Socrates allows Thrasymachus to entertain his ideas in a public setting, but questions his position on the fallibility and infallibility of rulers. Thrasymachus is in favor of the strong ruling as opposed to the weak, while Socrates believes that those with the proper knowledge and capabilities should rule over the general population. Through asking the correct questions, Socrates was able to deconstruct the argument that Thrasymachus believed was untouchable. Thrasymachus could have answered Socrates in a more successful way by putting more thought into his answers, and by treating Socrates with more respect. Due to Thrasymachus’ incapability of completing the aforementioned, Socrates has the stronger argument because he demonstrates that those in positions of power are fallible and able to make mistakes that do not benefit the people as a whole.
In contrast, the ideas which preoccupied him were political order ,social unity,piece and stability. According to Plato, it is possible to achieve these objectives by total governmental control and the rule of «the best»,who govern according to the knowledge that only they possess. They should practice censorship in education,supervise most activities of the population,control family relationships and exercise propaganda². Besides, Plato emphasizes the importance of transforming the institution of family radically by its abolition for two upper classes and deprivation of parents from their newly born children. Apparently,such conditions are likely to ensure solid position of state and the absence of any political turbulence.
He is required to have a very wide understanding of the different aspects of the state and the philosophy of the human mind. The philosopher that is to be considered king must have earned wisdom that is above any other philosopher of his time had gained. Plato also argues that a specific education, available to few, will allow these few to become philosophers, and in these few philosophers can only then the king can be chosen. The system stands on a firm explanation but this would create a ruling class that is not representative of the ruled. Only those that have the resources to undergo such extensive training have the clear chance to have the seat of the king and this would create complications to those poorly resourced but have the spirit and the mindset to be the leader of the state.
Essay 1 Aristotle and John Locke both believe humans were not created to live alone but instead among other people of the same community. Humans are not independent beings, and those who live in isolation lack the purpose of life: becoming a citizen and exercising one 's full potential of human flourishing. According to Aristotle, the collective community or multitude of citizens coexisting with one another is happiness, whereas Locke believes that the collective community is protecting autonomy and property. Both philosophers believe that to become a citizen, one must contribute to politics with the intent of creating a better society for all. Aristotle and Locke however, have differing views on how a person accomplishes this.
Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule. This ideology will be addressed in the essay with substantiated reasons on why Plato thought that philosophers should rule. 1.1 DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS 2 PLATO BIOGRAPHY Plato was born around the year 428 BCE in Athens. Plato 's birth name was Aristocles, and he gained the nickname Platon, meaning broad, because of his broad build. His family had a history in politics, and Plato was destined to a life in keeping with this history.
The individual must agree to or be subject to the group 's collective will. This The sovereign cannot harm an individual without harming everyone. The individual also has the duty to protect the sovereign with everything they possess. Thus the conflict is set up between freedom and duty. Once an individual exercises their own will in a manner in disagreement with the sovereign then the fabric of the contract begins to fall apart.
The just individual doesn’t lust for everything but goodness. Thus, Socrates comes up with a new idea. He thinks that philosophers are the most appropriate people for that just people definition. Singpurwalla says that the philosopher, the paradigmatic just individual, is motivated to rule the city the philosopher aims not at his own personal good, but at instantiating goodness in the city. In addition to the definition and the nature of the justice, Plato also shows that justice is worthwhile.
Aristotle claims that in a good state, everyone need to aim for virtue which indicates that if they decided to have good morality, they would have it because they would strive for it. However, the virtue of a subject should be maintained to be different form the ruler. He states, “ Hence the ruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection, for his function taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and rational principle is such an artificer” (1|13). A ruler must aim for the highest virtue because if a ruler isn’t intemperate and just he wouldn’t rule well and the conductivity of the government will cease when the ruler fails to accomplish his task. If a ruler is violent and governs with unjust, his citizens would suffer and his government will be weak in general.
The necessary condition for her democracy is thoughtful action, so does this mean that people who do not participate, or those that are incapable of participating in the political sphere would be taken away their rights in this democracy? It seems as if this creates some sort of a paradox, since citizens are divided into two categories, two classes, and only those who deliberate are allowed to participate in this democracy, and it can be questioned whether it can still be called a democracy. Reading political philosophers from Plato to Hannah Arendt reveals that for any state to function properly, certain conditions must be fulfilled. For Plato it is the fact that philosophers – those with the highest mental capacities, the lovers of knowledge – are rulers, and all the rest of the citizens perform the roles they were meant for, and for Arendt it is the fact that deliberation is obligatory. Both of these two theories separate the thinkers from the rest of the citizens, and both of these theories seemingly create an aristocracy, since even though Arendt defends democracy, it seems that those without the capacity or will to deliberate are the class with less rights.
In addition, Hobbes argues that we are rational. In his idea, we have the capacity to identify our desires as efficiently and maximally as possible, but we do not evaluate our outputs. Our self-interest and rationality, as perspectives of human beings, drives us, according to Hobbes, to sought the willingness of individuals to submit ourselves into a “political authority”. According to him, men´s self-interest and rationality, will give the possibility to accept the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in