Yet in The Republic, he argues, in some instances, that people will be specialized in certain fields and that only the rulers will be philosophers. This means that only the rulers will be the ones who are examining and questioning things that are going on, which goes against what he states in The Apology. Most of the citizens in this state would not be examining what is told to them or questioning the world around them because it is not their specialty. Does that mean that their lives are not worth living or does it mean that only philosophers lives are worth living? I don’t think this means that people wouldn’t be capable of questioning things further, but they would be discouraged
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
While she did identify the two as being present in the city, in one’s opinion that does not condemn the city for being unjust. For the use of paternalism and elitism does not possess injustice in Plato’s city. Some questions that can be brought up from this paper, is even though paternalism and elitism can be considered good and just, can it actually be the opposites in that case, and can it happen in the city Plato and Socrates have conjured up? What specific actions can be possessed if the city was to be deemed unjust because the paternalistic and elitist
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.
...to get away with this wrongdoing. Yes, the city has been kind to him for many years, but that does not excuse its behavior. Socrates’ premises are entirely valid and sound by definition, but this is when the onlooker is placing the city on a high pedestal. Without the sacredness of the city, which I would argue is unimportant, the rest of the argument falls apart because the city has committed injustice, and just like a corrupted life is not worth living, a corrupted city is not worth admiring.
To have political justice you first need the city to be ordered properly. Guardians are the rules hence they are the wisest. Auxiliaries are the warriors. They fight to protect the city and make sure that no one tries to disrupt the flow of justice among them. Lastly we have the craftsmen. These are the one who are given specific jobs that match with their abilities. The principle of specialization is what structures the city Socrates creates. The idea is that each member of society must play the role for which his nature best suits him and not interfere in any other business. Therefore people will only be doing what they are good at and not worry about anything that may or may not go wrong. “Plato Speaking through Socrates, each person must tend to the business that accords with his nature” (Book 5, 453b). For example; a man who has the nature in farming must farm and do nothing else, a man whose nature is to build objects out of wood, must be a carpenter and not worry about anything else. Socrates believes that this is the only way to guarantee that each profession is done as well as possible. The principle of specialization keeps the farmer from carpentering and the carpenter from farming. Each person has a different profession that they are good in and it should always be that way according to Socrates. With this principle of specialization it creates the three groups of a just society. Guardians (rulers), Auxiliaries (warriors) and the craftsmen (farmer, carpenter, etc.) make up these three groups. When creating the principle of specialization it seems similar to the caste system. The craftsmen cannot become guardians, or auxiliaries. The society therefore is divided into three classes or it can be considered the division of labor. The concept of the principle of specialization ensures that each group remains within their area so there is no influence of negativity
In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as the rule of the most strong, wise and intelligent. In his system people are robbed of their basic rights to live as a primitive human being. People had no right to choose what they want to be after they are born; their occupation is chosen for them by the "philosopher king." He chooses one's job after assessing one's talent in a variety of areas. ...
...ct city consists of everyone feeling equal to one another from birth to present. Plato thinks a just city is formed on the beliefs that everyone is forced into specific factions and told who to unify with, despite the persons personal beliefs. Plato's views on a "just city" were to far fetched and had a very similar ideology to communism. Aristotle even agreed that taking away private property was a bad idea because it "takes away the incentive to work hard" (Aristotle, ppt9).
Concurrent Treatment is different than traditional therapy for a speech sound disorder or articulation disorder. Instead of targeting speech sounds in order of complexity from syllable to word to phrase to sentence and so on, Concurrent Treatment bypasses the need for these steps and targets speech sounds with all of these things in a random order every session. In previous studies, Skelton (2004),
... them to acknowledge the unjust state of affairs that persists in the deteriorating city-state. Socrates believed it was better to die, than to live untrue to oneself, and live unable to practice philosophy, by asking people his questions. Thus, we can see Socrates was a nonconformist in Ancient Greek society, as he laid down his life in the hopes of saving his state, by opening the eyes of the jury to the corruptness and evils of society. Socrates also laid down the framework for a paradigm shift to occur in his city, as his acquired a formidable fan group, or following, of individuals, who, began to preach his philosophy and continue his Socratic method of questioning and teaching. Socrates philosophy is still influential and studied today, thus his ways of thinking about life, truth and knowledge, changed the way western society perceives the world.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
Socrates always searches for more knowledge about the city and its laws. We see that Euthyphro and him do not accept everything that is said by the city.
In the partial alphabetic phase individuals pay attention to different letters in a word in order to attempt its pronunciation, usually the first and final letters of a word are focused on, Ehri referred to this as ‘phonetic cue reading’. This is a skill which along with others which shows phonological awareness.
Another problem with Plato’s ideal society, is that no one would be represented. There would be no power to the people. It would solely be based on the rulers and the philosophers. Without the people of the city being represented, no one will be able to make any changes for the common good. It will only be objective opinions by the rulers who will not be able to see the struggle of the lowest classes. Which those classes, I would assume, would have absolutely no
...ive elements. In theory, especially when set in ancient Greece, Kalliⲑpolis might have been the closest thing to a utopia the world would have ever seen. The city would have wise leaders who were supported by well-trained soldier, both male and female, whose only goal would be to protect the city. Yet, in practice Kalliⲑpolis is flawed. The leaders would keep the rest of the citizens oppressed and stupid through the censorship of information and strict class structure in order to maintain control. Kalliⲑpolis will never exist because it has too many components that would not work. Maybe if Plato had stopped with the un-luxurious city he would have created a utopia, yet he persisted in attempting to create a just luxurious city and instead created a dystopia.