Plato's Vision Of The Ideal State As Presented In The Republic The concept of questioning meaning of life, the universe and everything has become debauched in modern society. But there is an exigency for and a value in the procedure of reasoning through aspects of our experience beginning with moral principles to existence. It can, for ordinary peoples as much as for professional philosophers, enlivening, vivid, and developmental. Plato is one of the most influential thinkers in human history. His philosophies have made a far-reaching impact on the human societies and have laid the foundation of many avenues of knowledge. While discussing several important virtues of an ideal society, Plato have very seriously considered the concept of democracy. Everybody has contrasted beliefs and their answers to these worldview questions are distinct. Plato considers as true that wisdom is achievable by human beings, even though there is some doubt whether or not Plato himself ever purported to have it. 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. The first translation of Plato’s Republic that attempts to be strictly literal, this volume has been long regarded as the closest and best English translation available. This second edition includes a new introduction by Allan Bloom and a valuable new essay, as well as indexes and a glossary of terms to better enable the reader to approach the heart of Plato's intention. Plato is one of the most accomplished intellectual human race has ever known. In him are combined the hypothetical and methodical consciousness and the sense of aesthetic beauty, the effect of which have been felt in all the periods of times. Works Cited Plato's Republic, http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm
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).
Plato. The Republic. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 2nd ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company, 1996. 32 - 246.
As in other areas of “The Republic,” Plato carefully outlines the delineations which form the basis for the types of rulers to be installed in the state. “Rulers” (legislative and udicial), “Auxiliaries” (executive), and “Craftsmen” (productive and fficacious) are the titles of the categories and are based, not on birth or wealth, but on natural capacities and aspirations. Plato was convinced that children born into any class should still be moved up or down based on their merits regardless of their connections or heritage. He believes the citizens of the State will support and benefit from such a system and presents the idea in the form of an allegorical myth.
Only the male citizens of Ancient Greece could have their voices heard. However, Plato disagreed with this concept of democracy, and designed a new way to govern the people in The Republic. Plato believed that one philosopher should have had absolute power, and he must have been, “…by nature quick to learn and to remember, magnanimous and gracious, the friend and kinsman of truth, justice, courage, temperance…” or he would have been unfit to rule. In Plato’s cave allegory, the ordinary people were represented in the prisoners who were chained in the cave, and the philosopher in the prisoner who was pushed out of the cave and saw the world outside. This single prisoner would then know the truth of reality, while the others maintained the belief that reality only consisted of the cave. From this allegory, it was understood that philosophers had a responsibility to lead the average citizens as only they could comprehend reality as it is. However, in order for the philosopher to guide the people, he would have had to take power from the people. The people would not participate in political matters and education would have been regulated. In Plato’s ideal society, the ordinary people had absolutely no power in their lives or their government. This model civilization was never accepted, and democracy continued in Ancient
The Romans called their political system not democracy but republic. Republic is something that belongs to the people. In Rome the right to take part in the governing belonged only to the men and those who had the statute of being citizens. The differences of republic and democracy are because of the origin of the two terms Greek and Latin language. The ancient Greeks discarded the tyranny as well as the disorder. Plato as well as Aristotle stabilized the complete democracy which was not based on the laws, with the power of the crowd and considered it as a form of ruling based on the jealousy and sweet talk of demagogues. Both of them considered the democracy to be wrong kind of state governing. Plato considers the democracy as nice and various public orders but without the necessary governing. The main good of democracy is freedom.
... conclusion Plato's idea of the emergence of tyranny from democracy is true. Tyranny evolves from democracy because of the unequal ability to realize desires lawfully present in society. The idle envy the prosperous and invest their support in popular leaders to ensure their well being in other way. The popular leaders do so, and some commit acts of violence and injustice to do so better. This encourages them to commit further acts of violence for both their supporters interests and their own, until they reach a point where they must commit acts of violence purely out of the interest of self preservation. The live in constant fear of the world around then, ironically chained away from the pleasures they pursued by committing acts of tyranny. Democracies possess protection against tyranny chiefly bureaucracy and the ability to keep citizens informed and interested.
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.
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.
Marra, James L., Zelnick, Stephen C., and Mattson, Mark T. IH 51 Source Book: Plato, The Republic, pp. 77-106. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 1998.
Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the parts and their interaction motivate action. This essay will investigate each segment, and seek to explain their importance.
"Plato." Literature of the Western World, Volume 1. 5th edition by Brian Wilkie and James Hurt. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2001. 1197-1219.
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.
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.
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.