The Criticism Of Plato's Republic

847 Words4 Pages

It is a well-known fact that Plato’s Republic is one of the most influential works in philosophy and political theory. Despite its importance and the fact that Plato offers a state in which there are justice, good and wisdom, his state was criticized as “anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian, anti-individualistic, and totalitarian” (1). In this essay I will try to answer questions whether Republic could be characterized as an authoritarian society without freedom and which Plato’s arguments evokes criticism by exploring Plato’s concepts of state, justice, philosophy and politics.
To begin with, the state, according to Plato, arises from the natural need of people to unite in order to facilitate the conditions of their existence. In developing the concept of an ideal state, Plato proceeds from the correspondence between the cosmos, the state and a separate human soul listing the four qualities necessary in the State: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. In my opinion, Plato 's tripartite theory of soul connected with three similar origins of the state: deliberative, defensive and business or, in other words, with philosophers-rulers, defending guardians and producers (artisans and farmers). The state, according to Plato, can be considered fair only if each of his three estates do only their prescribed work and does not interfere in the affairs of others. Also, Plato contrasts his model of the ideal state (which is aristocracy) with four forms of state organization -

Open Document