Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on what is platos republic
Essays on what is platos republic
Philosopher prince plato's republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on what is platos republic
Socrates and Plato's The Republic
Throughout his life, Socrates engaged in critical thinking as a means to uncover the standards of holiness, all the while teaching his apprentices the importance of continual inquiry in accordance with obeying the laws. Socrates primarily focuses on defining that which is holy in The Euthyphro – a critical discussion that acts as a springboard for his philosophical defense of the importance of lifelong curiosity that leads to public inquiry in The Apology. Socrates continues his quest for enlightenment in The Crito, wherein he attempts to explain that while inquiry is necessary, public curiosity has its lawful price, thus those who inquire must both continue to do so and accept the lawful consequences of their inquiry. Each of the above values, holiness, inquiry, and just lawful obedience, interlock under what Socrates describes in The Republic as, “the very cause of knowledge and truth, [it is also] the chief objective in the pursuit of knowledge,” (Sterling & Scott 198) – the good. The good embodies each Socratic pursuit: it acts as an umbrella for all things perceived in what Socrates names, “the intelligible sector,” (Sterling & Scott 199).
Socrates devotes a generous amount of The Republic to creating a Utopian society wherein philosophers rule. As he believes that philosophers ought to lead a city, Socrates first defines a guardian by unmasking elements belonging to philosophers. Above all, philosophers have a hunger for wisdom, and are individuals, “capable of comprehending what is eternal and unchanging,” (Sterling and Scott 174). Additionally, Socrates categorizes truth, pleasures in the soul, generosity, magnificence, courage, grace and temperance, (Sterling and Scott 174-177)...
... middle of paper ...
...njust: Socrates realizes that he, by free will, chose to live in a community wherein inquiry about the intelligible realm is punishable by death. He never attempted escape from the city, and thus finds no reason to escape prison as an old man. This higher understanding of justice comes only from a higher understanding of the good.
Socrates speaks at length throughout his three works, the Euthyphro, the Apology and the Crito, about both the importance of and the true nature of holiness, inquiry and justice; however, these philosophical investigations lead Socrates to one unifying truth as concluded in the Republic: the source of holiness, inquiry and justice, as well as the source of all things perceived, is the good. Its essence touches all aspects of both the visible and intelligible realms, and its power is unmistakable, particularly to those outside the cave.
... 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.
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
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 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).
Holiness is a central theme in the Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro. Socrates has taken up the ironic role of a student in the narrative as he attempts to gain knowledge of what holiness entails, from Euthyphro. Socrates meets with Euthyphro as they meet at a court in Athens. He seeks to gain knowledge on holiness, such that, he can use the insights in his trial against Meletus. Earlier, Meletus had charged him for impiety in a court. This justifies the importance that has been placed on the idea. In the ensuing dialogue, Euthyphro serves different definitions of holiness to Socrates. However, each of these is questioned, casting ambiguity over his supposed knowledge.
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 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 the Republic by Plato, Socrates creates an elaborate depiction of the individual as a utopian city. The city is strategically fabricated with character and content and populated by a group of artisans, philosophers and warriors. However, the primary residents of the city are children, who are provided simply with the opportunity to grow and learn in the best possible environment. This city is supposed to be an example by which Socrates can prove what justice is, and it does so soundly.
Socrates asks Euthyphro to give another definition of holiness, because the previous definition, that what is holy is what is approved of by the gods, has been disproven. Socrates suggests that maybe everything that is holy is just. Socrates quotes a line of poetry, to demonstrate his point: "where fear is, there is too is reverence." Socrates disagrees with that idea, saying that there are many things that people fear, such as sickness and poverty, which we do not revere. However, he points out, where there is reverence, there is also fear: a feeling of reverence and shame for an act can be seen as fearing a bad reputation. His ideas about justice and holiness are comparable; he suggests that holiness is a part of justice, but that there may
The Republic of Plato explores the meaning of Justice from both an individual and societal point of view. It also looks into the incorporation of Justice into human society, in other words, how to create an ideal state of social order in a society. This is carried out through the various dialogues and arguments between Socrates and other individuals. During this process, Socrates gave a detailed analysis of the formation, structure and the organization of an ideal State, and through this, vindicate the intrinsic value of being a Just person in a society and the virtues that each individual must possess.
First, virtue is innate within the human soul. The second insinuates that virtue can be taught, but the third prospect delineates that virtue comes as a gift from the gods. If virtue was innate and not gained via experience, the virtue would be evident within the individual, but only those that can wield it would be defined as virtuous. Socrates proposes this concept by creating a demonstration with a slave of Meno. After assuring that the boy did not comprehend mathematics, Socrates began a series of geometric questions surrounding the properties of a square. What was interesting about his inquiries to the boy was that Socrates never delineated an answer; rather, he provided resources as he asked the questions to guide the boy’s "recollection" of his inborn knowledge. In modern day psychology, Socrates would align most with the ‘nature’ perspective, where knowledge and virtue come from within. However, one can also argue that what Socrates did was teach the boy through experiences how to divide the squares, similar to the ‘nurture’ methodological
Socrates and Plato were some of the world’s most famous philosophers. Yet, they caused much trouble in the midst of their philosophizing. These philosophers, in the view of the political elites, were threatening the Athenian democracy with their philosophy. But why did they go against the status quo? What was their point in causing all of this turmoil? Plato and Socrates threatened the democracy as a wake-up call. They wanted the citizens to be active thinkers and improve society. This manifested itself in three main ways: Socrates’ life, his student Plato’s life, and their legacy in our modern age.
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.
The interesting dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrates this Socratic method of questioning in order to gain a succinct definition of a particular idea, such as piety. Though the two men do not come to a conclusion about the topic in the conversation seen in Euthyphro, they do discover that piety is a form of justice, which is more of a definition than their previous one. Their conversation also helps the reader to decipher what makes a good definition. Whenever Euthyphro attempts to define piety, Socrates seems to have some argument against the idea. Each definition offered, therefore, becomes more succinct and comes closer to the actual concept of piety, rather than just giving an example or characteristic of it. To be able to distinguish between a good definition and a bad one is the first step to defining what Socrates so desperately wished to define: w...
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...