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.
In the Republic Plato compares the nature of the human individual to the members of a state. He thinks we are complex individuals, with more than one part in our souls. These parts can either cooperate or just be harmful to each other. Just so in the state there are different classes of people with strengths and interests in different areas. Those classes may be in conflict, and the state in an unhealthy condition of disagreement or they may cooperate for the good of the whole. If they do cooperate with each other it benefits the overall society.
Plato is serious in his suggestions about the human personality. No one doubts that we are likely to be happy if we didn’t second guess ourselves or go against our better judgement at times and make bad decisions. Plato also holds that our life is finest and best when we realize how far we can take our minds and take advantage of this. Unfortunately, this only happens in a person that has their life well together and is very secure with themselves.
Like other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based conception of ethics. Someones self worth is related to their morals and their morals come from what they take value in. If Plato's conception of happiness is elusive and his support for a morality of happiness seem depressing there are reasons for this. His conception of happiness differs vastly from most people. In Plato’s early works, his approach is largely negative: “Socratic questioning seems designed to undermine the traditional values rather than...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
I do not believe that Plato has created a just state with his method of three distinct social classes. The lengths the guardians of the society must go through to reach the ideal end are drastic immoral. Plato's plan to strictly manipulate children's education and development as well as his plan to hold festivals as a means of reproduction are unethical an improbably successful. By eliminating the free will of people in a society, the citizens become no more than puppets pulled by the ruler's desires. I believe Plato's republic is deeply flawed and would most certainly fail.
Another one of Plato’s ideas that I disagree with is having assigned positions in society. This eliminates the free choice of the citizens, and they will not be as productive doing something that they are forced to do rather than something they choose.
Although, Plato’s Republic seems to be a philosophy of long ago, many of his ideas are still relevant in our society in ways we do not even realize. They show that man, left to his own thoughts outside of God, basically comes back to the same point or thought
Plato is clearly not a supporter of democracy in society. He believes that censorship in education is necessary in order to have a successful society. He says that training the mind should hold precedence over training the body. Stories that are not true and represent gods in an unflattering light should be banned for the young. Although these stories may be allegorical, children cannot distinguish what is allegorical and what is not. He believes that if children never hear stories of quarrels, that they will go on to believe that being quarrelsome is a sin. Fictional stories of atrocities done to gods and others, he believes, should not be allowed for the young. His last statement is about God being the cause, not of everything, but only of what is
In summary, Plato's comments are incredibly perceptive and relevant: a lot of what he says has been proved true in one way or another throughout history. The transition of our own country from an early 19th century Oligarchy to the Democracy we have today seems to have been predicted by Plato over two thousand years ago. It may also be true that our contemporary politicians are to be ousted by the dissatisfied public, and replaced with a tyrannical dictator. Finally, though not everything Plato says is in concordance with what we can now see for ourselves, his ideas are still relevant in any study of modern politics.
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
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.
... 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.
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 had divided different variations of ruling into four corrupt souls. Timarchic men want to have honor and victory but end up getting caught up striving for wealth. An oligarchic man just uses wealth and power to over see the city using all means necessary to continue his happiness. The democratic man see's everything as equal and is ok with living with equal desires. Democracy, a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Finally the tyrannical man who uses his in just lifestyle to crash and burn the city he's ruling into the ground. These are all the men discussed through out the Republic written by Plato (Plato, ppt7).
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.
The second book of the Republic shows the repressive quality of Plato’s society. Plato, talking through Socrates, wants
Plato goes into detail about what is known as the five regimes. The five regimes can apply to both individuals and societies. The regimes go from orderliness to chaos in this order: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. On an individual level, a tyrant is someone who essentially grants themselves complete freedom to chase pleasure in abundance, no matter what measures they take to achieve it. This could be a pursuit of money, sex, power, or any other earthly possession that may fill the hole in a man’s heart. And though tyranny can function on a state level, “the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analyzed in the individual man” (Plato, location 80). On the other hand, an aristocratic individual is a philosopher, someone with extensive knowledge and selflessness. They are in full control of their desires and they question everything. Aristocrats realize that money, power, and fame are just shadows of the Good, and in order to find true happiness, one must look internally, rather than externally. They know that those ungodly wants just cover up for what they are truly searching for. These individuals with these traits can translate into societies with the same traits, an aristocracy being a society run by a philosopher. An
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.
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal 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.