Since the human beings came together and began to live communities, necessities to be administrated became the most important subject for human kind. There were said many things on this issue; there have been put many claims and interpretations on well, just and equal administration by many philosophers. They searched for the best administration that will guide people equally, just and well; that will provide sustainability, peace and prosperity between communities. In fact there are many forms of government that operating in the world. These regimes/forms of government are born from the characters of people who live in them and who are governed by them.
It is necessary to mention something about Plato’s general theory in order to understand him very well. First of all Plato’s Republic is about a method of doing political philosophy. It is a systematic sustained treatence of issues, issues of just society, issues about state, issues about individual. These are all public things. He wanted to find an ultimate meaning of all these things; why they exist, how they should exist. He wanted to find absolute answer for these. So in this sense Plato’s Republic reaches old and known conclusion of major interests in their own right. His Republic provides epistemological and metaphysical combination for his political theory.
According to Plato, a political society constitutes a natural whole that is own kind of excellent and well being. It means that society creates an aggregation individual, something more than that, and it has a natural existence. Individual and society can be defined as a unity and according to Plato a society and an individual are so similar that each has a proper and set of virtues. So for Plato, the character, opinion like attitudes of an individual are the product of society, and the individual has no existence without society. They imitate the society, if a society is right/just, the individual is right/just. Individuals drive their ability from society and they are trained in that way. According to Plato, the understanding of justice is about societal needs, which are common to all members of society. So society can satisfy members’ needs efficiently by dividing their labours. So people are born with their skills and virtues according to Plato. They would know these skills and virtues when they grow up. If they are not fit for forming they should not do that. This is why importance/role of education come to discover each person’s skills.
Plato, having defined his perfect society, now seeks to compare contemporary 'imperfect' societies with his ideal standard. He initially criticises the imperfect society as a whole, before leading onto a criticism of any given individual within that society; the imperfect character. He has already dealt with the Oligarchic society and character and now moves onto Democracy and the democratic character.
Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
...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.
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 views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
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 The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
Confusion plagues everyone in the world. Daily people are subject to struggles that involve them being confused and allow them to not fully take in what the world has to offer. Confusion simply put is the "impaired orientation with respect to time, place, or person; a disturbed mental state." With that said it is evident that many things a susceptible to confusion, and being confused. When reading Plato one cannot
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.
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue set in Athens, which at the time of documentation was the center of the democratic world. Despite the city’s knowledge and construction of political structures ahead of its time, the main question addressed in the Republic is that of justice. What is justice, and why should we want to be just? Many competing thoughts are outlined within the Republic, notably that of a Sophist named Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, p. 15, 5c). Socrates, the main philosopher in this dialogue who claims that he “knows nothing” (Plato, p. 35, 354c) disagrees with Thrasymachus and spends the entire book trying to disprove the argument that the unjust person
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.
Plato’s idea for a perfect government is to have three different classes to have different roles to help the society. The first group of people is the Producing class and they are responsible for providing materials and food for the city. This is where the farmers, blacksmiths, the fishermen, and other jobs like them. The second group is the Auxiliaries and they are the ones who job is to protect the city from threats, so the soldiers. The final group is the guardians, these are the philosophers and it is there job to not only be knowledgeable but to be just. Plato believes that there are several things that can derail the advancement of society. “Then nothing insane and nothing akin to dissoluteness can be involved in the right of love…Then sexual pleasure must not be involved” (121). Plato believed that sex should only be reserved for special festivals and for creating life, other than that people should keep in line with how a father and son touch each other. Plato did not just regulate what two people did in the privacy in the own home, but he also regulated what people should be learning in school. “At any rate, it ought to end where it has ended; for surely training in the musical crafts ought to end in a passion for beauty” ...
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.
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.